Hey, if it doesn't add much time then I'm all for it! Sounds cool! The rule itelf is simple.Lobo wrote:-----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).
I think the game dynamics would be very cool. Slow start up issues could be fixed by having some IPCs already in transit at game start.
I had thought of adding rules to avoid the clutter, but they start to get complicated. Like add Transportation Centers (a single territory, like an industrial complex, and all ICs are also TCs) and Economic Zones (about 4-6 territories), and let all IPCs generated in the EZ move instantly on creation to a TC within that EZ (as long as friendly territory is contiguous). Then move IPCs explicitly from there.
The TC/EZ idea just cuts down on the number of territories you have to physically place IPCs on. Each EZ can also have annoted total income, so if you control the whole EZ you don't need to add up the incomes yourself.
With regard to a Supply Points system ...Orillian mentions spending oil to move. It is only one step further to be able to use a contiguous line back to a supply dump, which would usually be an Industrial Complex but in some cases would be Transports (or Merchant Marine) or transplanted stacks of supplies (e.g. dumped into western France after an Allied landing). At least this avoids most explicit SP movement (truly it could be a pain), and keeps the bookkeeping easy and the clutter down, except where it matters most.
Yes Orillian, oil is key! Your other idea is also cool ... just incorporate oil as a separate part of the cost for units.
One big motivation is the planning and difficulties associated with the after effects of amphibious landings (keeping all those boys in supply), more so than surrounding inland units.