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 :?
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.
