I very much agree with that idea, they are already clearly abstractions. Might as well make them abstractions that make gameplay better!
I very much agree with that idea, they are already clearly abstractions. Might as well make them abstractions that make gameplay better!
This was my thinking exactly.
I know that the original intention of the IPC distribution scheme on the gameboard was meant to create an analogy to real world industry, but I think of it like this:
First ask yourself; How important is it really, the difference between 1 ipc and 2 ipcs, from the standpoint of historical accuracy? (esp. given that the numbers are already highly abstracted anyway)
Now ask yourself instead; How important is the difference between 1 ipc and 2 ipcs, from the standpoint of the gameplay mechanics? I would argue that the difference in this case is considerable. Its the difference between a possible factory location or not, and whether or not someone is willing to risk an inf unit to nab the space. Its also significant in another more subtle way, just when casually assessing the value of different regions on the map. A territory at 1 ipc might not seem worth moving out of a more tactically advantageous position to try and acquire, but make it 2 ipcs and you suddenly see a whole different psychology at work.
Its such a simple adjustment compared to many of the others that we’ve made over the years… I’m wondering why we couldn’t just adopt something like this as a way to encourage more historical conflict patterns?
Black Elk,
I like your thinking. I realize this is just brain storming, so here is an idea we use to partially accomplish, what your indicating, though I think this has a smaller footprint within game balance; We use several historic rules(AAHE.)
One of them allows a player to raise (place) infantry only (from your turns purchase phase) on victory cities, Qty limited to territoral IPC limits. I like this mechanic, small but with large impact.
A member of our group idea, we adopted, a new factory doubles the IPC value, for unit placement only, of any territory it is placed.
Some small suggestions, not mine, other players devised them,
just ones we use to enhance our game.
It is my opinion that the value of land territories is correct as in the present maps. What really need to be done, is to give some sea zones an IPC income, because they were important shipping lanes to international trade. In AA50 only Italy get bonus for some sea zones. I think some sea zones should be treated as wet territories with IPC income to the nation that controlls them with a surface combat ship.
I like the idea of sea zones giving additional IPC value, given the amount of trade and/or resources that could be derived from them, such as the Grand Banks off of Newfoundland, or the Caribbean trade for the US, with bauxite coming from Jamaica, and oil from Venezuela and refined petroleum products from Dutch Curacoa and Aruba.
I have juggled IPC a bit in the A&A Pacific game, in making the Netherlands a 6th player. Since I took the Dutch East Indies production from Australia, I boosted New Zealand to 2 as a major food supplier, and added 1 IPC to New Caledonia, as it was and still is a major source of nickel ore, nickel being a vital component of armor. I then have it set so that if the Japanese player captures Borneo, his cost to produce ships is reduced by 2 because of an increase in his oil supply, and if he captured Malaya, his cost to produce aircraft is reduced by 2 because of the ready availability of rubber.
To Bluestroke:
I’ve played a number of games using that house rule (going all the way back to classic) and while it seems cool at first, for areas of the map like India, its also problematic for other areas like Karelia, France, or Kwangtung. On top of that, by using the inf placement rule, you totally nerf the value of the factory unit in most games. I think it sounds good on paper, but ends up pushing the gameplay in a somewhat different direction from the original intention. I’m also not sure it would do much to promote island hoping in the Pacific, unless you removed the VC restriction on placement (and I could see that really messing with the situation on the Eastern Front.) Maybe I’ll revisit the rule in AA50 though, to see how it plays under the new arrangement. :)
To Tim and Aldertag:
I also like the idea of income related to sea zones, but since we’ve never seen convoys in the basic game (Classic/Revised) and won’t be getting them in AA50, I figured that was just off the table. Including naval income as part of a National Objectives/Bonuses scheme is cool I guess, but it adds this additional need for more stats tracking, which I feel just makes the game harder to explain to the new guys.
What bothers me is that nobody complains or has any issue when we dramatically modify IPC values on parts of the map that already see heavy action (by doubling the value of Karelia say) but in areas where an IPC change might actually be useful (like in the south Pacific) suddenly it turns into this big argument about historical accuracy and the proper ratios. It just seems arbitrary, that we’d be willing to boost territories in Europe or add this whole new layer of complication with the bonuses to try and get a Pacific game going, when if you just modified the Pacific IPC values you could achieve essentially the same kind of gameplay without overburdening the rules.
IPCs are the most fundamental components of A&A. Adjusting them is the simplest and most direct way to influence the gameplay. Everyone already knows how to count IPCs, and you can see just by looking at the board which areas make the most sense to attack/defend based on their IPC value, without needing the manual out to track bonuses, or juggling Victory Cities. With IPCs its simple, because they’re already there, written down on the board for everyone to see. Its all very intuitive and easy to pick up, compared to some of these other things we end up doing.
Totally agree with you black_elk, lets keep it as simple as possible, I dont love this bonus rule either, would have been better off is Med sea zone just had 3 IPC printet on it, and some Atlantic sea zones had a 2 IPC printet on them, and some Pacific sea zones had a 2 IPC pritnet on them.
Black_Elk, it may be a good custom map, but as most others here (I presume) I will compare your map with the original AA50 map. It’s just a matter of time after 23.10 before there will be made several custom maps and scenarios based on the AA50, just like custom maps based on revised. And your PoS is probably the best made custom map until now, that is based on Revised.
Problem is, we don’t know excactly 100% certain what the AA50 is gonna look like.
For me, Revised is TEH A&A as of now, and hopefully AA50 will be better than Revised.
i think that instead for makin industrial places for gb maybe places like india and egypt u get 1 inf. for a house rule it woudl amek those spots a lot better for people tio take over wouldnt u agree imp.
To Aldertag
I think I could go for that; sea zones with values printed on them just like land territories. I’m all in favor of convoys, but I’m not sure we necessarily need them, since we could probably achieve similar patterns of gameplay just by tweaking the island values. You could easily justify the increase by saying that the value of the land territory is meant to include the surrounding sea lanes as well. The Pacific islands at 2 ipcs is what I’m really pushing for though, since that would make factory purchases viable, and ensure a showdown between the US and Japan.
To Subotai
What I mean to discuss in this thread is not so much that particular map, or the AA50 map that will ship out in a few weeks. Rather, I’m curious to hear your thoughts about IPCs in general, and whether you think it might be worth it for us to change the definition/distribution of IPCs on the map as a way of achieving game balance, rather than what we usually do. Typically we end up introducing a bunch of nuanced rules (or exceptions to the general rules) in an attempt to persuade or force a certain style of gameplay, which the territory values alone would not necessarily recommend. I think it would just be easier to address the underlying issue.
to Italiansarecoming
That sounds like another instance of creating specific exceptions to the general rules. I think we should try to avoid things like that. Its too much to keep track of, and takes too long to explain, especially for new players. The principles/mechanics of the core game work fine already, we just need to acknolwedge IPCs and Factories for what they really are, and let the gameplay determine their distribution instead of this strict analogy to industry. Who cares about an accurate ratio of IPCs to real world industry anyway, if it just ends up pushing the game in ahistorical directions? Wouldn’t it be better to have a looser definition of IPCs/Factories, and a game that plays out more like the actual war?
:)
Just to stress again, I’m thinking more about the future here than I am about AA50. I’m not suggesting this as a way to fix problems that might come up with AA50, because I don’t even know what those are yet. Instead I’m curious to hear about everyone’s attitude towards IPCs/Factories and the way they are distributed across the gameboard.
Imo ipc is the biggest and most imortant factor in the A&A series, at least Classic, AAE and Revised, this will also count for AA50.
It’s quite obvious that the reason why KGF is the most used strat is because US must build expensive units which will gain little money if US decides to go after Jap in the pacific. SZ worth ipc is an option, also making ipc a virtual value which not only represents industrial power, mostly in western/eastern Europe before and during WW2, but ipc value also does to a certain degree already represent political power and strategic important factors, like Norway is worth 3 ipc in AAR, China+Sink is worth 4 ipc… now that is fun for me as I’m Norwegian, but then the whole ipc element should be reconsidered when making different mods, or other A&A variants.
Your map looks interesting, and I definately agree with you that the most obvious and important gameplay issue is the ipc factors.
Larry Harris et.al already implemented some of this knowledge, by introducing NO’s, which will give money for the takers, this is more intelligent when designing strategy games than the VC’s, VC is only good for players who want shorter games.
Again, ipc value for single TT’s is probably easier to understand and to remember during gameplay than 14 ++ different NO’s… :roll:
Just to stress again, I’m thinking more about the future here than I am about AA50. I’m not suggesting this as a way to fix problems that might come up with AA50, because I don’t even know what those are yet. Instead I’m curious to hear about everyone’s attitude towards IPCs/Factories and the way they are distributed across the gameboard.
ok just to let you im a noob player sort of but i can understand many of the things you guys talk about + it is easy as pie.
im just saying because some games a house rule is allies cant make an ipc and axis cant either
so then cant that house rule come in just to make those territories to the axis look like 6 to take away from the allies and 3 to get thats a 9 difference in ipc’s for india/asia
Man you’re really attacking the forums today Italiansarecoming… I think you bumped the whole AA50 section back a page. :lol:
I’m going to put my general argument like this:
If it’s possible to alter the gameplay/conflict patterns in favorable directions, without introducing new rules, then that is always preferable.
My position is that most of the changes we want to see (the biggest one being a two front war Atlantic/Pacific) could be easily achieved by just increasing the IPC value of certain territories by a very small margin. This is how I tried to present the idea on Larry’s boards.
I would love to see the definition of IPC relaxed somewhat, so that we can play with the numbers a little easier. Imagine if we could make Hawaii worth 3 ipcs with a factory, what that might do for a pacific showdown? Or all the pacific islands at 2 ipcs, something to really gun for? I don’t think anyone would have a problem with something like that. I feel like with just a little more flexibility on the ipc distribution we could accomplish great things without needing to revisit the rules.
What if we just added some extra clause that says something like “Industrial Production Capacity/Commitment”
And then leave it up to the imagination, how best to interpret the “commitment” part of the idea?
Take Pearl Harbor for example, even though the industrial output of the islands was insignificant compared to production on the mainland, you could still say that much of what was produced on the mainland ended up being “committed” to the defense of Hawaii. Thereby justifying the minor increase in value. You could do something similar in other areas of the board too. Like imagine if North Africa was a few more ipcs, then the Axis might have a reason to fight for it, instead of just handing it over to the Americans. I think the Pacific is the area that needs the most rebalancing though. I would love to see a set up that forces US action in this theater. I think Hawaii at 3 with a factory would do exactly that.
I don’t see where the strong objection to such an idea would come from. We have already acknowledged that the current IPC distribution is not based on anything terribly consistent to begin with: I mean just look at Europe/Russia, the Dutch East Indies, or Central USA. These territories have all undergone dramatic alterations since Classic. If you examine it on a regional level, almost every area of the map has seen the numbers go up, except for the south Pacific islands.
I think if we just put the islands at 2 ipcs we’d see a much more entertaining Pacific game. It seems so easy to do, I don’t see why there would be any resistance to the idea.
your correct and i got to stop adding some house rules man go to a house rule channel and talk there p:
Well I was hoping to raise a more general discussion about IPCs and their role in the game, but since we’re in the house rules section now I guess I should propose something resembling a rule. How’s this then…
An extra 5-10 ipcs/production distributed across the neglected territories (eg the Pacific islands.)
Without changing anything else about the AA50 game, I think we could get a two front war going. It would also be nice to have starting factories in Hawaii and India as well, but I’m not sure you’d even need them. Perhaps you could just say 1 extra factory for everyone, to place wherever they think best as part of an opening bid. Then you could see how china holds up. If they fold too easily you could double the count to 1 inf per 1 territory, or consider other tweaks as necessary.
:-)
you have to be very careful with this approach. If Hawaii goes up one and its in the American sphere of influence, then you need the next to go to say Italy…say Sardinia or Sicily.
I can make some decals for you to add to the map.
Axis possible:
Tobruck
Sicily
Sardinia
?
Allies possible:
Hawaii
Cairo
Mosul
Baku
?
I, for one, would be dead set against boosting ANY Pacific island group to 2, and I am not thrilled with giving most of them even one. In my house rules for A&A Pacific, I take away the IPC for the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands and give them to Japan. I do give one IPC to New Caledonia because of its nickel production, and to offset having the Dutch as a separate player with the Dutch East Indies to draw on, and boost New Zealand to 2 IPC for the same reason. As for sea zones generating income, I like the idea, but putting it into practice is another thing.
Take the Gulf of Mexico for an example. Since offshore oil production was already taking place prior to WW2, you could easily justify an IPC value of 2 or 3, in conjunction with the fishing resources and commercial trade. However, does a German submarine in the Gulf give the Germans the IPC value, or does it simply deny the US the IPC? Giving the Germans the IPC is ludicrous on the face of it, but denying the US the IPC because a sub is present seems a bit much. Same thing could hold true for the Sea of Japan, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea. The best option is either use the convoy set-up from A&A Pacific and Europe, or go with specific recipient of the IPC with the requirement that to deny the IPC production to the recipient, a surface warship has to be present.
@Subotai:
It’s quite obvious that the reason why KGF is the most used strat is because US must build expensive units which will gain little money if US decides to go after Jap in the pacific. SZ worth ipc is an option, also making ipc a virtual value which not only represents industrial power, mostly in western/eastern Europe before and during WW2, but ipc value also does to a certain degree already represent political power and strategic important factors, like Norway is worth 3 ipc in AAR, China+Sink is worth 4 ipc… now that is fun for me as I’m Norwegian, but then the whole ipc element should be reconsidered when making different mods, or other A&A variants.
As for getting more combat in the Pacific, Subotai is correct. Building a navy from scratch is expensive, and if the US really had to start from scratch in WW2, the Pacific would not have seen near the combat that it did. However, the US did not start from scratch. You want more combat in the Pacific, then give the US the fleet that it actually had in 1941/42. Based on the scaling for the Axis navies, give the US 3 Carriers with 2 fighters each, 3 Battleships, at least 6 or more destroyers, and 2 submarines. For A&A50, add 3 or 4 cruisers. Then give the US the ability to build 2 transport automatically every turn to represent the enormous merchant shipbuilding effort of the US. The US Navy was built to fight a war in the Pacific, and was larger than the Japanese Navy, although from the game, you would be hard pressed to realize that. The British Royal Navy should have more ships as well. Both navies should be larger than the Japanese Navy. If you do not give the US and UK more ships, then quit complaining about not having any combat in the Pacific. Given the way the game is structured, with drastically reduced US and UK navies, and severely reduced US production, that is what you are going to get.
As for spreading IPC all over the map, I am not exactly in favor of that either. I would prefer to see them concentrated more, or in the case of Manchuria and Korea, see them broken up with each having separate IPC values. Another option would be to give certain areas two IPC values, one for the Allies and one for the Axis. The Allies did quite well without Borneo, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies, but they were absolutely vital to Japan. Make them more valuable to Japan, so that Japan goes for them first. As compensation, boost the IPC value in the Allied home territories of the US and the UK, or boost the value of Australia.
WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!@timerover51:
I, for one, would be dead set against boosting ANY Pacific island group to 2, and I am not thrilled with giving most of them even one. In my house rules for A&A Pacific, I take away the IPC for the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands and give them to Japan. I do give one IPC to New Caledonia because of its nickel production, and to offset having the Dutch as a separate player with the Dutch East Indies to draw on, and boost New Zealand to 2 IPC for the same reason. As for sea zones generating income, I like the idea, but putting it into practice is another thing.
Take the Gulf of Mexico for an example. Since offshore oil production was already taking place prior to WW2, you could easily justify an IPC value of 2 or 3, in conjunction with the fishing resources and commercial trade. However, does a German submarine in the Gulf give the Germans the IPC value, or does it simply deny the US the IPC? Giving the Germans the IPC is ludicrous on the face of it, but denying the US the IPC because a sub is present seems a bit much. Same thing could hold true for the Sea of Japan, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea. The best option is either use the convoy set-up from A&A Pacific and Europe, or go with specific recipient of the IPC with the requirement that to deny the IPC production to the recipient, a surface warship has to be present.
@Subotai:
It’s quite obvious that the reason why KGF is the most used strat is because US must build expensive units which will gain little money if US decides to go after Jap in the pacific. SZ worth ipc is an option, also making ipc a virtual value which not only represents industrial power, mostly in western/eastern Europe before and during WW2, but ipc value also does to a certain degree already represent political power and strategic important factors, like Norway is worth 3 ipc in AAR, China+Sink is worth 4 ipc… now that is fun for me as I’m Norwegian, but then the whole ipc element should be reconsidered when making different mods, or other A&A variants.
As for getting more combat in the Pacific, Subotai is correct. Building a navy from scratch is expensive, and if the US really had to start from scratch in WW2, the Pacific would not have seen near the combat that it did. However, the US did not start from scratch. You want more combat in the Pacific, then give the US the fleet that it actually had in 1941/42. Based on the scaling for the Axis navies, give the US 3 Carriers with 2 fighters each, 3 Battleships, at least 6 or more destroyers, and 2 submarines. For A&A50, add 3 or 4 cruisers. Then give the US the ability to build 2 transport automatically every turn to represent the enormous merchant shipbuilding effort of the US. The US Navy was built to fight a war in the Pacific, and was larger than the Japanese Navy, although from the game, you would be hard pressed to realize that. The British Royal Navy should have more ships as well. Both navies should be larger than the Japanese Navy. If you do not give the US and UK more ships, then quit complaining about not having any combat in the Pacific. Given the way the game is structured, with drastically reduced US and UK navies, and severely reduced US production, that is what you are going to get.
As for spreading IPC all over the map, I am not exactly in favor of that either. I would prefer to see them concentrated more, or in the case of Manchuria and Korea, see them broken up with each having separate IPC values. Another option would be to give certain areas two IPC values, one for the Allies and one for the Axis. The Allies did quite well without Borneo, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies, but they were absolutely vital to Japan. Make them more valuable to Japan, so that Japan goes for them first. As compensation, boost the IPC value in the Allied home territories of the US and the UK, or boost the value of Australia.
That whole thing is wrong most part factories is a good idea for soem countries. but japanese navy was bigger then the usas and the only reason why they won was because of gambles and luck dice rollls please remeber allies won with luck
I, for one, would be dead set against boosting ANY Pacific island group to 2, and I am not thrilled with giving most of them even one
Why?
(sorry had to) :-D
Seriously though, you can’t sit there and honestly tell me that the numbers in A&A correlate to real world industry in any meaningful way. If they do, then who can point to where the actual numbers are coming from?
Its totally arbitrary for the most part, but the only time anyone raises an eyebrow is when the South Pacific comes up. Take the Unites States for instance, we jumped the total value of North America by almost 1/3 in Revised by including the Central USA space. But what did we get for it in terms of gameplay? Nothing basically. I don’t understand it at all…
The distribution of “game resources” (IPCs) is what determines the course of the game. It doesn’t matter how big the US navy is, if there’s no advantage to invading the Caroline Islands then its never going to happen. Only a fool or a show off tries to take Wake in A&ARevised for example. Its just ridiculous in my view. Why even bother putting a territory on the map, if you’re not going to give it a value? I just can’t see why anyone would be dead set against doing something about this problem. It has persisted through 3 versions of the game now, and every time people complain that there is not enough action in the Pacific. If it happens again in AA50 I’ll be disappointed, but I can’t say I’ll be surprised. Additional Japanese income in contested areas would help, additional Allied income in contested areas would help even more.
If I felt like the numbers were accurate and consistant to begin with, then maybe I could buy the argument for leaving things alone, but Larry has already proven that this is not really the case by making alterations to the IPC values of existing territories and by adding new territories out of the old ones. I’m already blown away about territories at 5 ipcs. Here I was thinking all this time, that there was some logic to keeping all the territories at 2 and 3 ipcs. But then Revised came out, and we starting throwing 4s into the mix, and switching other things around.
At this point, I can no longer recognize any meaningful pattern or underlying framework to the distribution scheme. Certainly nothing worth hanging onto just for dogmatic purposes. Having the Pacific islands at 0 or 1 ipc, sucks for the gameplay. Its been tested and proven twice now, and pretty much everyone is in agreement that there is a serious problem with the Pacific theater both in Classic and Revised A&A. To me the problem and the solution seem so obvious, just fix the territory values and you’ll fix the game.
Most of the islands except Midway should be at 1
Manchuria should be more Iron and pig ore for Japan
Romania should be at 3 IPC ( polesti oil)
Caucasus perhaps +1
add malta to map. It was important
Azores possible as well.
French indo china should be +1 for singapore or at least a VC candidate
IPC for neutrals
