Ya Play test it.
Modified territory IPC values
-
I’m not sure if this has been thought of already, but I thought of a way to make A&A a bit more realistic. Instead of having one IPC value for a territory - which counts for its natural resources AND its industrial capacity should an IC be placed there - why not split them up? One value for the income you collect for controlling the territory (natural resources) and another value for the units you can place there (industrial capacity). It never made sense that one always came with the other. Such as both the East Indies and Borneo in AA50 have values of 4, and the Japanese player will sometime build an IC in E. Indies because of this. What historical sense does that make? Combined, E. Indies and Borneo have the same production power of Japan. I know that Japan needs to gain income from its expansion for the game to be playable, but the system for doing so currently just doesn’t work, IMO.
Thoughts?
-
you could do this, what values do you sugest.
you could also add manpowr points: armor and artilery cost 1 manpower and the regular IPC value while infantry cost 2 manpower but only 1 IPC. Infatry would also not take up industrial capacity. This could represent countries like Britian which had a high industrial capacity but low manpower while Russia would have high manpower but low industrial capacity.
-
Wouldn’t infantry still require a degree of industrial production since they use a multitude of small arms, equipment, etc? Anyway, manpower points are beyond what I was trying to reconcile, which is the forced link between natural resources and industrial production.
I envisioned a numbering system like 1/4, 3/8, 5/2, etc. where the first number is the income you collect for controlling the territory and the second number for the industrial production capable in that territory. For instance, both E. Indies and Borneo could be 4/1, since the Japanese player should gain significant wealth from expansion but not be able to set up production there. That would make things a bit more realistic. Also, Australia is currently treated as just another island in the south Pacific which shouldn’t be the case. Perhaps values of 2/5 or something like that would reflect its potential for production. Japan itself should be a 4/8 or maybe 4/10 or something similar since it doesn’t have significant natural resources - hence the reason for its expansion in WWII to begin with.
-
yah i see what you saying and it makes alot of sence, certainly australia should have more industrial capacity than the east Indies
-
Great idea! +1 Karma
-
Now that’s a novel idea!
Still, isn’t industrial capacity connected to the resources available? Then again, wouldn’t it be the whole country, and just the local area where resources are available?
Perhaps all IC should have a set limit on unit builds?…nah. Never mind.
-
Still, isn’t industrial capacity connected to the resources available?
Yes, to some degree, but there are too many other factors that contribute to a territory’s industrial capacity than just raw natural resources (education, topography, and ease of transportation to name a few). If they were directly connected, Alaska should be one of the world’s greatest industrial centers. We all know that’s not the case.
-
One of those ideas that will keep you up at night, wishing it could smoothly be implemented without making your own map!
Suggested Topics
