Modified production units for balance

A nice rules set to experiment with!

#houserules

Must be placed on a territory with a victory city, and an IPC value of 2 or greater.

This means that it is allowed to build an IC in Manilla’s VC territory but not in Hawaiian islands.
Are you OK with this?

@Baron:

Must be placed on a territory with a victory city, and an IPC value of 2 or greater.

This means that it is allowed to build an IC in Manilla’s VC territory but not in Hawaiian islands.
Are you OK with this?

I’m thinking it could be an interesting target for USA to liberate Philipines Islands and start producing some infantries every turn to get a steady flow to invade Japan.

Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased, or upgraded

minor industrial complexes now become major factories

Starting IC should now keep their name since their is no more limitation on types of units built and minor IC just getting a +2 unit production per turn.

What can be built should be named Factory.

So this “- Industrial Complexes may never be purchased” will be the only rule necessary.
No need to add “Major factories may never be purchased”, anymore.
You can say: “Only Factory can be built.”

What happen after a Sealion?
It will takes 1 turn to built a Factory and another turn to produce only 3 units.
It is doomed to be recaptured hastily.
And after?
Uk must built an IC to produce on another turn?
It seems wrong.

I rather suggest that any conquered IC is considered fully damaged.
Major need 20 to start to produce.
Minor needs 10.
A factory is destroyed.
After, all conquered must be fully repaired before producing any units.
In addition, each conquered and repair is treated as downgraded.
Major IC works as a Minor IC.
Minor works as a Factory.
But if it is liberated, they return to their nominal value and stay as it is.
Treat like OOB liberating IC or Capital.

I like this a lot and think it will definitely change the game.  It will make Germany have to deal with supply lines but the Allies wont be able to produce in Normandy or S. France anymore either.

The only change I would suggest which goes along the guidelines of only producing an IC at a victory city is to allow Philippines to have a complex.

I wouldn’t put a complex there to start but I would allow owners to build on the Philippines. For game balance I think that rule was created because of the DEI and the ability to build an IC there to capture India and Australia. You could always build on Kwangtung and have almost the same thing. With an IC in Kwangtung you can still reach Australia and even Burma but with ships. The Philippines was a very important group of islands in WW2. Even more than Caroline which in the game has more strategic value than the Philippines. If the Philippines could produce it would become a more important objective. If Japan built an IC there they would have to protect it. I really don’t see how it is game breaking. It would actually become more of a focal point in the pacific. Not only would USA want that island for its NO but now its a place to produce TTs, DDs and SS.

In the original game you could produce and build an IC in FIC for USA. By limiting IC’s to be built at victory cities the only place USA could build an IC is Kwangtung and that’s only if India is captured. They used to have the ability to build on FIC and Korea.

For the same reason that the Allies should have a NO for the DEI I think Japan should get a +5 NO for owning the Philippines like USA receives.

Wow that is interesting… You removed the territory IPC requirement.  That will allow an IC to be placed in Hawaii.

I agree, and its balanced.

@Baron:

What happen after a Sealion?
It will takes 1 turn to built a Factory and another turn to produce only 3 units.
It is doomed to be recaptured hastily.
And after?
Uk must built an IC to produce on another turn?
It seems wrong.

@Young:

I can’t change the names either, we spent 3 pages on this in Halifax rules and came full circle. KNP who came up with the idea of a mid level IC likes the names as they are as do others. Of course, all these things can be house ruled to fit your own games as you like. As for removing the British IC after sealion, that’s the penalty for losing your capital, and if it’s taken with 1 tabk left, good luck suppling it to defend from liberation. If I were Germany, I would be more worried about losing Western Germany’s IC… can’t rebuild anything there because there’s no VC.

Are you sure of doing this thing as you said?
Is it really the sole way to hinder Axis via production units?
It seems you will slow down the game a lot. A game which is already very time consuming OOB.
That’s why I suggested to fully damage ICs, instead. And downgraded it also.
It allows to keep the pace but the conqueror must pay around the same price to make it works at the beginning of the next turn.
There is probably other ways to make Axis pay more to produce units which can fit your intent.

But I really think that destroying IC (turn 1) -rebuilding IC (turn 2) -producing from IC (turn 3) are too much steps and will not be an interesting playing experience.

That’s my main concern here.

@Young:

BM, I have since modified the first post significantly, check it out and let me know what you think.

Much simpler.
I’m just wondering why thise rule instead of keeping OOB, upgrade both Western and Eastern to IC when war is declared:
“Upon declaration of war, the United States may upgrade 1 major factory of their choice (Western, Eastern, or Central United States) to an Industrial Complex”

Keeping San Francisco or Los Angeles only a major Factory will not make it very incentive to conquer from Japanese POV.
The Major  Factory will be destroyed. So there will be no way to hold it against US’ 1 Major Fac and an IC.