Upon re-reading my original post I realized I did not state my full reasons for wanting to limit/change the stacks of infantry that inevitably begin to grow.
One of my issues with the stacks of infantry is the historical issues behind it. Let’s use Germany as the example. In 1938 Germany had 36 infantry divisions of 600,000 trained men. By 1939 the German Army had 98 divisions totaling 1.5 million well-trained men available for action. In 1940 they had 2.5 million for the invasion of France and in 1941, for operation Barbarossa, they had approx. 3 million. However, in 1943, after the Battle of Stalingrad, Germany lowered their physical qualifications and changed their age requirements for conscription to boys as young as 16 and men as old as 60, due to the losses they incurred throughout Russia and, for that matter, the War. From the sick to domestic prisoners, any and all were required to fight. Even getting to the point that those who were 50% Jewish were required to sign up. All these units were ill-equipped and/or trained.
In A&A when a territory is able and allowed to consistently build full strength infantry, despite possible losses in territory(which would be a loss for the pool of men available), machinery, weaponry, etc., it goes against, in my opinion, the reality of what actually happened.
As countries begin to fold in A&A (and reality) it’s a fact that their power would begin to wane. In this case, there is no way a 16 year old boy or a 60 year old man, ill-equipped, would fight as strong as a 22 year old who has been through several weeks of training and has been properly equipped.
The reduced IPCs one gets from losing territory certainly affects how many tanks, aircraft, etc. you can get. This is a perfect representation of the diminished capacity of a losing nation. However, the idea that you can stack infantry, at 3IPCs, would be correct if not for the full strength they are mobilized at. This is where I came up with the idea of Russian Citizen Soldiers at 2IPCs for A0D1M1 idea, not the greatest, I know. Again, it seems to lengthen the game unnecessarily.
I have thought of lowering defensive value when over a certain amount of infantry in a territory, but that wouldn’t be consistent because most good armies would send their lesser troops to the front line. Penalizing a particular area wouldn’t work. If you project this idea over a country you would need a whole other chart to track, which would lengthen the entire game, possibly. I have thought of using each areas IPC value to determine the number you could build but that would make the game unbalanced, I think. As my original post indicated, I thought of doing the opposite, unsuccessfully I may add, and increase some offensive numbers but it still does not solve the HISTORICAL PROBLEM of armies getting weaker as they begin to lose.
Unfortunately, for me, I do not have an answer sufficient enough to fix this, perceived, problem, which is why I have brought it to you…
Thank you all for your responses!