I relocated this to House Rules.
And I think SBR’s should not destroy cash, they should destroy PRODUCTION capability for machined goods (any non-infantry unit).
For example, if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage, they can produce AT MOST 5 non-INF units that turn (too much damage at the shipyards, etc. to build ships, planes, tanks and artillery.
You could ALWAYS “build” Infantry… SBR’s destroyed the FACTORIES, not the bedrooms :wink:
@ncscswitch:
For example, if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage, they can produce AT MOST 5 non-INF units that turn (too much damage at the shipyards, etc. to build ships, planes, tanks and artillery.
Ah. That may well be the solution to the SBR gameplay issue.
You can now have the Blitz before Sealion.
Quite exciting for AARHE.
There build capacity for infantry and non-infantry units are separate.
You could ALWAYS “build” Infantry… SBR’s destroyed the FACTORIES, not the bedrooms :wink:
now thats a controversial issue :wink:
be fun house rule never the less to model terror bombings
you can choose to flatten bedrooms instead of factories but public opinion goes down and US income goes down
of course, a roll is performed before income goes down, modelling censorship
of course this can also apply to UK and maybe Germany
Hey yea thats brilliant!!!
You bomb factories and your ability to churn out junk is reduced. This does not apply to infantry…
Yes Tekkyy this is very good.
Remember our rule for AARHE: builds at IC = 4 times the value of IPC territory in total value… So now its reduced by the amount equal of the SBR result in IPC… please add it to the rules. You caught a big fish on this one.
good job switch!
@ncscswitch:
And I think SBR’s should not destroy cash, they should destroy PRODUCTION capability for machined goods (any non-infantry unit).
For example, if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage, they can produce AT MOST 5 non-INF units that turn (too much damage at the shipyards, etc. to build ships, planes, tanks and artillery.
I really like this idea but I don’t quite get the corollation between bomber damage and unit limitation. Are you saying if Berlin gets bombed for 5 damage, their industrial output is REDUCED by 5 non-infantry units that turn? I really like the sounds of that.
But the way it reads if Berlin is bombed for 5 damage they can produce at most 5 non-infantry units that turn so… if they get bombed for 10 damage they can produce at most 10 non-infantry units that turn? Maybe I’m just reading it wrong. ~ZP
You’re got it right, Zero Pilot.
I believe you interpret switch’s idea correctly.
Its just a coincidence that Germany is 10 IPC so that its 10 - 5 = 5 units.
So if get bombed for 10 they can produce 10 - 10 = 0 units.
Its just a coincidence that Germany is 10 IPC so that its 10 - 5 = 5 units.
Aaaahhh! I never gave that a thought. :-P Thanks. ~ZP
I’ve played games where successful invasions of either E. USA or W. USA removes America from play. Their forces will still defend, but they can no longer purchase units, nor conduct combat moves. This really, REALLY keeps America honest about defending the west coast.
I’ve also done rules where you only collect money for your territories at the start of your turn, instead of the end. This prevents people from collecting twice for territories in MOST cases.
Also, I’ve done rules where 50% of your income MUST go to infantry purchases.
I’ve also done rules where Japan was plain out forbidden to attack Russia, period. They had to treat it like a neutral zone (as in the AAR rules).
Also, I’ve done rules where 50% of your income MUST go to infantry purchases.
I think i brought that up and we haggled over it. You were against it as i remember. But i said no more than 50% of your income can be spent for infantry.
@Cmdr:
I’ve also done rules where you only collect money for your territories at the start of your turn, instead of the end. This prevents people from collecting twice for territories in MOST cases.
The out of box rules are a little un-realistic, since you collect twice for territories that see much combat. In real war that territories produced very little because the assets was bombed and destroyed and on east front it was also used the scorched eart taktics, wich is you blow up or burn everything.
The most realistic rule would be the one from A&A D-day, where all players can share territories. Like germany attack Ukraine with 4 inf, and one of the russian inf survive after first round of combat. Now germany choose to not attack again, and so Ukraine is divided between german forces and russian forces, and make no income.
The best rule is of course to collect income before combat move, but then no players would have cash that could be SBR’ed. You would need to wright an essay on a pad about who lost how much during SBR. So a better rule is as mentined above, no income from territories that are contestet or recently invaded.
@Imperious:
Also, I’ve done rules where 50% of your income MUST go to infantry purchases.
I think i brought that up and we haggled over it. You were against it as i remember. But i said no more than 50% of your income can be spent for infantry.
I think I was against no MORE then 50% for infantry. I’m in favor, sometimes, with limiting purchases of other equipment to no more then 50%
It stops things like America bagging the Axis and dumping a large fleet in the Pacific or England only buying fighters to send to Russia because it’s navy is destroyed, etc.
Thats right. To me, the multiple collect income causes inflation.
Yes collecting income before combat does stop this.
Regarding the essay on a pad that can be reduced. For example in AARHE the Axis/Allies sequence makes. Its not 4 turns between Russia 1 and Russia 2. So you don’t have to hire an accountant to keep track of things even if we collect income before combat.
