Territory Income Bonus: for Classic, Revised, 1941/42.2 etc

First to CWOMarks question, about the fictitious rationalization within the broader production scheme, I would say that you can create any narrative you want to justify it. To my mind the economy/production scheme built into the game is already highly abstracted and not particularly analogous to any strict historical reality.

Basically the idea was to create the simplest possible rule that would allow for a high economy game, without having to redraw the map or change the base production values of territories. Otherwise it doesn’t do much good breathing new life into old games. The idea to separate the Boost phase and put it at the start was twofold. First to provide an incentive/advantage to holding territory for the duration of the round, and also to get the rule in effect from the very beginning of the game.

Like Flashman, I am not particularly fond of the double dip, but as Baron pointed out this rule seems to give the flavor of what happens when you reverse the collect income phase (and bring it forward), without distorting the overall money collected too much. Basically it was a game balance decision, because Germany and Russia in particular suffer disproportionately when you get rid of the double dip completely. That said, there is no reason you couldn’t add this rule into a game where collect income is reversed (from the end of the turn to the beginning.)

As for 1940 games and Global, it is hard to say. Those games are already so rules intensive, and the number of nations and the situation concerning neutrals etc. departs quite a bit from the more basic games like Classic, Revised, and 1942.2 for which this rule was developed. The rule works in AA50, but with the National Objectives it probably adds too much money for most peoples tastes, and then there is the annoying question about how to handle China. So I would say that the rule works for the simple 5 power games, but would probably have to be adapted for the more advanced games.

Territory Income Bonus or Boost, was just something generic that we settled on, but I’m all ears when it comes to a stronger name. I did associate it somewhat with national prestige or the propaganda value of small victories/losses, but ultimately I was more concerned with the game play, and the simplicity of introduction, than in the rationalization. My view is that, if you can rationalize the disparity in OOB Russian income vs say Japan, then you can pretty much rationalize anything in this game. Of more interest to me is what the rule does in terms of purchasing options and broader gameplay strategies. Even a slight boost to Russia is major, and gives them much more forward fighting capability than they would otherwise be able to pull off. The Axis bonus has the potential to be considerable, but the Western Powers also have many more options, especially in the first round. In play testing I have found that, at least for 1942.2 this rule negates the need for an Allied bid.

I also believe that this rule is the simplest way to encourage fighting over all those valueless territories. The Lesser pacific islands. Even territories like Iceland or Greenland could come into play. The difference between +1 on the bonus and +0 in the normal game, makes all the difference here. I’d say you have to try it to see what I mean. Let me know if you get a chance to. I’d love to hear if you guys like the effect on gameplay.

Its seems pretty solid. I like getting the VCs in there. There is nothing in that rule you propose that leads me to think it wouldn’t work.

Basically the wording on the Territory Income Bonus rule proposed above was to keep it as simple as possible. Often I find with a house rule, the simpler the explanation the more likely it is that I can persuade someone to try it.

Honestly though, the amount of money introduced here is distributed in a much more balanced way than you might expect. I was surprised actually at how well it seemed to work. Now I think the game is more balanced when you add in the extra cash Axis vs Allies, which is why I think it negates the need for a bid. We have tried KGF and KJF games as Allies. We have tried most of the standard Axis strategies, the Tank drive east, full Sea Lion, Inf wall, bombers and subs, mixed ground, and Med fleet openings. With Japan we have tried standard tank drive, KJF survival, the northern route, the southern route, UK squeeze, even invasion north America (though that failed, as one might expect, J still held W. Coast US for a round, which was awesome!) Basically if you like the idea of more units on the board I think you’ll dig it.

I have long felt that the overall economy in A&A was too low. Not way off, but just a little too low. For people to buy some of the more exotic units or to experiment with unconventional buys/strats. Having just 10-15 extra ipcs per nation can be huge. The ability to buy a carrier deck say, or drop 3 tanks, or actually afford a new battleship, makes the game highly enjoyable. Basically you have several options, instead of just a couple select “winning openings.” Ultimately what it comes down to is the effect of unit replacement over starting units. By introducing the boost money, you make the replacement cost of the starting units easier to absorb. So you can afford to risk them to do more, knowing that they are somewhat easier to replace. Mistakes and one sides battles, become slightly less devastating, and it is a bit easier for the underdog to recover. The endgame feels deeper, and games tend to last longer. And you really don’t have to change much to get it working, just the one simple rule. Once you get used to the territory income bonus it only takes a couple seconds to implement. I’m hoping people might try it and let us know how the games went. So far all of mine have been pretty epic, I want to give more anecdotal evidence, but I know that you have to see it work to see it work.

UK and Japan start larger, but they can be squeezed out too, with effort. Russia gets a leg up, but they have to fight to retain their purchasing power. It’s the same with Germany. Folding into a defensive ball isn’t everything anymore. If USA doesn’t fight for territory (even the 0 ipc islands, or china) then they start to get outclassed by Japan. So it’s to their advantage to fight. Basically it’s to everyone’s advantage to fight, even with the double dip still in effect for normal income. The bonus alone makes you start to play in ways that make more intuitive sense for a game that is supposed to be war. You don’t just want to smash and grab, and give up ground back and forth endlessly. You want to hold the territory for the round, so you get the bonus, and you want to steal it away from the enemy before they get a chance to collect their bonus. Maybe it is a half measure or compromise between moving the collect income phase to the beginning of the turn, and just the normal game rules with the double dip we’ve gotten used to. But it works. It works pretty well I think. I haven’t been able to break the game yet no bid when this rule was in play. And it’s been fun, so that is encouraging. I hope people will give it a shot and let me know how things went :)

Its easier to count than you’d think. Once you start to see the groupings.
For example, all of North and South America (with Greenland) is 10 for US, plus Hawaii and midway that’s 12, the four china spaces etc. At the start the Japanese pacific islands including Formosa (and honestly, when was the last time you played a game where Formosa mattered? well now it does hehe!) all those are 10, taken together with Japan is 11. Anyway, the point is, once you’ve counted the bonus a couple times it starts to become intuitive. I never even realized for example, until I tried this house rule, how many territories each nation actually controls at the start of the game (including all the 0 ipcs territories.) Or that there were 70 total territories. Because in normal games much of that land doesn’t matter or influence anything. I don’t know, I’m not saying it’s for everyone. But it is a relatively easy way to get more money into the game, without having to do a bunch of complex/nation specific rules. And it doesn’t distort the OOB so much that it changes the core game. One of the reasons why I tried to come up with this rule in the first place, was because people in my gaming group where having difficulty tracking house national objectives. This was a much easier way to bring money into the game, without tying it to a bunch of detailed conditions that had to be tracked, or multi part rules that were hard to explain. This rule is easy. In it’s simplest form you can write it out like this

Bonus = +1 ipc for each territory that a Nation controls at the start of their turn

It has an elegant simplicity to it. It takes less time to figure out than normal income collection (where you are always subtracting or adding from the start position, “up here”, “but down there” to figure out what you are owed etc.) Here all territories are treated in the same way, so its universal, and easier to adopt across the board.

Also I should clarify, when I say expect a longer game, I mean more rounds into the endgame. The pace of the gameplay remains the same or very similar. The additional phase is fast, if anything it just makes the purchasing phase more engaging since you have more build options available. More units means more rolling, but that’s one of the most exciting parts of the game anyway.

I have 10 vegas style dice, and they get the job no problem. This is just an aside, but you should all get vegas style dice if you can. The dice that come with the game OOB have rounded corners and depressed marks for the numbers. There is a reason you will never ever see dice like that used is Las Vegas. I’d say more but it is too mind blowing for this thread. Google it if you’re curious :)

well the main reason to avoid fractions is that this is a base 1 game. There is no 50 cent ipc piece. So what would you do in the situation where a nation has 3 territories etc. Round up? Round down? I find it easier to just avoid that problem altogether by working with base 1.

I also can’t see a reason to hold the money down like that by halving it. The board has a natural balance built in, which this house rule takes advantage of. And it produces numbers in that range. And that range leads to pretty fun gameplay. The money is not as crazy as you’d think. Once the time comes to actually buy units with that extra money you discover pretty quickly that you’re still limited in what sorts of builds you can pull off. Plus the situation at the start of the game is subject to change as well, depending on what people do, so these value balance further as the game progresses.

I think the longer game duration has more to do with the psychological effect of more toys (units) you have to play with, and the natural conservatism that A&A favors to the built in inf push mechanics, but you could end the game sooner by throwing everything into the fight. I have just found that most of my games play deeper into the endgame.

Is it that important to count it another time than income phase?

Yes I think it is important to separate the bonus from the normal collect income phase for this reason: doing it at the same time adds complexity to the simple counting/adding process. If it is a separate phase you are only counting one thing at a time, instead of counting 2 things at one time. Do you see what I mean?
What might seem to you in the abstract as “counting twice” is actually easier to do than adding this number during collect income phase. In the collect income phase you are counting the printed numbers on the mapboard (or adding/subtracting from the starting income number). In the bonus phase you are counting the total number of all territories controlled 1 per. If you try to do both these mental math processes at the same time it introduces unnecessary confusion and becomes impractical. I know because I tried it that way first, and we would lose track. This way is much easier.
It provides a nice clean division. Once at the start of the turn, once at the end.
You can still drink beer and do this, I promise :)

Also, doing it at a separate time (which just happens to be at the start of the turn) has additional benefits. There is the advantage to gaining territory and holding it for the round, which has some cool/positive effects on the gameplay hinted at above. It also gives Russia that 35 ipcs at the start, since the bonus happens at the beginning of the first turn. And that is hugely balancing since Russia has the initiative in the standard games.

I do recommend the paper money as well. It makes all the difference. If you have AA50 or one of the older boards, or even monopoly. I deeply lament the loss of paper money, I truly believe it is part of the game. Counters do not satisfy me in the least.

what does it represent in terms of the game’s fictitious economic system?  In the OOB rules, each territory generates IPCs at a prescribed value which reflects how much economic importance (population, industrial base, raw materials, etc.) the territory has in the game’s behind-the-scenes economic model.  So each territory’s OOB IPC value represents the full economic output of which it is capable, and this value gets collected in full by whoever owns that territory.  In other words, in the OOB rules, ownership of territory affects who gets that territory’s IPCs but not the number of IPCs itself. What would be the rationale, therefore, for the number of IPCs increasing simply by virtue of the fact that the territory has a certain ownership status at a certain point of the game?  Does this added value just appear out of nowhere?  Or does it reflect some tangible factor which raises the territory’s gross domestic product (to borrow the term that economists would probably use for IPCs)?

First the goal of the house rule is to increase the full economic output capable, to increase the totals across the board, but to do so in a way which is not overly distorting with game balance.

How about this. If the printed number represents the aggregate of all production capacity possible in a given territory at a given point in the game, then the bonus could represent that territory being integrated with the rest of a Nation’s territories and logistics network . This is a baseline value since each territory is at 1. The printed IPCs are still distributed the same way they always are during the normal collect income phase at the end of the turn. The bonus represents whatever kind of “collective industrial benefit” you want to imagine that comes from holding these possessions integrated at the start of the turn. Keeping it at 1 universally keeps it simple. You don’t have to redraw the map or redesign the system, just add the simple thing on top of it. I think this takes the behind the scenes economic model up to higher level, increasing the totals by about a third, which is comfortable. It’s not super high, but it makes a difference.

Yes but a bunch of new NOs are rules intensive. Force multipliers sound pretty rules intensive too. Anything that takes longer than a line to explain, and anything that takes more than a minute to track, is going to fall apart for a lot of people, and has less chance of working across multiple boards.

I think I come from a school of players, perhaps a different one than many people here, that thinks even the basic AA game is already at the upper limit of complexity for the vast majority of people. Its really hard to teach people how to play these games already. So when I come up with a house rule, I prefer a rule which is universal in its application (the same for each player/nation and across the map) as opposed to a nuanced one.  I really don’t favor complex rules. What I am trying to do here is get money into the basic games, with an even distribution, without resorting to complex rules. Hence the very simple rule outlined above. This is because I feel that the gameplay is more enjoyable when this extra money is included. The basic production values are unchanged, which is why it is described generically as a bonus.

NOs are highly nuanced, they are nation specific and territory specific. Just look at the gamebook page in AA50. It takes paragraphs to lay out, and then all that information has to be tracked and held in mind (and if you’re on the board you don’t have a computer to do this for you.) Also, it has been done before many times. People have binders full of house rules like that. This forum is replete with threads describing such nuanced rules, specific to certain situations. I am trying to do something somewhat different here, by making it universal rather than specific.

I guess to CWO Marcs point, I do think that it’s somewhat arbitrary, arbitrary in the base game I mean, to have a base zero value for so many territories on the board. Basically Larry made a decision to round down to zero instead of up to 1 for the baseline. Which is fine, but it strikes me as a low economy way to do it. If you enjoy a high economy game, as I do, this house rule is a very simple way to get one, without breaking the set up or changing the mechanics/rules so substantially that it becomes a different game.

This rule is way of getting closer to a base 1 territory value, without upsetting too much the overall production aspect of the game. I’m not saying it’s wrong at base zero, but it can work the other way, which is why I feel that it is arbitrary. If you play a few rounds with this rule in effect you will see what I am driving at. To my mind the explanation or justification is secondary to the positive gameplay effects. I mean, I guess if you want to help me here, then lets come up with a way to describe the bonus which is more inclusive to satisfy your desire for the historical connection or to fold it within a broader IPC discussion that holds for you. But the rule already works in its simple formulation, so I am reluctant to modify it too much, because then I don’t know if it would actually hold up in game.

I guess what I like is the idea that I player could select at the outset whether they wanted to play a high or low economy game, or if you like, a long game or a short game. And this rule provides a mechanic to take it from low (normal) to high (with the bonus) without changing anything else beyond the addition of this simple phase. Does that make sense? Also, this input is all excellent. I do value such thoughtful analysis and commentary as is being provided in this thread.

First to CWO Marc: What you just laid out was in fact the very first thing I tried. But the problem came in doubling all the territories that had a base value of 2 ipcs or more. :)

It was easy enough to change the 0s to 1s, and the 1s to 2s, but doubling the 2s to 4s and the 3s to 6s, is where it gets all out of whack. This is actually what convinced me that there was some underlying weirdness to the base 0 arrangement in the first place. There is also something kind of magical about that base 3 ipc territory (worth exactly the replacement cost of a single infantry, and desireable as a potential factory location) which you kind of lose by simple doubling.

The next idea we had was to simply add 1 to all territories across the board, effectively raising the printed production numbers by +1. This held up much better, and it comes very close to working. But again the problem was with the factories. This time it was the new factories rather than the starting ones, which become problematic. Because adding 1 directly to the production totals, makes every space at OOB 1, into 2 and thus viable for a factory. (Mainly this was a tank drive issue, esp. for Japan.) There was also an issue with the double dip, where if you added the numbers into normal production/income, you made that double dip even more extreme.

It was at that point we tried separating the bonus cash into a separate phase, and putting it at the beginning of the turn. Using the simple count and add method. Which, much to my surprise, actually worked and rather well. So that’s why I offered it as a viable house option for high economy games on the basic boards.

To Baron:
The only issue I see arising from the “just conquered territory” thing, is that it requires players to track the games history. What I mean is that, at a glance, it might not be so easy to remember who conquered what and when. Especially if there is a break in the game, and you come back to it later. So if you want to do it that way, I think you’ll have a situation where people might get confused about the amount of the bonus. It could work though, it just seems a little more complicated than what I was shooting for.

I also think 5 ipcs per Nation is a bit low to have much impact, since that doesn’t even allow for the purchase of an additional tank in games like 1942. It doesn’t really bring things from Low to High economy. But if the goal is just to lower the overall bonus, then I suppose you could borrow from a game like risk, and divide the total by 1/3 (or maybe 1/2 but I would probably favor thirds since infantry costs 3 so there is a kind of built in 1/3 to the game already), but you’d have to round down in that case not up to find the total if you wanted it.

The only problem I have with that (aside from the additional math) is that it creates a baseline of <1 which is inherently more complicated than just 1. Anytime you work with fractions. And the total of 70 territories is not divisible by 3, so you’d always have a remainder somewhere. 1/2 might work, but again, it disproportionately advantages nations which can hold an even number of territories instead of an odd. I’m also not sure .5 ipcs would make enough of a differences in persuading someone to go for a base zero ipc territory like Caroline Islands or Iceland. Whereas 1 ipc does seem to make enough difference, or at least that has been the experience in every game we’ve tried with this rule in play.

When the bonus gets you into double digits +10, +15 etc it changes the purchasing options in a way that +5 doesn’t. When the totals across the board go up by a third, it effects the overall unit replacement costs, which mitigates the straight-jacket of the OOB starting unit set up somewhat. With the effect that the whole game isn’t tied to it anymore. Now you can do other things, because your purchasing power is increased. Instead the game becomes more about what units are purchased each round, with less emphasis on the starting unit arrangement and the opening round battles. It doesn’t eliminate that starting unit emphasis completely, but it does provide for more flexibility as the game goes on.

Anytime, I always enjoy discussing this stuff, and the people here always have great feedback and thoughtful responses :)

Yeah, the double dip is interesting. On the one hand it is hard to get rid of completely, because the basic game is built in such a way that Russia, Germany and UK are all dependent upon it to maintain economic parity with each other. But at the same time if you try to up the money via the printed production value universally +1, then that same double dip starts to swing more dramatically. This is why it seemed simpler to detach a bonus from the production values, so you are adding in money without altering production, and then put it into a kind of seperate phase based on the total territory controlled count. When you stick that phase right before unit purchase, it seems to work out nicely in terms of the overall flow of the gameplay. Pretty easy to adopt, not too much additional math or too many additional things to track, but it gets that money into play. What’s cool about it I think, is that it allows the double dip to persist, but then gives this extra bonus which encourages holding territory rather than trading it. So you get a little of both in play, but it’s not overly distorting.

For example, Germany can retain their sizeable double dip/normal income pretty easily, but they start to drop on the bonus cash as the game goes on, if they cease to expand and instead fall into the defensive ball. Russia has a similar problem, and also the inherent problem of being the nation with the least amount of land and normal money. But they do get a slight edge, since the western allies can recover their territory so it is held at the start of their turn (thus giving the bonus.) And this is in the tradition of A&A I think, where part of the western allies job to win, is to support Russia. The part that I like best though, is what this rule does to the Japanese/American game. And it’s hard to explain in words what goes on here but I think of it like this.

With this rule in play, if Allies go full KGF and ignore all land at 0 ipcs (which has been traditional on many boards) Japan grows monster on the bonus. If Allies go full KJF and ignore all land at 0 pics, the same thing happens with Germany, they grow monster. So in a way the rule encourages the Allied split theater game. Which usually never works on any A&A board because the Allies don’t have enough money to support it, so they opt all one way. But now the Allies can get enough money to make that playstyle effective. And they are encouraged to do so especially by the Japanese position against the US/UK in full KGF, or the Sea Lion potential of Germany if they go full KJF. Again its harder to show, but the values seem to work. Or at least, if more people try, I am hopeful to get actual feedback from games. Allied wins, Axis wins, after action reports :)

Oh wow, I didn’t realize there was such a robust discussion going on there. I thought my post on the Larry Boards just fell flat, didn’t know it was picked up here. I just read through those posts right now, solid feedback. :)

I think I get a better sense now for CWOMarc’s position as well, when people try to conflate production value with things that clearly can’t be considered strictly “production.” I would say just as an aside though, that in my mind I have always regarded IPCs as generic game points. Even though they are used to model the game’s economy, I have always found it hard to be terribly strict in my interpretation of what they are supposed to represent in the story of the game. I am perfectly comfortable adapting the language of their definition, if it will get rid of the zero ipc territory phenomenon. Nothing would have pleased me more than if that acronym IPC was left undefined, or at least less defined.

I will make these simple points, which I think argue for some flexibility here, in terms of the relationship between discrete geographic units (territories) and how they relate to production:

In Classic Western Europe is worth 6 ipcs, and encompasses the same geography that is now split into two territories (France, and NorthWestern Europe) which taken together are worth 8 ipcs total in 1942.2

In Revised Southern Europe is worth 6 ipcs, and encompasses the same geography that is now split into two territories (Italy, and Southern Europe) now worth a 5 ipcs total in 1942.2

In Revised French Indo-China is worth 3, now it’s broken up into Burma, FIC and Malaya worth 4 all together.

Okinawa used to be 1 ipc, now its worth 0 etc

And changes like this have happened in each iteration of the game, dozens of times, all across the mapboard. There is routine movement and adjustment of ipcs values all the time, plus 1 here minus 1 there, and territories have been divided and merged countless times. This with the effect that the overall ipcs that a particular region of the map (described as a territory) produces have changed several times already. If the values were strict in the real world/historical sense, then you shouldn’t be able to just break the map apart to add more territories or alter the IPC values. It would bust the internal logic of the behind the scenes economy wouldn’t it? But that doesn’t seem to be the case, as evidenced by the frequent changes (either to the geography or the production associated with it), and the fact that we just accept these changes as given, everytime a new mapboard comes out. So if there is enough freedom to do all that, shouldn’t there be some flexibility when it comes to making all territories of the map worth at least 1?

I mean, if it makes the game more fun, to me that seems totally doable.