AARHE: Unit Purchase and Mobilization (Phase 1)

I don’t actually have any historic info on IC.
But I haven’t seen any background info supporting IPC income reducing cost of IC neither :-P
Like whether building 30 factories in India is in fact costly compared to building 100 factories in Germany.

I think its proportional. 30 factories to India is just as much as 100 factories to Germany.

I am not trying to overly simplify the issues of costs. I accept factors of population so I don’t mind VCP reducing the cost of an IC.

but if we can’t build ICs its like gameover when you lose your IC?

how about we make ICs takes 2 turns to build?
how about we can only build ICs on territories with an income of 3 or more?
would that be more realistic?

The current system for assigning the values ( costs)  of IC should stand. Making specific units and installing a “construction schedule” is something i employ in my games. This is definately phase three stuff however. I would keep is simple… Carriers and Battleships take 3 turns to build, all planes and other ships and all armor takes 2 turns, while infantry takes one turn. You pay 1/2 of the costs up front and if you need to cancell your order… you “sell” it back at half cost ( ala monopoly)

example:  You buy a battleship paying 10 IP on turn two your about to get invaded so you need more infantry and you sell that 10 ipc investment on the following turn for 5 bucks back. this represents a simple conversion factor of material.

@Imperious:

The current system for assigning the values ( costs) of IC should stand.

The question is why. I understand how VCP (population) reduces cost of IC but I don’t see why IPC income should.
The “the effort for 30 factories to a 3 IPC territory is the same as 100 factories to a 10 IPC territory” argument.

I can understand the current equation IF all ICs are the same size though.

We’ve introduced IC “size” (IPC output limit) but we haven’t factored it into the IC cost equation.

construction schedule

Thats quite advanced and major.
How long does a turn represent? How long does a round represent?

Thats quite advanced and major.
How long does a turn represent? How long does a round represent?

turn is 6 months max… If the build sequence takes too long it will detract from playability 3 turns should be the max ( 2 might be better)

OK the IC model… only one factory per territory and a limit of factories should be installed for those (real cheap places you mentioned).

@Imperious:

OK the IC model… only one factory per territory and a limit of factories should be installed for those (real cheap places you mentioned).

Yeah probably no factories for territories with IPC below 3.
Is “one factory per territory” supposed to answer my curiosity?

I think any territory with 0,1,2 values should not be able to have a IC… 3 and higher would seem correct… so no fac in egypt or s africa. india and austrailia are ok however.

oooh India is 3 but Australia is 2…

Yea i saw that… Austrialia might have to move to 3… an entire continent costing only 3? huh?

Though not the most fertile lands, Australia does have metals, coal and other raw materials.
But Australian population is small.

Does anyone know if Australia produced much in WWII?

Any news on whether Austrtalia produced much in WWII?

NO but for now we keep it the same value as OOB.

So for phase 1 we cannot build an IC in Australia.

This rule about not able to build IC in territories with income <3 IPC, I wonder how does the model and realism work with respect to mobile ICs…

It would be interesting if you guys made some kind of “Commonwealth” Value to represent said problem. Like an advantage for Britain overall is they may deploy 1 unit from there Phase 2(Game) Purchases in Australia, India, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, West Canada or East Canada.

GG

We already have a new system for INF mobilisation.
They are no longer “built” at ICs.

UK can already build troops in UK, E. Canada, India, Australia, Anglo-Egypt, Trans-Jordon and South Africa.

Ok, nm then… Australian production of light vehicles:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/australia/production.htm

and here was there naval state:

http://users.chariot.net.au/~lenshome/index.htm

I think you guys have done good as it is… The Aussies don’t need a navy beyond what they have…

GG

So thats all good.
Australia can remain as 2 and may not build IC. (I don’t like map changes anyway.)

The argument for the rule of not able to build IC at territories with income of 2 or less…what is it exactly anyway?

It can’t physically build due to lack of resource? Or it can’t support it?

What happens when USSR moves ICs using the mobile IC rule? Only Russia and Caucasus has income of 3 or more IPCs  :?