Try this…

SBR would be DEVASTATING under that scenario…
And the Axis would ahve a MASSIVE advantage since they start with more initial units, AND since the Allies have to buy very expensive Naval units early in order to get into the game.

SBR Moscow and drive like hell on Moscow from Germany and Japan… Russia would be out of it before the Allies even geared up their fleets…

Id rather just limit infantry buys to 50% of your income. That solves the problem and alot of other problems with the game as well.

I always liked limiting the number of infantry you can sustain on the board to the number of IPCs you have.  So Germany, at the start of a classic game, could only have 32 infantry total.  If they loose the growing fields of the Ukraine they can only have 29 infantry now.  If they get reduced to only Berlin, they can only have 10 infantry.

Forces different types of units.

So if they lose say 15 IPC in a single turn … and they are allready maxed on infantry limits they lose potentially 15 units at the end of their turn? Then they can never take anything back.

If you just use the 50% rule then no matter what other units have a chance to be built and its across the board fair for everybody. Its kinda like your sugesstion in a way because the more you take the more infantry you can buy, while the other units are not impacted by the ups and downs of your system. In your system its possible that a player will buy even more infantry to make up for anticipated loses on his enemies player turn just to avoid the “cutoff” of infantry builds after losing IPC.

I think the 50% rule is unneeded.

A skilled player will know that pure INF is a bad move, that the best forces, offensive or defensive, is a mixture of INF and other units.  Sure, they MAY go heavy on INF to build up some defense when pushed, but INF don;t win battles.

And besides, there are very viable strats using INF/ART combos that would be limitted by an INF restriction.

Anyone build ALL INF is in a losing position, period.

so what your saying by inference is on average if you buy more than 50% of infantry you will lose the game?

I am saying that the 50% rule is to prevent folks from buying all INF.  But under normal game conditions, no one buys all INF until they are in deep kimchee already.

I dunno, I’ve seen some successful games where Germany wins Russia with almost nothing BUT infantry (supported by whatever fighters she still had.)

But how realistic is it to have 100 infantry divisions in Europe?  Was there that much food to feed that much?

That type of game is uncommon. The 50% rule does not interfere with what anybody does really, because in ncscswitch case he will never go over this cap to win. Jennifer’s play may exceed the cap on infantry in games where its a game of huge infantry stacks and everybody is too timid to have combat. This rule can be applied to AA europe and 2nd edition as well.

“But how realistic is it to have 100 infantry divisions in Europe?  Was there that much food to feed that much?”

The solution as you have presented seems too artifical because the total flows too much as a direct relationship of how you did the last turn. Additionally it does not take into account any money saved up over a period of turns… so now you cant buy what you want because you may have been in a bad turn where the allies take everything in site and now you cant buy additional units to counter attack or spend the saved money due to the cap.

Even in a Fortress Europe for Germany, or a Fortress Moscow for Russia, there are still other units being bought besides INF.  Sure, once things get REALLY bad for either nation, they go to 100% INF.  But until then ART and ARM are almost always in the mix, and the occasional FIG is not uncommon.

Once you go 100% INF in most games, that is an indication that you are losing.  There are exceptions of course (for example when Germany and/or Russia have spent their forward INF but have saved their punch forces and need to replenish their INF supply for subsequent combat) but even then the INF builds are usually to restore force balance… to get enough INF to accompany those ART/ARM/FIGs to the front for battle.

The thing with major INF builds is simple…
If you are on the OFFENSIVE and are building massed INF, then you already have lots of other forces (ART/ARM/AF) to use, you just need “fodder” to replace losses, and/or to secure the homeland.
If you are on the defensive, INF is nice bulk, but still is best when backed by some ARM and FIGs to increase your punch on defense.  A pure INF defense is a losing strat that can be strafed into oblivion.

So really, in a high grade game, there is no reason for limits on units.  A good player creates their own balance of forces… otherwise they are not really a good player are they?

In the endgame the need to prevent all infantrybuys is a good idea because people are prolonging the bitter end by going that route. It improves and simplifies the picture of who is winning and losing so longer games where the conclusion is allready drawn are not played. Its not a function other than to improve realism and game play.

Thus russia and germany cannot spin a web and sit on stacks for too long if they face defeat.

There are also some very viable strats the involve a given nation building huge INF stacks, while their allies go hard core offensive.  There is one for the Allies with Russia being an INF guru, and one for the Axis with Germany being an INF guru.

Both are solid game winning strats.  And I would hate to see them removed from play because of a rule that arbitrailly limits INF buys.

BTW:  That rule most significantly impacts Russia, and only slightly less, Germany.  Next in line would be the Japan Strat usign massed INF and ART combos with fodder.  Then the North Africa Dominance Strat goes out the window as well.  All are well proven, very solid strats.

@Jennifer:

But how realistic is it to have 100 infantry divisions in Europe?  Was there that much food to feed that much?

i thinkn itis very realistic. after i read this subject i got the idea for this varient i’m amking up to limit the infantry based on the manpower fit for miltary. but this does not work beacuse at 1000000 people equaling 1 inf the united states alone would have a limit of 55 with only men and india 250. and theh inf in axis and allies revised represetn a much smaller number so i think it is quite possible to support 100 infantry in europe. i think it is a good idea to limit infantry but i don’t think its realistic.  what about having a death toll rule wher if a certain number of inf die of that country they production for either the war or inf is producecd sorta like what happen  in vietnam. too many deaths for america and france.

“arbitrailly limits INF buys.”

BTW:  That rule most significantly impacts Russia, and only slightly less, Germany.  Next in line would be the Japan Strat usign massed INF and ART combos with fodder.  Then the North Africa Dominance Strat goes out the window as well.  All are well proven, very solid strats.

OK first you say that buying mostly infantry is a bad move so the 50% rule is not necessary… then you now say its very important to be able to buy mostly infantry for at least 2 nations… we cant have the cake and eat it too. To make the game more realistic, historical and play balance this rule reflects a real need for the following:

1. help end “infantry push mechanic” (which according to your own comments their cannot be such a thing because a good player will not buy mostly infantry

2. bring value to other units by the fact that you have to spend at least 50% of your money on them

3. simplify your position

4. speed up “infantry bunker strategy”

5. Improve realism ( no nation can just all of a sudden invest 100% of its income on infantry)… their is no such thing as an unlimited supply of infantry…

6. end the Infantry Bunker strategy… which wastes time hastening an allready decided outcome.

What I have said is that all INF buys are generally bad, balance is far better.

What I ahve also said is that there are viable strats where one PART of an alliance goes all or mostly INF, and the other carries the heavy unit burden (thus the balance of force is achived for the entire alliance rather than for a specific nation.

Also realize that there IS a viable historical component to a massive INF build… peasant levies.  A massive arming of the general populace to attempt to throw back an invader.

I would also add that the INF mechanic was dramatically changed in Revised over Classic for several reasons…
the addition of ART to make INF a stronger offensive unit.
the increase of ARM to 3/3 making them a viable purchse for increased defensive power.
the decreased cost of FIGs

Personally I like a 6:1 ratio Infantry to Armor in Classic.  5:2:1 Infantry, Artillery, Armor ratio in Revised.  But gosh does it suck when you look at that stack of 50 million infantrymen on Moscow!

the realism path is a clean way to correct situations

no infantry limit per game
but important to have per turn limit