Now that we’re free from the tyranny of factories, I consider the following a more realistic depiction of wartime production and unit placement:
1. New units may be placed in any original home area still contiguous with the capital. Note that overseas tt such as Ireland, Sicily etc do not qualify as SZs do not continue the condition across water. For historical reasons, Finland and Kazakhstan are also disqualified (the Russian army did not recruit in these provinces).
For the moment assume that Bombay qualifies for the UK; I would consider adding Canada to this.
2. Each tt is subject to the following limitation on the number of units you can place there on a turn:
Capital - 3 units
Other controlled tt - 2 units
Contested tt - 1 unit
One consequence of this would be that a power must protect its home tts as priority - it cannot unrealistically occupy large tracts of enemy tt while failing to hold onto its own population.
A further development would be to insist on even placement, that is you cannot place 2 units in one qualifying tt and none in another, but this is perhaps too limiting; even developed countries had more heavily industrialized areas.
Now that we’re free from the tyranny of factories, I consider the following a more realistic depiction of wartime production and unit placement:
1. New units may be placed in any original home area still contiguous with the capital. Note that overseas tt such as Ireland, Sicily etc do not qualify as SZs do not continue the condition across water. For historical reasons, Finland and Kazakhstan are also disqualified (the Russian army did not recruit in these provinces).
For the moment assume that Bombay qualifies for the UK; I would consider adding Canada to this.2. Each tt is subject to the following limitation on the number of units you can place there on a turn:
Capital - 3 units
Other controlled tt - 2 units
Contested tt - 1 unit
One consequence of this would be that a power must protect its home tts as priority - it cannot unrealistically occupy large tracts of enemy tt while failing to hold onto its own population.
A further development would be to insist on even placement, that is you cannot place 2 units in one qualifying tt and none in another, but this is perhaps too limiting; even developed countries had more heavily industrialized areas.
I think this is a great idea, but I would say it should only apply to infantry. Any mechanical unit should be placed in a more centralized area to represent industry.
Well, I would say that virtually all the areas concerned had industry up to the capacity to produce 2 units, even if both are mechanical.
Of course Turksih provinces were the exception; but then that applies to Constantinople as much as Mesopotamia…
Might limit naval builds a little, but then how realistic is it for Austria to build 3 cruisers at Trieste on a single turn?
Of course the major exception here is America, which has but one tt.
So either ignore the rule for the USA, or follow my map which divides it into a convenient number of smaller tts:
I’ve always seen the limited production locations of Axis and Allies (whether Factories or Capitals) as a simple way of working supply into the game. Instead of rules about how close to a certain city or territory a unit must be to be “in supply,” Axis and Allies only allows placement of new units in certain territories. You can drive deep into Russia, but unless you keep up a steady march of reinforcements to hold the chain of territories leading back to the nearest placement center, your forces risk being surrounded and destroyed.
follow my map which divides it into a convenient number of smaller tts:
As a native Texan, my heart swells with pride to finally see my country represented on the map. Now, can we invade Mexico?
No, the Allies are the good guys, they cannot invade neutrals.
Germany has to activate Mexico first.
Actually, we could make an exception in this case (Monroe doctrine?)
Another note to this idea: Capitals were rarely centres of industry. Washington, London, Berlin, Rome and Vienna were administrive centres, not that highly industrialized.
In Britain the North, West Midlands and Clydeside were the centres of production.
In France Picardy would be the most heavily industrialized, as would be the Ruhr in Germany.
The Italian north has always been the most productive in machinery, while when Germany annexed the western provinces of Russian under Brest-Litovsk its estimated that they obtained 4 fifths of Russia’s heavy industry, despite not gaining the Moscow or Petrograd regions.
So its hardly realistic for all units to appear in the capitals.
so allies are the good guys hmm then I wonder what they did in neutral greece actually?
The Allies entered northern Greece on the invitation of its Prime Minister:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece#The_20th_century_and_beyond
Ideally, Greece should be two areas, the north part (Salonika) a British ally, the southern (Athens) pro-German.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_of_National_Defence
Similarly, Persia can be divided into a northern (Russian) sphere, and a southern (British) area of influence. I would have made it two areas of 1 IPC each, allied respectively to Russia and Britain.
In 1915 French and British troops marched into Greece for preparing the landing at Gallipoli, specifically on the island of Tenedos and in Salonika.
This happened in blatant violation of Greek neutrality. (maybe because it was just a scrap of paper)
Yeah ask Germans that “ideally” Belgium must have been parted in regions that were needed to get into france and those that werent… :roll:
In fact the head of state King Konstantin didn´t want the entente to operate in his country (doesn´t matter if they were “invitated” by good payed venizelos)
He was actually forced by an french ultimatum to abdicate in 1916.
For that goal the good allies made an exerted pressure on Greece (British and French ships blockaded the Greek to starve people)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erster_Weltkrieg
yes its german wiki but the sources are international and reliable… (don´t know if english wiki says something about that)
