I have since moved this topic to house rules.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34493.0
Cheers
1. The territory has an IPC value of 2 or greater
2. The territory contains a victory city
3. The territory has not been classified as an Island
Is the condition #1 is enough to built IC?
Is the condition #2 is enough to built IC?
Or is the condition #2 must be combined to #1?
Maybe #1 and #2 must be simply combined with 3 to fix the conditions to built?
1. The territory has an IPC value of 2 or greater and has not been classified as an Island.
2. The territory contains a Victory City and has not been classified as an Island.
The last addition is necessary to exclude Manilla and Honolulu as elligible territories.
What do you think of it?
Other major changes include captured production units removed from the board, and limited eligible territories for minor factories (must have victory city).
If this is the case, there is no need at all to add this condition:“1. The territory has an IPC value of 2 or greater and has not been classified as an Island.”
This one is enough in itself: “2. The territory contains a Victory City and has not been classified as an Island.”
A nice rules set to experiment with!
#houserules
@Baron:
1. The territory has an IPC value of 2 or greater
2. The territory contains a victory city
3. The territory has not been classified as an IslandIs the condition #1 is enough to built IC?
Is the condition #2 is enough to built IC?
Or is the condition #2 must be combined to #1?Maybe #1 and #2 must be simply combined with 3 to fix the conditions to built?
1. The territory has an IPC value of 2 or greater and has not been classified as an Island.2. The territory contains a Victory City and has not been classified as an Island.
The last addition is necessary to exclude Manilla and Honolulu as elligible territories.What do you think of it?
Other major changes include captured production units removed from the board, and limited eligible territories for minor factories (must have victory city).
If this is the case, there is no need at all to add this condition:“1. The territory has an IPC value of 2 or greater and has not been classified as an Island.”
This one is enough in itself: “2. The territory contains a Victory City and has not been classified as an Island.”
I reworded everything for clarification… Thanks.
Must be placed on a territory with a victory city, and an IPC value of 2 or greater.
This means that it is allowed to build an IC in Manilla’s VC territory but not in Hawaiian islands.
Are you OK with this?
@Baron:
Must be placed on a territory with a victory city, and an IPC value of 2 or greater.
This means that it is allowed to build an IC in Manilla’s VC territory but not in Hawaiian islands.
Are you OK with this?
I’m thinking it could be an interesting target for USA to liberate Philipines Islands and start producing some infantries every turn to get a steady flow to invade Japan.
Major Factory:
Produces up to 5 units
Maximum damage 10
Unoperational at 5 damage
Capable of building all units
May never be purchased, or upgradedminor industrial complexes now become major factories
Starting IC should now keep their name since their is no more limitation on types of units built and minor IC just getting a +2 unit production per turn.
What can be built should be named Factory.
So this “- Industrial Complexes may never be purchased” will be the only rule necessary.
No need to add “Major factories may never be purchased”, anymore.
You can say: “Only Factory can be built.”
What happen after a Sealion?
It will takes 1 turn to built a Factory and another turn to produce only 3 units.
It is doomed to be recaptured hastily.
And after?
Uk must built an IC to produce on another turn?
It seems wrong.
I rather suggest that any conquered IC is considered fully damaged.
Major need 20 to start to produce.
Minor needs 10.
A factory is destroyed.
After, all conquered must be fully repaired before producing any units.
In addition, each conquered and repair is treated as downgraded.
Major IC works as a Minor IC.
Minor works as a Factory.
But if it is liberated, they return to their nominal value and stay as it is.
Treat like OOB liberating IC or Capital.
I like this a lot and think it will definitely change the game. It will make Germany have to deal with supply lines but the Allies wont be able to produce in Normandy or S. France anymore either.
The only change I would suggest which goes along the guidelines of only producing an IC at a victory city is to allow Philippines to have a complex.
We can’t allow production units on the Philippines, remember that these rules are meant to balance the game, and giving Japan 3 eligible territories to spawn from doesn’t change things much in the Pacific. Also, it wouldn’t give the US a target as much as just tying their hands more because all captured production units must be removed from the board. I can’t change the names either, we spent 3 pages on this in Halifax rules and came full circle. KNP who came up with the idea of a mid level IC likes the names as they are as do others. Of course, all these things can be house ruled to fit your own games as you like. As for removing the British IC after sealion, that’s the penalty for losing your capital, and if it’s taken with 1 tabk left, good luck suppling it to defend from liberation. If I were Germany, I would be more worried about losing Western Germany’s IC… can’t rebuild anything there because there’s no VC.
I wouldn’t put a complex there to start but I would allow owners to build on the Philippines. For game balance I think that rule was created because of the DEI and the ability to build an IC there to capture India and Australia. You could always build on Kwangtung and have almost the same thing. With an IC in Kwangtung you can still reach Australia and even Burma but with ships. The Philippines was a very important group of islands in WW2. Even more than Caroline which in the game has more strategic value than the Philippines. If the Philippines could produce it would become a more important objective. If Japan built an IC there they would have to protect it. I really don’t see how it is game breaking. It would actually become more of a focal point in the pacific. Not only would USA want that island for its NO but now its a place to produce TTs, DDs and SS.
In the original game you could produce and build an IC in FIC for USA. By limiting IC’s to be built at victory cities the only place USA could build an IC is Kwangtung and that’s only if India is captured. They used to have the ability to build on FIC and Korea.
For the same reason that the Allies should have a NO for the DEI I think Japan should get a +5 NO for owning the Philippines like USA receives.
OK, I caved and made some really dramatic changes to simplify everything. It will also allow a factory on the Philippines.
Wow that is interesting… You removed the territory IPC requirement. That will allow an IC to be placed in Hawaii.
Wow that is interesting… You removed the territory IPC requirement. That will allow an IC to be placed in Hawaii.
Yep, to counter a Japanese IC in the Philippines
I agree, and its balanced.
I agree, and its balanced.
What do you think of the new additional rule, just trying to prevent the whole 100% theater of war tactics from the US.
@Baron:
What happen after a Sealion?
It will takes 1 turn to built a Factory and another turn to produce only 3 units.
It is doomed to be recaptured hastily.
And after?
Uk must built an IC to produce on another turn?
It seems wrong.
@Young:
I can’t change the names either, we spent 3 pages on this in Halifax rules and came full circle. KNP who came up with the idea of a mid level IC likes the names as they are as do others. Of course, all these things can be house ruled to fit your own games as you like. As for removing the British IC after sealion, that’s the penalty for losing your capital, and if it’s taken with 1 tabk left, good luck suppling it to defend from liberation. If I were Germany, I would be more worried about losing Western Germany’s IC… can’t rebuild anything there because there’s no VC.
Are you sure of doing this thing as you said?
Is it really the sole way to hinder Axis via production units?
It seems you will slow down the game a lot. A game which is already very time consuming OOB.
That’s why I suggested to fully damage ICs, instead. And downgraded it also.
It allows to keep the pace but the conqueror must pay around the same price to make it works at the beginning of the next turn.
There is probably other ways to make Axis pay more to produce units which can fit your intent.
But I really think that destroying IC (turn 1) -rebuilding IC (turn 2) -producing from IC (turn 3) are too much steps and will not be an interesting playing experience.
That’s my main concern here.
