After playing Axis and Allies for hours. I came to hate the fact that a side can produce an infinite amount of units yet, the world consists of a finitate amount of resources. Hence I devised a new system to counter this problem, which actually stops stacking and prevents build ups.
Idea 1: Triple the IPC amount of every place. Each unit requires 1 IPC maintance at the start of a player’s turn. Hence if a person only makes 24 IPCs, they can only have 24 units. Conquered land only provides 1/3 of face IPC value.
Idea 2: Each place is given stats such as, a number. This is the number of a certain type of units that the space provides to the player. For example: Place X can support 3 Infantry Units and 1 Armor. Place Y can support 1 Fighter and 4 Infantry. The player’s biggest force can only be 7 Infantry, 1 Armor, and 1 Fighter.
Now idea 2 in my opinion is the best idea. It actually requires that a player must manage his or her resources and that things are not unlimited. Of course you need to set aside perhaps 5 open slots that perhaps allow a player to have 5 units of their choosing in addition to the maximum amounts they can have. But in general I think this idea makes the game more realistic and fun, and someone cannot just build up 30 Battleships or a huge infantry stack of 30 and march in. Makes managing your resources more of a concern and makes you have a diverse army.
Idea 1 is not as good also because it slows gameplay a lot.
The more you have the slower you build. Plus conquered land generate 1/3 income which means 66% income leaks from the game.
It might actually generate more stalemate kind of gameplay.
Idea 2 is workable. It could be improved with a simple point system. Simpler and less specific unit type specifying would be good.
Idea 1 might be workable too. No need to triple IPC amounts. Just charge 1 IPC upkeep for every 5 units or something. Maintenance costs are not really in the same order of magnitude as build costs regarding realism.
I’d actually come to the conclusion that the best way to go would be that a nation collects income for the land they own at the start of their turn (less any economic damage incurred between their last mobilization phase and their new collection phase).
This means that no one could collect for the same land in any game turn that someone else already collected for it. This would result in less IPC in the banks of the nations then total land value, which would make sense given that war torn areas do not produce as well as peaceful areas!
So yes. Germany may get Egypt on Round 1, but if England liberates it, Germany never gets to collect for it. (Neither does England if Germany takes it back on Round 2.)
oh you mean like AARHE?
@Imperious:
oh you mean like AARHE?
Rule book for AARHE is so long I have yet to find time to read it through.
yes but its got the same exact idea!
Read like one page at a time whenever time permits will give you alot of substantive ideas.
Its long but the ideas are written in very easy format, so you don’t really need to reread the same point over again.
Your ideas are in it among others. You helped make it what it is.
Tekkyy is working on Triple A programming for it.
@Cmdr:
I’d actually come to the conclusion that the best way to go would be that a nation collects income for the land they own at the start of their turn (less any economic damage incurred between their last mobilization phase and their new collection phase).
This means that no one could collect for the same land in any game turn that someone else already collected for it. This would result in less IPC in the banks of the nations then total land value, which would make sense given that war torn areas do not produce as well as peaceful areas!
So yes. Germany may get Egypt on Round 1, but if England liberates it, Germany never gets to collect for it. (Neither does England if Germany takes it back on Round 2.)
That does not elimate the problem of someone being able to just stack up units. Resources should not be unlimited in that since. For example, a player who can have at most 10 tanks, due to the areas he or she controls, would make that person manage their resources more.
Stacks will be smaller if nations cannot each collect for the same territories
And I’ll look into it over the holidays. Sooner if TripleA runs it.
Collecting income at start of turn is not directly about stacking.
But it is directly about finite resource.
All this extra income injected into the game.
Sorry AARHE’s TripleA project is abandoned due to reasons internal to TripleA. Support for any house rules in TripleA will also be a problem.
:cry:
Each unit requires 1 IPC maintance at the start of a player’s turn.
I’m experimenting with something similar… logistics;
To conduct attacks you need supply tokens - and luckily the Bulge game made plenty! I’m also looking at what penatlies come from not having supply in defence - perhaps tanks defend at ‘2’ - and planes need to expend 1 supply per area that they interecept from, otherwise no defensive support.
Still playing with cost - 1IPC per supply, or 1IPC per five supply?
Should it be one supply per area - or one supply per 5 units?
Or what about supply is only needed to make artillery give infantry the ‘2’ attack rating, or allows planes to make tanks attack a ‘4’ on the one to one basis mentioned in the Blitzkrieg NA.
Or will they just slow the game down… I sort of wanted to make building up supply tokens part of preparing for a large offensive, and move away from everyone attacking with every area each turn - so that you get some forced concentration of aim - it’s too expensive to attack everywhere and see what opportunities open up.
Still toying with this, and will demo it over Christmas with some friends… we just want to use the trucks and supply tokens and have the problems associated with the historical problems of not being able sustain both Patton’s and Monty’s advance!
Supplies can be drawn from adjacent areas, can be moved on trucks or ships counting as one land unit… necessary for amphibious assaults, naval interception, defensive air support - conducting strategic bombing raid.
I’m open to suggestions… (or slap downs! :wink:)
I could see lack of supply effecting tanks and planes. Planes would defend like bombers if no supplies are available and tanks like infantry. Perhaps figure supplies out like this:
Land value of territories you own with industrial complexes = number of units you can supply (infantry need no supplies, they can rape, murder and pillage as they see fit to supply themselves!)
For every battle you win, where an enemy mechanized unit is destroyed (includes mechanized infantry) you get one extra supply unit. No penalty for losing such engagements.
@Cmdr:
infantry need no supplies
I was thinking that they can’t attack - and that they defend on a ‘1’ without supplies…
The Allies ran out of steam as they couldn’t attack fast enough to keep up with the Germans - or perhaps they can attack, but supporting artillery don’t work and tanks don’t work. Should help the Japanese stay in the game.
Or perhaps prohibit Allied troops from attacking without supplies - I’m still looking into this, thanks for the ideas!
Infantry still need supplies. It is called Jeeps, Trucks, food, clothing, and such. The soldiers just did not march accross the land. They had vechicals to move.
Mechanized infantry would need supplies to use their two territory move ability. Normal infantry remain normal. They can get food from plundering cities, they can get ammunition from plundering enemies, etc. Even their jeeps and 2.5 ton trucks could be fueled by plunder, they just wouldn’t be moving as fast.
Infantry still need supplies. It is called Jeeps, Trucks, food, clothing, and such. The soldiers just did not march accross the land. They had vechicals to move.
I know this! I did some time in the Army, and we were not happy when we didn’t have supplies!
But, at the grand strategic level we can assume that buying an infantry unit includes the ongoing cost of combat supplies etc - without having to make the game too complicated, or introduce upkeep for units.
Infantry are hard to deal with as they already attack at ‘1’ - so the only real penalty is to prohibit them from attacking. In defence it gets harder to do - the Germans fought a very tenacious defence without huge amounts of supply, as did the Japanese - so to reduce unsupplied infantry from a ‘2’ to a ‘1’ in defence may be over-stating the case.
I fully agree that a modern army needs supplies - and the supply tokens from BOB need to find their way into the main game.
However, there comes a point where trying to add more and more complexity into Axis and Allies, we might as well play a different World War 2 game which already has this level of complexity…?
But you make an excellent point - and that is that supply should be used and incorporated into this game. But how to do it without throwing the balance?
you should throw away this supply idea in its current form and allocate instead costs associated to combat. Its the offensive of the army that drains national resources to a large degree, and NOT just moving around.
Assign headquarters (representing theaters of war for each nation)
For example Germany has
Army Group North
Army Group Center
Army Group South
OKW
Panzer Army Africa ( Africa Korps)
each HQ can be loaded for up to four combats depending on its level…example: OKW can initiate 4 combat situations, while Army Group A can do only 2.
you give each nation some free (automatic) attacks that they assign these HQ, then the rest has to be paid for.
Use the Bulge Tokens to represent stockpiles that can be bombed…
use the trucks as mechanized/motorized-- infantry/Grenadiers
activation of HQ costs 2, each combat round costs 1…something like this.
then you will see periods of intense attacks and periods of quiet.
In fact you can assign a -1 to activation costs in summer, and +1 to activation in winter.
there you go right off the top of my head.
I am using this rule. Makes sense to me, and is easy to follow:
No player may produce more units than his or her total IPC collection plus ten infantry. For example, if a player collects 40 IPCs, that player may not have more than 40 units and 10 infantry on the map. If a player ends up having more units than what he or she collects in IPCs then the player is restricted from building new units during that turn. In addition, the player is restricted from building new units until the total unit count is below the IPC count plus the ten infantry.
I hope you count IPC just before movement. or people will take and trade back and forth all sorts of territories, just to get a boost of pieces, then they will “hurl” at opponents like rocks, knowing the next turn they need to “kill” off units just to be able to spend income for new units. This will make for lots of extra frivolous attacks for non historical/realistic reasons.
additionally its arbitrary to assign a IPC PLUS 10 thing… where does the 10 thing come from?
it does help solve the piece density issues, but allied IPC totals and imbalance means that they have a greater overall lead against the allies:
before the axis had less money but more quality pieces and more of them
now the allies have IPC control and can limit the axis armies with this control
I am not fond of this idea at all.
Note that Germany starts with 48 units excluding AA and IC.
Sure Russia would kill off some on R1 but its still quite close to the limit you proposed of income+10.
Upkeep is a realistic thing though.
So why do we have a strange situation here?
Maybe somthing else is not right. Upkeep “cost” is too high?
Could try 1 IPC for every 4 units, rounded down
Talk of stacking, maybe you should only pay upkeep when the number of units in a territory exceed its income.
10 units in Germany…(10-10) / 4 = 0 IPC
10 units in Eastern Europe…(10-3) / 4 = 1 IPC
10 units in West Russia…(10-2) / 4 = 2 IPC
