AARHE: Unit Purchase and Mobilization (Phase 1)

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.

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.

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?

Now if Japan wants to put in infantry on an island with a VC, Japan can do it in 1 of 2 different ways. 1) build the infantry there directly for 4 IPCs or 2) build the infantry in Japan for only 2 IPCs and transport the unit to the island. This gives the Japanese player an interesting choice to make. I like letting the player make thier own choice on a case by case basis.

I guess the first method represents forceful recruiting of the native population? To what degree was this used in WWII? Dissent would cause this infantry cost to be more expensive than if the infantry came directly from the home island of Japan.

Then the second method whould represent training of soldiers in the homeland of Japan and shipping them to where they are needed. This one is pretty self-evident.

Comments on the realism of any of these previous ideas?

For Russia, Germany and Japan there is no difference between connected captured and connected original VCs of their color. This is because of a combination of 1) how it would cost the same to transport infantry to either type of VC (by railroad, truck, etc…) and 2) how the conquered territory’s population would fear the dictator’s rule that much more sense the capital is directly “connected” to their land. It’s as if being directly connected to the capital is like falling into the dictator’s sphere of influence.

If Russia takes Ukraine, should Russia pay 3 or 4 per infantry there? I think it shold be 3 because of sphere of influence.
If Germany takes Karelia should they pay 3 or 4 per infatnry there? I think it should be 3 because of both sphere of influence (if not contiguously connected then sphere of influence effect is reduced) and because of railroads/roads leading from Germany to Karelia.

These are just a couple reasons why I think captured VC infantry costs should be the same as for those for the original starting VCs.