I was wondering, what effect would it have on the game if newly purchased IC’s had unlimited production? Would this unbalance the game further? I think it’s an interesting idea, and I’m always curious to see what the community has to say … Or, alternatively, what if all the IC’s were limited (I’m talking “classic” version here)? As in, the Karelia IC could only plop out 3 units a turn, Southern Europe could only put out 6 …
All IC’s limitted would be a VERY interesting game! Would force Allies to spread out a bit, and would also put something other than INF on the board in Europe.
Unlimitted IC’s makes it so the Axis doesn;t ahve a prayer, period. Just put a UK tank factory in Persia and a US tank factory in Sinkiang… game over for the Axis.
I suppose it would hurt the Axis too much, thanks to the Allies econ advantage … But perhaps if even original IC’s were limited by their country’s IPC output, it would hurt the Allies more than the Axis (although Japan might be challenged by it)
I suppose it would hurt the Axis too much, thanks to the Allies econ advantage … But perhaps if even original IC’s were limited by their country’s IPC output, it would hurt the Allies more than the Axis (although Japan might be challenged by it)
I am not sure if “hurt” would be the right word. It would certainly CHANGE the strategies for some nations.
Russia would see the biggest impact and a quick heavy strike by Germany could very dramatically shift the tone of the war. Not an auto win for Germany though since UK would still be able to build tranny’s and land forces at about their normal rate even at 8 units per round production. After a few rounds though, UK MIGHT be a little limitted in re-filling tranny’s; if their fleet were to get large enough. US would not be effected at all. Twelve units per round out of Eastern should meet ALL of their needs (that would be a total INF buy at starting IPC’s). Karelia might change hands more often since Russia would have to move troops in instead of build massive numbers there; but UK and US would still be importing at same rate.
Germany would have an advantage in Africa though. With the shift of most of Russia’s forces 1 territory east, US and UK have to focus immediately on Karelia, allowing Germany to take and hold Africa for far longer. That IPC shift would be very helpful to Germany.
Japan would be little hindered. 8 units per round is about what they build early on with their combined tranny and land forces build. By the time the limitation would kick in on land forces, Japan would be in a position that a continental IC would be advisable anyway.
Germany would suffer no great restriction at all. with Germany and Southern, they can produce 12 units per round, all of them the same distance from Russian territories. If Germany’s IPC’s spiked to the point where 12 units actually started to limit them, a slight shift to some more expensive units (a fighter instead of 4 INF) might not be such a bad idea anyway.
@ncscswitch:
All IC’s limitted would be a VERY interesting game! Would force Allies to spread out a bit, and would also put something other than INF on the board in Europe.
Unlimitted IC’s makes it so the Axis doesn;t ahve a prayer, period. Just put a UK tank factory in Persia and a US tank factory in Sinkiang… game over for the Axis.
I agree wholeheartedly, if the US and UK put up an Asian Wall strategy with unlimited factories they could easily knock Japan off the mainland quickly. It wouldn’t help Germany or Russia really but once Finland/Norway fell, assuming it was either the US or UK…
This would kill the Axis
Cool - I’m gonna give it (all IC’s limited) a shot next time I play … I’ll let you know how it goes.
Seems like the Allies would always win if you had the option of building factories. The Axis right away lose their advantage of better positioning, not to forget the Allies obvious economic advantage as well. I dont see the Axis side ever winning against smart Allied player if you dont use the factories restricted option.
i never played the first edition rules of axis and allies (going way back from the 80’s) but i’ve been told by many people that unlimited placements at ics were used in that edition. they said that it was much worse for the axis. the allies would build an ic in persia and the axis couldn’t do anything about it. it was almost impossible for germany to reach it let alone keep it and uk didn’t have to build transports to help russia or take back africa. too much of a game imbalance.
i never played the first edition rules of axis and allies (going way back from the 80’s) but i’ve been told by many people that unlimited placements at ics were used in that edition. they said that it was much worse for the axis. the allies would build an ic in persia and the axis couldn’t do anything about it. it was almost impossible for germany to reach it let alone keep it and uk didn’t have to build transports to help russia or take back africa. too much of a game imbalance.
Only original IC’s were unlimmited, and then only when held by the original owner.
that sounds like 2nd or 3rd edition rules (i.e. “original” axis and allies), not 1st edition. are you sure? i’m taking about the very 1st edition… an edition basically no one plays anymore.
Apparently I began playing after 2nd Ed had already rolled out…
AFter looking at my 2nd ed manual, where it lists the changes made in 2nd ed, it does indeed state that the rules for cpatured and new IC’s have changed… they are now limitted.
I stand corrected.
that sounds like 2nd or 3rd edition rules (i.e. “original” axis and allies), not 1st edition. are you sure? i’m taking about the very 1st edition… an edition basically no one plays anymore.
The 1st ed was w/ unlimited IC’s. Even ones you purchased.
Very unbalanced b/c GBR would get an IC for Persia, and move all of the India units to Sinkiang to allow US to buy the IC on the first round. Round 2 and beyond sees $ 60+/turn worth of allied armor pouring onto the Eurasia landmass to take everything over.
