Collect income phase…

[baron Münchhausen]

I was wondering, does anyone ever worked on a different way to collect IPCs from territory?
As following the rules, the more a territory is fight over and exchange during a turn of play, the more cash every power getting over it. Usually, it worth double value: (USSR gets a 2 from Germany, Germany takes it, then UK retakes the 2).
In an extreme example, it can even be 4 times with an exchange between Russia, Germany, UK and Japan.
But if a Power keeps a country for an entire turn without any fight over it, it worth only its face value.

Isn’t strange, that a more unstable and crippled by war territory bring more IPCs during a turn?
For example: France can give 6 IPCs to Germany and also 6 IPCs to UK in the same turn. Thus raising the sum of all Powers incomes up to 6 IPCs.
It is quite counter-intuitive, even a non-sense.

To change this anomaly:
1- the collect income should be at the start of a turn. It will usually reduce the IPCs flows to undisputed “at peace” territory for 1 turn.

Or, (what I prefer)

2- after the first turn, after a territory is conquered, the ex-owner have to return back about half the territory’s value to the bank (minimum 1 IPC for 1, 2, 3 IPCs territory / 2 IPCs for a 4 territory/ 3 IPCs for a 6 / 4 IPCs for an 8 / 5 IPCs for a 10 / etc.).

Thus, you received half reward for a lost conquered territory and the sum of the IPCs allocates during a turn never exceed the total every Powers would have if all have kept their original territories.

If the balance of the game requires that USRR and Germany has more IPCs in hand because of this constant exchange of European territories, maybe we can allocate an extra 4-6 IPCs bonus to both and only two (as a citizen war effort campaign/ labor camp/ and conscripts men-women/soldier)

Is it changing 4 quarters for 1 buck?
Or does it worth the change?

[Gargantua]

My only concern is that this will make the Axis suffer much more, and early, than it will the allies.

The attacker is at a significant disadvantage.

So right out the gate you might aswell remove 5 infantry units or more from the board for both Japan and Germany.

And what about nations like China?

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks Gargantua,
I will think about this consequence and I will make a more developped reply.

[baron Münchhausen]

I see how much A&A need elements to motivate attack instead of “turtle strategy”. In this way, giving nominal IPCs value of a conquered and very disputed territory helps a lot.

It is a non-sense to extract more economics from a war-zone and buffered (no man’s land) territory but it is a game and for easy playing you need a simple system to calculate income.

Even a “house rule” system that required that every time a token’s power is put on the board or put out of it, the owner’s power must pay half the value of the territory it lost requires time and concentration and is a distraction for every body who wants to prepare and anticipates future strategy, buying and tactical moves.

I suppose that Larry and the playtesters understand the side effect of “changing hand’s territories” creating much more IPCs than the total on the board, and take account of it (specialy for the disputed territories between Russia and Germany).

So even if it is historically inaccurate (that a war-zone like Caucasus will be more economically productive at a global level than the whole Great Britain that remain a whole turn in UK’s hand), it is probably better to play with it than creating ad hoc rule to correct it but delaying the game and affect the overall balance.

Thanks again Gargantua for taking the time to answer this post.

[Gargantua]

The simplest and most universal way to achieve what you are hoping for, is to count ipc’s ONLY at the beginning of your turn.

There’s less money going around, and that means less units on the board… but they you don’t have to worry about splitting incomes, or any other stuff.  You simply only get what you’ve started with.

It works, but stifles the game play.  Especially if you play with NO’s.

Any other thoughts?

[dedo]

@Gargantua:

It works, but stifles the game play.  Especially if you play with NO’s.

Why and where is it stifling the game play? I’m very curious about shifting the income phase to the beginning of the turn, but I couldn’t realize it yet in a game. In my opinion there is just less money in the game and for this reason less fighting units in comparison to the traditional AA sequence. This will lead to a shorter game, what would be appreciated by a lot of players, I assume.

Of cause, it’s much more difficult to complete the NO’s, and some NO’s are essential for the sake of a balanced game play (whereas some NO’s seem to me very whimsical - Italy, Mare Nostrum?! That’s a joke taken history into the account…). On the other hand, NO’s could be modified in a way that they would be easier to achieve…

[Gargantua]

@dedo:

@Gargantua:

It works, but stifles the game play.  Especially if you play with NO’s.

Why and where is it stifling the game play? I’m very curious about shifting the income phase to the beginning of the turn, but I couldn’t realize it yet in a game. In my opinion there is just less money in the game and for this reason less fighting units in comparison to the traditional AA sequence. This will lead to a shorter game, what would be appreciated by a lot of players, I assume.

Of cause, it’s much more difficult to complete the NO’s, and some NO’s are essential for the sake of a balanced game play (whereas some NO’s seem to me very whimsical - Italy, Mare Nostrum?! That’s a joke taken history into the account…). On the other hand, NO’s could be modified in a way that they would be easier to achieve…

You answered your own question.

Less units on the board, means less options, less strategy, and a higher-impact-from/lower-resistance- to luckfactors.

Look at the incomes of the scaling version of A&A, from 1984 to the present.  USA used to make $36.  Now they make $100 + in the latest global.

I mean, you could nullify income entirely if you want, but what purpose does that serve!

Also… master A&A players understand that income is relative, in the sense that what your units kill, or fail to kill are also forms of +/- income, infact, the primary changer/contributor.

Also keep in mind, IPC’s are NOT money.  They are MAN-HOURS.  Happy/Victorious/more people work harder - period.  One could argue that the capture of foreign territories, increases the production in home ones.  For example, think about how many germans were excited to hear about the fall of Paris in 1940!

It’s best to reiterate the original question

What are you trying to achieve here?  To ensure there is no triple territory dipping?  Even if the territory is worth $0, if 3 parties fight over it, IPC/Unit-currency is still exchanged significantly…

[BJCard]

Look at the incomes of the scaling version of A&A, from 1984 to the present.  USA used to make $36.  Now they make $100 + in the latest global.

What game are you playing?  If the USA is making over 100 then they own all of Italy or Germany or Japan and the game is likely already over.

[baron Münchhausen]

The simplest and most universal way to achieve what you are hoping for, is to count ipc’s ONLY at the beginning of your turn.

There’s less money going around, and that means less units on the board… but they you don’t have to worry about splitting incomes, or any other stuff.  You simply only get what you’ve started with.

I read somewhere about this option, I can’t remember what was the topic but when I wrote the first post I was looking for something else.
Because, every disputed territory lower the global incomes. So as you say:

Less units on the board, means less options, less strategy, and a higher-impact-from/lower-resistance- to luckfactors.

I proposed a mid-way that keep the global value to the sum of the face value territories and keep NOs as they are.

The method I suggest can even add a “revenge” flavour somehow:
When you win a territory, you either put a flag token on enemy territory thus you can “remember” him: “give to the bank 1 IPCs, man…” and so forth…
In the other way, when you liberate a territory you can say: “Get out of my country, this is your flag token and…by the way don’t forget to pay 1 IPC, scum bag …”
The more it happens, the more you made it a psychological game: “I’m getting at your purse and their is a real hole in it, you should mend it…”

[baron Münchhausen]

@Gargantua:

My only concern is that this will make the Axis suffer much more, and early, than it will the allies.
The attacker is at a significant disadvantage.
So right out the gate you might as well remove 5 infantry units or more from the board for both Japan and Germany.
And what about nations like China?

I believe the problem will also be the same if you collect income at the beginning of your turn.
I think the game is balance in a way that Larry Harris knows Russia and Germany make more IPCs together than the sum of their territories. He probably adjust units on the board and territory value to balance this.

But you still get, in rare circumstances, a Caucasus anomaly bringing 16 IPCs (instead of 4 IPCs and much better than what bring WUSA 1942.1 to the American in 1 turn) on the board in a whole turn if Russia, Germany, UK, Japan and Russia can capture it one after the other. Instead of a completely crippled territory with destroyed infrastructure, as a normal war will do on any country.
Think about Koweit and their many burning oil fields, I think it took almost 2 years for the firemen to stop the fires Iraquies soldiers started…   And the war was already over.

To specifically respond to the post below:
The question: is it possible to maintain the sum of IPCS at global level, in a way to don’t have “the more you invade me, the more I produce” :wink: paradox and be able to keep the initial balance and movement of the game: Axis growing fast or get beaten?
That’s the best way I can rephrase it.

@Gargantua:

@Gargantua:

It’s best to reiterate the original question
What are you trying to achieve here?  To ensure there is no triple territory dipping?  Even if the territory is worth $0, if 3 parties fight over it, IPC/Unit-currency is still exchanged significantly…

[baron Münchhausen]

I said:

But you still get, in rare circumstances, a Caucasus anomaly bringing 16 IPCs (instead of 4 IPCs and much better than what bring WUSA 1942.1 to the American in 1 turn) on the board in a whole turn if Russia, Germany, UK, Japan and Russia can capture it one after the other.

But it’s not true, if UK won the territory their is no IPC gain.
So it become a 12 IPCs anomaly not “16”.
Sorry,

[BJCard]

it is if moscow has fallen.  uk would collect then.

[baron Münchhausen]

Yep,
an odd situation that requires Germany has conquered Moscow and Caucasus,
Uk trying to help from IC based in India via Persia, then Japan beating UK from Kazakh SSR.
It will generates 16 IPCs. It’s double IPCs production of England!
We can be assured that it is the quest for “black gold”.
Just imagine this scenario: the poor caucasians beaten up from every fronts and be able to produced way much more than England industries… while Stalingrad is in ruined but their oil fields are raining gold and ready to use fuel!  :-D
That is a real anomaly.  :-o

[baron Münchhausen]

I see now a way to make the count:
You put on the board a number of flag tokens equal to IPCs value when you win new territory.
And you give the original owner’s as many Flag token (FTk) from the conquerer than the face value of the territory.

When this territory is conquered back, you return the FTk in to the enemy’s hand.

When it is your turn, count every flag tokens (own and enemy) in hands, each is worth .5 IPC that you must pay before making purchase (if their is one FTk left, keep it for the next turn). So even a 1 IPC territory can be counted without approximation and rounding up or down. Just keep the lone FTk until you have to pay a whole number of IPC.

For example:
Russia take WRus 2 IPCs
It put 2 Russian FTk on board, give 2RusFTk to Germany= collect: 26 IPCs.

On Germany’s turn 41 IPCs minus (2RusFTk X.5 IPC) = 40 IPCs

Germany: win back WRus 2 IPCs, return 2 RusFTk to Russia= collect 41 IPCs

On Russia turn’s, 26 IPCs minus (2RusFTk X.5 IPC) = 25 IPCs for purchase.

So the initial global gain 4 IPCs for a 2 IPCs territory but we substract 1 IPCs from Germany for loosing the territory. And Russia the same.
So the real IPCs for purchase is equal to the value of territory on the board.

Although, we need to introduce a special rule for the first turn of play.

You don’t receive Flag Token for territories lost on the first turn of play unless you had already collected incomes.

Thus, Russia don’t give FTk to German player.
Germany give FTk to Russia but neither UK or USA.
Uk give FTk to German’s player but not to Japan.
Japan give FTk to Russia & UK  but not to USA.
USA give FTK to Axis’s player. So every one give and take.

I think it is playable and not too complicated to use.
Many players already put nation’s markers on the board to keep track of conquered territories.
You just have to place the same number than the value of the territory and give as many markers to the enemy player (you’ll enjoy it).  
I’m pretty sure many player’s will like to give Flag token to others… and won’t forget to check them and make them pay.

Now, the “more you invade me, the more I produce” paradoxe is fixed.

But there still have the other part of the problem to check: does it favor the balance toward the Allies as said Gargantua?
Are we able to keep the initial balance and movement of the game: Axis growing fast or get beaten?

[baron Münchhausen]

But there still have the other part of the problem to check: does it favor the balance toward the Allies as said Gargantua?
Are we able to keep the initial balance and movement of the game: Axis growing fast or get beaten?

I think that along the play, the more disputed territories are between Russia and Germany. About 2 to 3 countries can be exchange per turn. Those battles adds 4 to 6 more IPCs on the board than the total territories’ IPCs value.

If someone want to try this kind of collect income phase, I suggest to keep the balance in a simple way to give 1 additional free Inf to Russia and Germany at the end of every turn for the first four turns. This unit will be received after non-combat move, to be put on board during the placement phase of the other units already purchase by Russia or Germany.

After that, they’re will be less units on the board and far less contested territories per country’s turn.
Is it better now?
If someone dares to try it, please let me know.
How many countries markers gets in their hands?
This will be a sure sign of the frequence of ping-pong exchange over countries.
This will help determine how much extra IPCs this situation produce.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Gargantua:

My only concern is that this will make the Axis suffer much more, and early, than it will the allies.

The attacker is at a significant disadvantage.

So right out the gate you might aswell remove 5 infantry units or more from the board for both Japan and Germany.

And what about nations like China?

I believe now that a house rule which limits “double dipps” will be against Allies.

The more I think about it the more I understand why, sundenly in ETO, Uk and USA are making a hard time to Germany as soon as they get some grounds in Europe.

It is because of this double effect of IPCs of contested territories.
As long as the German keep at bay UK and USA from Europe, the IPCs stay in German’s hand. When 4 or 6, even 8 IPCs of territories are exchange, it gives the same amount of IPCs to Germany but not to the Allies. That creates an outburst of IPCs flowing so USA or UK can buy 1 Arm or 2 Inf more than usual.
So at that moment of crisis in the game, when there is too much transports and escorts to sink them all, this “double dipps” effect takes place. Not only Germany must deal in Western Europe against double waves attack (UK then USA) but when they get hold on any territory, this “double dipps” generate more IPCs usefull for Allies and against Germany to increase the flow of Infantry on the board.

As long as this European territory are exchanges, it is to the benefit of the Allies.
Thus, a rule to eliminate those extra IPCs will play against Allies. For example: UK takes once France for 6 IPCs, it gives them 2 more Inf. instead of only 1.
So, on the next round, if enough transports, Germany have to deal against 2 more. If USA take Belgium at 3 IPCs, it is another Inf for Allies (instead of 1.5 IPCs for a house rule).

What do you think Gargantua, are you convinced?

[toblerone77]

Actually IPCs are medi-chlorians and has nothing to do with what a territory is worth, Larry Harris said so.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

Actually IPCs are medi-chlorians and has nothing to do with what a territory is worth, Larry Harris said so.

:-D

[barney]

while it doesn’t collect income differently nwo on triple a    does combat first then you buy your guys
it’s different anyways  and kinda cool

[BJCard]

@barney:

while it doesn’t collect income differently nwo on triple a     does combat first then you buy your guys
it’s different anyways  and kinda cool

In that game it actually makes it easier to play (and quicker) that you can plan your attacks before you declare your purchase.  Wish NWO had the 1940 ruleset rather than revised…