@theduke:
all rules will be explicity justified in the same document (kind of like how OOB national advantage rules have justifications along side the actual rules).
Yeah that would be nice.
( i don’t think there were any other restrictions).
Your right. I got confused.
My goal is to achieve this, but as simply as possible. in latter phases we can be more complex about it, but we really need to keep the solution to this super simple for phase 1 in order to include it.
Yeah this is a tough one.
What I’ve sugguested in the income thread is fairly simple I think.
In phase 2/3 I’ll be excited and thinking about how to be “tighter”.
Current proposal only covers isolated single territories. A group blocked by enemy is unaffected at all even if it consists of just 2 territories.
*****There are already limits…. limit of infantry=number of VCPs…exceptions are 1) non-contiguous to capital subtract 1 inf 2) captured territories build 1/2VCPs rounded down, or 0 in minor VCs, 1 in moderate and major, and 2 in enemy capital. I know you don’t like VCPs for IC builds but I think VCPs for inf placement is totally justified and realistic. I was thinking of having all inf built in capital cost 2. all inf built in VCP territories of your color cost 3. all inf built in captured VCP territories cost 4 each.
Yeah. But I also talked about deminishing returns. A boundard system rather than a progressive system I proposed would be simpler.
Say you CAN raise infantry over the limit, but at a cost of 5 IPC. This would model a forceful recruitment.
Although at the moment the only reason why you would do that is for the new amphibious assault rules of attacking tanks not fighting on round 1.
As with income we’ll have a table to make it look simple.
Location Cost
Capital 2
VC 3
Captured VC 4
Location Limit
Capital connected VCP
Not connected VCP -1
Captured captial 2
Captured VC 1
Captured minor VC 0