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 :?
Russia has manpower enmass could be the argument. Australia didn’t, in fact a majority of its Sailors served on British Ships not Australian. Russian advantage?
GG
So are you sugguesting Russia should be immune from the rule of not able to build IC in low-income territories?
Maybe we really should separate “victory city points” from “population” once and for all to end this somewhat strange model.
Final draft for phase 1 - preview
(theduke is still thinking and changing though. So this is just a start for me I think this major moderate minor VCP is unneccessary lets just use the VCP numbers?)
IC costs = 15 - IPCs*VCPs
IC can be selected for destruction in “purchase units phase” and be removed in “mobilisation phase”
ICs do not produced infantry. IPCs spent on an IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory’s income.
VCs produce infantry.
Cost Location
2 Capital VC
3 Other VC
Limit Location
VCP VC
VCP-2 Captured VC connected to your Capital
VCP-3 Captured VC not connected to your Capital
So are you sugguesting Russia should be immune from the rule of not able to build IC in low-income territories?
Maybe we really should separate “victory city points” from “population” once and for all to end this somewhat strange model.
yes I am… I disagree that you guys should try to separate them merely because it is harder to represent that and might force you to add “stuff” to the board - something that if I remember correctly you were avoiding…
GG
@Guerrilla:
something that if I remember correctly you were avoiding…
Its just me. Because I worry map changes’ll hinder the house rule’s popularity. Imperious Leader and theduke don’t mind I think.
Imperious Leader has made many Axis and Allies variant broad games.
Yes no map changes only added VC centers no other changes except when we introduce Italy it will have its own color.
VC is not too bad. You just have a new cut-out board.
As for Italy…but thats phase 2.
Final draft for phase 1
IC costs = 15 - IPCs*VCPs
IC can be selected for destruction in “purchase units phase” and be removed in “mobilisation phase”.
Non-infantry units are mobilised at ICs. IPCs spent on an IC cannot exceed 4 times the territory’s income.
Infantry units are mobilised at VCs.
Infantry Cost
Capital VC 2
Other VC 3
Infantry Build Limit (per turn)
Original Capital VCP or VCP-2Â for UK/US
Original VC VCP
Captured non minor VC 1
Captured minor VC connected to your Capital 1
Captured minor VC not connected to your Capital 0
What do you guys think of the following set of mobilization rules:
For Russia, Germany and Japan:
-Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories
-Infantry placed in the capital VC cost 2, in any VC contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 3, and in any VC not contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 4. (note that this is no difference between captured VCs and VCs of your color).
For UK and US:
-Max number of infantry=1 for minor VCs, 2 for both moderate and major VCs, and 3 for capital VCs.
-Infantry at the capital cost 2, at all other VCs of your color cost 3, and at captured VCs cost 4. (note that there is no difference between contiguously connected and not contiguously connected).
That’s all the rules. This is much simpler IMO and yet is still realistic.
This is for phase 1 right? Cos I thought for phase 2 we’ll be more distinct on population and transport advantages.
As for simpler we got rid of “contiguously connected” but now have two tables.
As for realistic I don’t know because I don’t know what we are modelling specifically.
We never got rid of the “contiguously connected” idea totally because it is still used in defining if either 0 or 1 infantry are built in minor VCs.
This is for phase 1. This is to replace what we already have done. This is so much simpler that I really think we should change to using this new system. There are only a few changes between this and the old system:
-US and UK major VCs build only 2 instead of 3.
-It costs 4 each instead of 3 for Japan to place infantry on mainland Asia, but they can now place infantry on the Pacific islands too.
-It costs 4 each for UK and US infantry placed in captured territories. This is the one rule that I’m thinking of changing again because on second thought this is not realistic. Many of the Axis starting VCs were captured militarily sometime after the actual start of WWII so these VCs are more willing to cooperate with the Allies when they become liberated. This cooperation should make the infantry still cost only 3 instead of the inflated price of 4. *Proposed change is that all non-capital UK and US infantry cost 3 and none cost 4 for UK and US.
We are not modelling anything super-specifically here. We are modelling an idea. For example, in the OOB rules players can spend all their moeny on as many infantry as they want in their capital. How realistic is that!? What about recruitment limitations, population limitations? We fixed that problem, as well as many other problems. When I say “realistic placment” all I mean is that we continue to restrict those crazy unrealistic possibilities that cropped up in the old OOB rules.
Oh yeah the continously connected is still there for USSR, Germany and Japan.
Here is the newest set of rules with the proposed change:
For Russia, Germany and Japan:
-Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories
-Infantry placed in the capital VC cost 2, in any VC contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 3, and in any VC not contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 4. (note that this is no difference between captured VCs and VCs of your color).
For UK and US:
-Max number of infantry=1 for minor VCs, 2 for both moderate and major VCs, and 3 for capital VCs.
-Infantry at the capital cost 2, and at all other VCs cost 3. (note that there is no difference between captured, not captured and connected and not connected.)
That’s all the rules. This is much simpler IMO and yet is still realistic.
Another new proposed change:
For Russia, Germany and Japan (same as before):
-Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories
-Infantry placed in the capital VC cost 2, in any VC contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 3, and in any VC not contiguously connected to the capital VC cost 4. (note that this is no difference between captured VCs and VCs of your color).
For UK and US:
-The max number of infantry per turn=the number of VCPs
-The 1st infantry unit placed in a VC of your color cost 2 each; the 1st infantry unit placed in a captured VC cost 3 each.
The 2nd infantry unit placed in any VC cost 3 each. All additional infantry placed in any VC cost 4 each.
This simplifies things further by now having max infantry=number of VCPs for ALL VCs. Now the only differences are the costs of the infantry, which depends on both the nation and location of the unit placement.
Justification for Russia, Germany, Japan infantry cost rules: These nations are ruled by a dictator whose degree of influence in a certain territory is dependent on how connected that territory is to the nation’s capital.
Justification for UK and US infantry cost rules: These nations are ruled by a democracy and so the territories under their control have a greater rule over themselves.
Make sense? How can I reword the justifications better?
