rules on resources, supplies and production

What do you want to see in an advanced A&A game?
Share your thoughts... Contribute to the ultimate A&A game design.
WanderingHead
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:45 am

rules on resources, supplies and production

Post by WanderingHead » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:06 am

What do others think of more sophisticated resources/supplies/production rules?

Is it too complicated to create a new "supply point unit", and expend a number of supply points in order to move units and perform combat?

E.g.
movement costs (in "supply points") infantry 0, mech infantry 1, armor 1, transports 1, naval combat units and air 2.

combat costs all units 1 point, attacking or defending. Units out of supply may not move (except infantry) and do all combat at -1 (or -2 d12). May not combat at -1 optionally to save colocated supply.

A supply point must be purchased at the cost of 1 IPC + 1 oil (all unit costs and territory incomes must be adjusted up). Must be moved like other units (can move with fleets somehow ... perhaps some number of SP per vessel, plus additional for transports or Merchant Marine), or perhaps simplified rules allow supplies to simply go anywhere contiguous (or contiguous with rail connection only?!) or transport bridged.

Which brings us to resources ... have two kinds of income for each territory, Industrial Production and Oil. E.g. Caucasus may be low in IP but high in oil.

This is very crude, and subject to much improvement. But it seems desirable. Some of the difficulty of long distance fighting, and particularly when isolated by oceans (landing in the Pacific, or in France) can be captured because supply lines can be severed. And the importance of sttrategic oil-based regions can be more readily emphasized.

It doesn't seem too complicated to me, but then ... I've never played it (sorry folks, I haven't the time or a willing partner for experimentation; wish I did). It would definitely slow down a turn.

Any thoughts?

WanderingHead
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:45 am

industrial production

Post by WanderingHead » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:40 am

A few thoughts on production.

Income collection should be before combat movement, so that you don't benefit from conquered territories the same turn.

Other threads have mentioned building infantry units in any home territory. I think being able to build a number of infantry up to the income level of the territory is too generous, but maybe it is solved by my next proposal.

I think it should be important to keep all of your industrial centers humming, instead of concentrating production where you need it most. The simplest way to encourage this may be to have unit costs increase for more units purchased at a given IC. E.g. every additional unit after the first costs +1 IPC more than the last unit (alternatively interpreted, purchasing 1 unit has a +0 IPC additional cost, 2units=>+1IPC, 3=>+3, 4=>+6, 5=>+10, 6=>+16, etc).

This may seem harsh, but with more territories, more ICs, more places to build infantry, and IPC levels increased to accommodate Supply Points and Oil, it would not be that bad. And it would force your production to be distributed.

Production locations would have to be declared when the money is spent, not the "mobilize units" phase, unless the units are distributed as desired at the end of the turn and the bulk premium is determined and paid at that time (requiring the foresight to save the money).

I think a territory should be able to build units costing no more than 4 or 5 times its income value in one turn. So a territory with income of 2 can't go and build 2 Battleships if the money is available from somewhere else. Given the bulk penalty described above, I don't think you even need to explicitly limit the quantity of units built in a territory, but you should limit the quality.

It would be nice if IPCs and oil somehow had to actually move to ICs to be used. Using Sinkiang income to help build a battleship in the US is rather unrealistic. Doing it explicitly is too complicated. How can it be done? Ideas?

Orillian
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

Post by Orillian » Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:52 am

I like your ideas here, but my biggest concern you touched on at the end of message one. TIME....adding this kind of micro managment into the game would greatly increase the complexity of each turn, thus making the game stretch out that much longer.

Oil is cool! maybe have Oil AND IPC's both used to determine cost, some units might be 3IPC and 2 oil! Etc..or use oil solely for the purpose of movement. You have to spend oil to be able to move ANY none infantry units! :)

Forcing IC usage is a bit too harsh I think. But IF I understand Larry's previous postings in the forum section, he's thinking of removing remote IC unit production all together, Thus making this option unuasable. ALL unit production has to be done at starting IC's. Any IC's constructed later simply add to IPC's I'm gleening so I could be miss interpreting his desires here.

The usage of limiting quality is an interesting one, it would force players to build larger units at starting IC's. Could make for some interesting games. This might be fun to try in A&AR.

V-2
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:36 am

Post by V-2 » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:12 am

Regarding moving the income collection phase to before the combat move phase - I read this variant on an AH form a long time ago, and still think that is was one of the simplest and best rule changes that I've read on these forums (I think that the guy named it "War of Attrition variant").
Places like West Russia that are constantly being traded back and forth between two warring countries would now produce no income, and opposed to becoming doubly productive, which only makes sense. You have to take and hold a country before it becomes productive.
I think that he also had the rule that, when you take a capital, that countries IPC's are lost, not looted, and any tech's the country has are learned by the invader, both of which make sense.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:28 am

I like the idea of territories having different resource types. I played around awhile with the idea of territories having both material and population resources, so some countries would be able to buy lots of hardware but not so much infantry and others would be able to buy lots of infantry but not much hardware. This would also limit the number of infantry a country could buy on a single turn, so some higher-end units would need to be purchased. I never got very far with it though, because my advanced combat system (see the "Weapons and Units" thread) solved the "purchase all infantry" problem for me. The idea is still interesting.

I am not opposed to some kind of supply rule, but as Orillian pointed out, it should not be complicated enough to slow the game down. Some simple system for oil production and use may work nicely.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

Lobo
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:10 am
Location: Texas

Post by Lobo » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:41 pm

My favorite house rule for this is that each territory produces its IPC value in tokens each turn. Those tokens must be moved to an IC one space at a time or on a transport. When they reach the IC they can be expended to purchase units.

However, I think even this simple little system is too complicated for a production version of axis & allies.

One rule I think should be included is a production cap by type of unit. ie. each IC can produce so many units of:

I: Infantry, Tanks, Artillery, AA
II: Fighters, Bombers
III: Naval Units

The rationale for this is that the production facilities for each type of unit are limited in what they can produce, even if utilized 24/7. eg. Shipyards don't have the special tools or know how to produce aircraft or gun barrels. It's unrealistic for a nation to produce 15 infantry one turn and 3 bombers the next turn. Production should be more level.

This will improve gameplay by speeding up the game (shortening it) because there will not be as many units on the board (smaller infantry stacks) as some of the money that currently goes into producing infantry stacks will have to be spent on air and naval units (or be saved).

WanderingHead
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:45 am

Post by WanderingHead » Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:37 pm

Lobo wrote:My favorite house rule for this is that each territory produces its IPC value in tokens each turn. Those tokens must be moved to an IC one space at a time or on a transport. When they reach the IC they can be expended to purchase units.
Yeah, that's the kind of thing I had in mind. But I was hoping there was a way to streamline it somehow, so as to keep play moving faster.

Any estimate as to what this "full explicit movement" approach does to play time?

Lobo
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:10 am
Location: Texas

Post by Lobo » Sat Oct 30, 2004 12:52 am

WH,
It really doesn't add much time to the game...the main drawback is clutter. I bigger board could alleviate this (we were using with MB edition game).

It has an interesting effect on the dynamics of the game which would have to be worked into the game design. Each nation has its own rate at which IPCs flow into the IC. US gets most income immediately. UK is the slowest and gets them in trickles.

We used the tokens with the ruleset provided below (link).
(I really like the China solution--see Elusive Chinese army rule.)

www.angelfire.com/biz2/axisalliesrules/

-----BTW. After more thought it may not be too complex if the token system is designed into the game. The reason our token system added complexity was that we had to use a whole system of rules to work it into 2nd Ed game (eg. income multiples, US phased-in income).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests