Posts made by theduke

I just want to point out again that the issue concerning realism isn’t just about the number of infnatry, but where the infantry can be placed. This is the major reason why I designed the victory city infantry placement rules the way I did where the infantry placemnent maximums are per victory city and not per nation. It’s important for a nation to be able to palce some infantry close to the front lines to easily speed up the game and to realisitcally model how infantry are raised. I used the varying cost per infantry to create an incentive to place infantry closer to capitals.

You can say that the UK can use 50% of their IPCs on infatry, but if all the infantry are placed in London that’s not very realisitc IMHO. Many of the infantry divisions were rasied steadily at each of the commonwealths. This is one example why I think infantry placment limits per space (not just per nation) is important.

in my rules i have all 12 IC’s (that’s how many comes with the game) are placed on the board during the initial setup and cannot be created or destroyed. i added an IC to E. Canada, Australia, Manchuria and C. US.

didn’t we change the vicotry cities? what you posted is the older version.

I now have Calcutta as the major UK VC and Toronto as a moderate UK VC.
I now have Shanghai as the major Japanese VC and Changchun as a moderate Japanese VC.

Didn’t we agree on these changes before?

I made this change when it was decided to have number of inf per turn= number of VCPs, but vary the costs of each inf. Calcutta should be able to raize more inf than Toronto and same for Shanghai vs. Changchun. More importantly for the Japanese switch is that Shanghai is much, much more important. The only reason why I had Manchuria as the major VC before was becasue of the IC that needs to go there… I thought that the major VC should get the IC over either moderate VC. Now I think the IC doesn’t have to go with the major VC so hence the switch.

So here’s a question: with soviet xenophobia, coud the western allies attack german troops on soil that was originally russian at the start of the war (german controlled russian soil) without pissing off stalin or breaking some agreement?

FYI- I’m still working on my writeup. When I starting writing it out I came up with a million new ideas so it keeps changing. I should have it posted in a week or 2.

Yeah, you should look at that link for house rules on infantry placement at victory cities that I posted a while ago. The rule is a really good balance of realism and simplicity.

Here’s another rule that’s also simple: don’t use plastic chips to represent infantry. That means that the population of your army is limited to how many infantry pieces come in the box. The problem with this is that territories will be more crowded without the plastic chips for infantry.

I like Imp’s idea of limiting the number of IPCs spent on infantry in a turn to no more than half the total income collected in that turn. It’s analogous to the idea I proposed a while back for solving unrealistic tech purchasing when I stated that no more than half of the total IPCs collected in a turn can be spent on techs in that turn.

Those 2 above rules (no plastic chips for infantry and no more than half spent on infantry) should do the trick for a simple realistic solution but I still like the victory city infantry placement rules better.  :-D

Thank you tekkyy.

I’m probably going to win the award for most random question ever by asking this, but how many aircraft movement markers come with the game and how many are labeled 1, 2, 3, etc…?

I don’t know the answer myself because I think I lost a few of them over the last couple years (probably because I don’t worry about keeping them on account of how they are worthless).  :-P  I’m asking because I’m looking into making a change to the game that would utilize them for something else.

Thanks for your help.

My ruleset probably won’t be available for a while anyway on account of how after tomorrow I won’t have access to a computer for a week. Let’s go with the phase 1 rules we already have written up and I’ll just eventually post what I’m currently writing up with under some other name to avoid confusion. I think the writeup we have already will probably end up going along better with phase 2 anyway. I just don’t want to abandon what I have since it has a ton of new ideas that I just came up with.

I can’t wait to come back in a week to be completely overwhelmed by the number of new ideas everyone’s come up with.

I think having varying VCPs/nation isn’t worth the added complexity. With the even VCP system it is much easier to play the game without consulting some table. Players don’t want to have to consult tables, etc… I don’t have to consult a table for the 15 VCPs/ nation system… I instantly know where the VCs are and how many VCPs each are. Granted, I’m the one who came up with the system so it would be easier for me to memorize them, but I think others will also instantly remember where they all are after playing 2-3 games.

I vote for the simpler, but probably less exact, even VCP system.

What was your point? That Australia should also start with an IC?

It is easier for Axis to take VCs that they didn’t start with.

Letting Axis win with 15 and Allies with 10 is to level out the difficulty of winning, not the overall number of VCPs.

Thoughts on switching UK’s major and moderate VC designation so India is now the major VC and Canada and Australia are the moderate VCs? Canada would still start with an IC and India would not.

Why do this?
-India had a larger population and military than Canada. With India as the major VC, India could assemble up to 3 inf per turn and Canada up to 2 inf per turn instead of the other way around.
-I assume possession of India was more important than possession of Canada (i.e. worth more VCPs), even though Canada was industrialized. I don’t know what real stats to compare to measure VCPs, but I’m thinking it would be a combination of GDP, population, resources etc… Thoughts on which territory should be worth 3 VCPs and 2 VCPs?

The only downside to this change is that now ICs don’t start exclusively in all capital and major VCs. If UK major VC=India, then UK wouldn’t have an IC in their major VC, but have an IC in one of their moderate VCs (Canada). This makes things slightly more complicated.

While we’re at it, should we change Japan’s VCs so Manchuria is a moderate VC and Kwangtung is a major VC? We would still keep a starting IC in Manchuria and still not have one in Kwangtung.

I agree we should strive to find the simplest set of rules that accomplishes the same historic idea.

That is why I’m still not satisfied with the UK and US infantry placment rules. It needs to be simpler still.

How about this; for UK and US:

-The 1st infantry placed per turn in the nation’s capital, major or moderate VCs costs 2 each. The 1st infantry placed in all other VCs per turn costs 3 each (namely, the nation’s minor and captured VCs).
-The 2nd infantry placed in any VC per turn costs 3 each.
-All infantry in excess of the 2nd infantry placed in a VC per turn costs 4 each.

I will present the info in table format as well in the writeup. I think this set of rules is a little simpler to remember and accomplishes basically the same idea. It’s too bad that I can’t group minor VCs with the other VCs of the nation’s color. 2 IPC infantry in minor VCs would favor UK in Africa too much and allow Hawaii to assemble too many infantry throughout the duration of the game.

Sorry to keep changing it, but I honestly believe this is the set of rules that will stick… here is my latest proposal for inf placement:

-The maximum number of infantry that can be placed at a VC per turn is equal to the number of VCPs for that VC. (this is true for all VCs, no matter what the nation is that’s being considered).

For Russia, Germany, Japan: All infantry placed in the nation’s capital VC cost 2 each. All infantry placed in VCs contiguously connected to the nation’s capital cost 3 each. All infantry placed in VCs not contiguously connected to the nation’s capital cost 4 each.

Why? These nations are ruled by authoritarian regimes whose influence emenates from their respective capitals. Consequently, infantry units are most easily assembled within these capitals. Furthermore, railways and road transit systems allow infantry units to be stationed more easily in territories when they are connected to these capitals.

For UK and US: The cost of each of the first 2 infantry placed at a certain VC depends on the type of that VC.
-The first 2 infantry placed in the nation’s capital VC cost 2 each.
-The first infantry placed in any of the nation’s major or moderate VCs cost 2. The second infantry placed in any of these VCs costs 3.
-The first 2 infantry placed in all other VCs costs 3 each (namely, in the minor VCs and all captured VCs).*

All infantry in excess of the first 2 placed in any VC costs 4 each.*

*Keeping in mind that the maximum number of infantry that can be placed at a VC per turn is the number of corresponding VCPs.

No, the infantry placment limits have been simplified.

-Max number of infantry=number of VCPs for all territories

This means that Eastern US can now build up to 5 inf per turn, just lke Russia. The catch is that the US will pay more: 2 (for the first) + 3 (for the second) + 43 for the last three = 17 vs 25 = 10 for Russia.

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.

Simplied rules for ICs:

-Every nation starts with an IC in their capital and major VC.
-Whenever any territory containing an IC is captured, the IC may be destroyed at the defender’s discretion.
-ICs placed at capital and major VCs cost 5 IPCs each.
-ICs placed at moderate and minor VCs cost 10 IPCs each.
-ICs placed in a territory with no VC cost 15 IPCs each.

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?

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.

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.