Has anyone read this article at Bionic Donkeys?
http://bionicdonkeys.com/iWeb/A%26A map/A%26A Shipping cash.html
I am curious what it would do to ballance. It would obviously hurt Britain and Japan and help Russia and Germany.
I think I may try this out and see what happens…
Looks really interesting!
Though, I would probably implement a railway system. Cash can flow up to 3 territories during your collect income phase (start of your turn) or may be transported via transport up to 2 territories (thus using the transport’s capabilities.)
I’d also drop the price of transports to 6 IPCs and other than that, use the naval prices from AARe which are as follows:
Submarine 8 IPC
Destroyer 10 IPC
Carrier 16 IPC
Battleship 20 IPC
(And my change to transports to drop them to 6 IPC)
All that together would really, REALLY increase naval warfare for you. I’m thinking Japan would be hit the hardest, but Germany would get a great reprieve in so much as America would be chasing after pennies in the South Pacific!
I’d also probably give a penny each to Wake, Carolines, Solomons and Midway. But make it a 1 time only penny and only collectible if the territory is conquered (thus making it worth the effort to actually grab those historically important island chains!)
If you want to try it out online, we could use battlemap (with some ridiculous piece to represent the “pennies”) just to see how it works out.
If Transports grab them by sea how do you move them by land?
LT
If you own the land you can move them a set distance each turn this would be done with rail, trucks etc.
Do you think this would slow down the game? A lot more focus will be spent on gathering material vs killing the enemy.
LT
If the units you can build are based on the raw materials (coin IPC’s) could Japan build an IC in Soviet far East shuttle all the change over there and Shuck-Shuck Alaska with the only build restriction being how much change they have?
LT
I think it would slow the game, but not overly much. Maybe extend the game two or three rounds.
I’d say industrial complexes would be limited to their standard build limits. But yes, why wouldn’t you be able too, say, build an IC in Kwangtung to shuttle coins from the mainland into instead of building transports to bring them to Japan itself?
Anyway, I’d say Capitols would be limited to # of units = value of the capitol (8, 10 or 12) without needing to get coins there but coins would be needed to build in any other complex (including S. Europe, Caucasus and W. USA who all start with ICs but are not capitols.)
And I’d still say movement is 3 land territories or by transport. Much easier to get something through by “train” than to load it on a dock, put it on a ship, sail it, unload it and ship it by train. In my opinion anyway.
I would imagine it would slow it down. I also think you would have to start with a full turn of “materials” in your capital to represent pervious shipping, you would also probably have to give a couple extra transports out to start, other wise the begining of the game would be slow.
I think it would be cool if you attacked other transports and could take the matertal. You would have to roll a die to see how much materal you were able to recover and the rest goes to the bottom of the sea.
1-2 you recover 1
3-6 you recover 0
That is if we go with Jen’s concept of 2 per transport.
As for on land I think you could go with the idea that they move by rail 3 spaces per turn.
As to giving more transports I wouldn’t give one to Russia. Every country but the US you could place 1 or 2 in the SZ adjacent to the capital. The US I would place in WUS SZ.
LT
Well considering that a transport in revised can carry as much as 8 IPC worth of "prcessed materiel I would say a transport should be able to carry at least that if not more…
I don’t see why you couldn’t come up with a rule for captuing materiel, that’s how it works on land, and I supose materiel was captured in the war, I would say unescorted transports should have a chance of capturing a portion of the materiel.
Now riddle me this. Maybe I should post this some where else but it is something I have been meaning to ask here and this sparked the question.
Lets just say for sake of discussion Mongolia was worth 8 IPC’s. I am going to label the rounds starting at 1. I know this isn’t the set up for any A&A game but this is just to give every one a clear picture so I can ask my question.
Turn 1) Russia has Yakut S.S.R. and captures Mongolia with only 1 INF remaining, securing 8 IPC’s at the end or their turn.
Turn 2) Germany has Novosibirsk captures Mongolia with only 1 INF remaining, securing 8 IPC’s at the end of their turn.
Turn 3) UK has Manchuria captures Mongolia with only 1 INF remaining, securing 8 IPC’s at the end of their turn.
Turn 4) Japan has China captures Mongolia with only 1 INF remaining, securing 8 IPC’s at the end of their turn.
Turn 5) US has Sinkiang captures Mongolia with only 1 INF remaining, securing 8 IPC’s at the end of their turn.
Now my question is that since Mongolia is a nutural state, ownership wise this is legal my question is wouls 40 IPC’s really be paid out?
This is the reason I am so interested in the shipping method. It seems more realistic. Also I agree with Jen that you would need to lower the cost of transports. I think you would be slowing down the game. Plus all countries (maybe not Russia) would need to have a decent navy at some point.
@LT04:
Now my question is that since Mongolia is a nutural state, ownership wise this is legal my question is wouls 40 IPC’s really be paid out?
Yes.
However, using the “cash” method as outlined would not alleviate this. If the IPCs were placed on each player’s territories at the end of their turns, the US would not only hold Mongolia, but also all 40 IPCs (assuming none were moved out). In order to avoid this, the IPCs would need to be accrued globally at either the beginning or end of each complete round of play.
Im not sure with all this double talk but i think you guys are trying to solve the solution for double income collecting which was solved back in 2005 by the variant AARHE, which clearly does not allow collection of income until before the combat move, so it only rewards you with the territories that you have held the entire time and saves time with all those time waster battles where both sides waste combat on battle they know very well will not hold, but have already cheated the system by exchanging the same territory over and over again just to boost up income for cheap.
This cash thing is a total waste of time and bogs down the game. It does not add any fun factor but clutters up the map with stupid coins ruining the aesthetic of the map and pieces.
How can you possibly even consider such an idea?
I’d limit transports to two IPCs. Reason is that you can load two of any unit aboard up to 8 IPC. However, 8 IPC cost for the units covers manufacturing costs, training costs, refining costs, shipping costs, etc etc etc. 2 IPC is just raw material costs. Raw materials are bulky!
IL,
The driving force behind this is to get countries out into the ocean. I think this may be a better idea for A&A pacific myself.
Yes this would slow down the game alot but that would be all relative b/c all countries would face the same issue. You wouldn’t see huge stacks any where it would be like fighting on the Africa front all over the place sparce troops here and there.
You may disagree with the idea but I think that inovative ways that people come up with to inhance parts of the game need to be respected not attacked. If you don’t like it don’t use it. I don’t think I will use it but this idea made me see the game in a diffrent light and that’s why we come here to share ideas and make our games not so repititious.
LT
Yes yes quite right, but if you want people in the ocean you just lower the cost of naval units so they will buy them, and add rules regarding modeling submarine warfare where the subs can attack IPC of nations.
What i saw was one problem that was related to the “double income collection problem” and offered a solution that would seem less painful than the cure that proposed.
I know that A&A doesn’t pride itself on being 100% accurate but would lowering the price of navel keep the cost ratio perspectively correct?
LT
Yea, actually it does if you are cost conscious about it. I recommend getting the enhanced rules. They lowered the prices on Carriers, Destroyers and Battleships (as well as Bombers and Industrial Complexes.)
I think they should also have lowered the price of transports.
@Imperious:
Yes yes quite right, but if you want people in the ocean you just lower the cost of naval units so they will buy them, and add rules regarding modeling submarine warfare where the subs can attack IPC of nations.
What i saw was one problem that was related to the “double income collection problem” and offered a solution that would seem less painful than the cure that proposed.
That is what I’m sugesting. I think all naval cost would have to be lowered and new sub rules implemented. No air only attacks sub detection etc. then subs would be able to target transports with raw materiels in them. You are right about the double income and I started playing that way after I got my copy of The War Game. I think a big aspect of the war was moving materiels and this would be a fun option.
another thing this does is eliminate the need for income tracking. and I also would agree that the cash would have to be dispersed once per round. I’m not sure if this is and advantage for any one player, I will have to think about it some more.
