I would make a Cruisers 10 and Bombers 15. Battleships fine at 20. I think.
IPC Cost Reduction
-
For A&A 1940 and other variants we’ve been playing over the year, something interesting my group has tried is reducing the IPC costs of purchasable units to add more combat and variety to the games. It’s roughly based on taking 2/3 the price of the regular costs.
IPCs
1 Chinese infantry
2 infantry, Chinese artillery
3 artillery, mechanized infantry, AA gun
4 tank, submarine, micro industrial complex
5 transport
6 destroyer, Chinese fighter
7 fighter
8 tactical bomber, cruiser
9 strategic bomber, minor industrial complex
10 air base, naval base
12 aircraft carrier
15 battleship
20 major industrial complexYou’ll notice a couple odd things like why China gets cheaper units and the existence of micro (build 1) factories because we tend to combine a bunch of house rules. There are also many minor changes we use for the units themselves and setups, NOs, and other game elements to keep standards like G40 from getting totally destroyed by this sudden influx of units (since everything is cheaper). But it’s been a really fun, simple change.
Have you ever tried any major IPC adjustment with success?
-
Wait… you’re back? You’re back! I’ve been meaning to ask you about your neutral house rules (https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28180/should-we-make-better-rules-for-invadable-neutrals-1940/62?page=3).
Anyways, cool idea. @barnee any chance you can add this to TripleA?
By any chance did you die and was resurrected by the Marianne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne)?
As we all know, when you died in 1970 Marianne resurrected you in a different body.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato Haha, yes I’m alive. It’s harder to make as much time for A&A as I used to, but I play with my buddies whenever possible.
I haven’t checked this web in years it seems, but I did respond to your question about the neutrals.
Don’t tell my girlfriend about Marianne. She’s a jealous one.
-
Also something I wanted to add about Chinese units:
They only defend on a 1. That’s why they’re cheaper now. Plus, we have a rule that China must keep at least 1 land unit in every territory it owns. We let China replace its fighter when possible. (The logic behind it being cheaper is the lack of ability to attack sea zones or operate in air battles.) -
Makes sense.
-
More units ruins the game, IPC cost reduction ruins the game because it will take longer to play and calculate because you introduce alot more units. I have the feeling proponents of these ideas are the same people that don’t like to use chips under units, preferring instead to literally cover the map in junk so nobody can see.
-
I noticed that you did answer my question. I really appreciate it. :+1: :+1: :+1:
I hope life is going well on your end.
I promise I won’t tell. :laughing:
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato I use chips , that’s why they are included.
-
As we both seem to know, I don’t like using chips. Sometimes it’s actually harder to see them using chips because you have to look from the side (my map is on the floor), and sometimes you can’t even see then so you have to lift the whole guy up.
If something falls (say, a piece accidentally goes flying, knocking multiple units and causing chaos across several territories), actual pieces make it easier to remember which units were where. Especially important if you’ve left a game just lying around on pause for months and you don’t have everything memorised.
I do wish that if we didn’t use chips you could see. But that, in my opinion is a map sizing problem (solved by the upcoming release of an even bigger Global 1940 map).
Also, if these rules are used in TripleA (and the map has been properly coded so you don’t need to do anything manually), it’s take no more time (and TripleA has almost no clutter unless you’re cramming many different types of units from many nations), which is what I was suggesting.
But yes, it may take longer to calculate with more units.
-
@Imperious-Leader Definitely fair points. Most skilled players will stack ungodly amounts of units on 1 territory even under normal prices. It’s just the smart thing to do in many places on the board. And I know many people are tired of playing the same game for 12 hours.
But I’ve always been playing with a younger audience that prefers to throw their units into combat instead of stacking. We also have typically used other house rules that introduce minor powers and invadable neutrals. So there are more casualties and split armies in need of money.
Since we don’t have as much time as we used to, we’re typically playing only one half of 1940. We’ve also introduced “quarter” versions of 1940 only using half of a theater’s game board. “Asia 1940” has been my favorite. It’s a very interesting twist focusing on only one section (albeit a new setup and rules are required), and it typically allows us to finish in only a couple hours.
We’ve also tried “Middle Earth 1940” (Eastern Front/Africa/Middle East) and even “Atlantic 1940” focusing on the Western Front and a hypothetical Operation Sea Lion. “Atlantic” still has a ton of flaws and balance problems, but it’s been really neat seeing USA and Canada attempt to take back Western Europe and Africa from a raging Nazi empire.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato I didn’t know YOU DON’T LIKE CHIPS, but i did know for a fact that people that want cost reductions want more toys on a map and no chips. They help clutter so you can accurately access the problems and win games.
-
I’m very curious about those “quarter theatre” ideas.
I agree that your rules leave armies more spread out. I personally don’t find myself too cluttered except at the beginning of the game (22 units including facilities, like what, the area is like less than 10cm squared), as I do attack quite a lot.
-
Well, I haven’t played a physical game against someone other than myself, so I have as much time as I want. Sometimes even with chips the board is still cluttered because they take up a large amount of area space. Chips don’t really solve the problem of the lack of area space (and chips are also less flexible, being only in circles, while it’s easier to fit more narrow tanks and artillery).
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato Your not attacking enough. If you did the only unit stacks would have chips so you can count the odds faster. Play an out of the box game.
-
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand you. Can you please clarify?
I’m really sorry if that sounded too aggressive or mean.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato Don’t sit around, if you have the advantage attack. Lack of attacking causes the stupid stacks and nobody benifits.
-
Obviously.
I do attack, quite a lot. Stupid stacks don’t really exist in my games, at least in meaningful levels.
It’s only the starting setup which puts down 25 units (including facilities) in Germany, including strategic bombers that just take up the most amount of space, that are the issue.
Suggested Topics
