IPC distribution: how would you feel about a map like this?

I’m toying around with the idea of Industrial Production ‘Commitment’ as possible way to interpret the IPC acronym.

The gist is that, while certain territories might not have had a particularly high industrial output, their strategic value meant that the fruits of industry were ‘commited’ there, thus justifying a slight increase in value. Anyway the explanation is not really the important thing; what do you think about the distribution? In gameplay terms I mean. And would you be willing to accept an expanded definition of IPCs to achieve something like this?

http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mapexampleqr0.gif

My thinking is that the starting factories would act like anchors and encourage players to defend certain key areas. By slightly increasing the overall totals for each player, we can have more territories at a value of 2 or 3 which I think will help encourage the kind of conflict patterns we want to see.

Any thoughts?
Would you go along with it?
Burn me at the stake?

:)

I’m just making a general suggestion Imp. I don’t plan on doing anything with this map, and I’m not judging anything about AA50 yet.

:)

I’m just asking about your opinion on the basic idea of an expanded definition for IPCs. I only used the AA50 map I made to represent what it might be like if such a change was made. Not in the AA50 game per se, but perhaps in some future game based on the AA50 model. Like a Delux, or whatever the one is that was mentioned on Larry’s boards.

Would you ever go for it? The underlying idea I mean?

I feel like instead of introducing new rules or cards or victory conditions, to enforce the kind of game play we want to see, what if we just addressed it directly via a slight modification to the ipc values in the hot spot areas? I threw out Industrial Production ‘Commitment’ as an idea so that the acronym could remain IPC, just with a slightly broader definition.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

:-)