Limiting naval builds to IC level

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
Post Reply
Red Harvest
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:49 am

Limiting naval builds to IC level

Post by Red Harvest » Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:13 am

This is a comment for consideration of Global 1940 or similar games. If it belongs elsewhere I apologize and please relocate it.

I've been thinking about the historical naval builds of ANZAC and other outlying areas of major powers. I could be mistaken, but it appears to me that these would be represented by minor industrial complexes. Historically, these facilities were capable of producing vessels such as corvettes/destroyer escorts and a few destroyers. Cruisers, battleships, and aircraft carriers would seem to be beyond their capabilities. (For the purposes of G40, destroyer pieces seem to represent the gamut of capabilities of a multitude of vessels from large torpedo boat, corvette/frigate/destroyer escort/sloop, to fleet destroyer.)

Perhaps minor IC is not restrictive enough as it would still allow Indian construction of heavy warships. Of course some allowance could be made for transfers from UK Pacific's alter ego (UK Europe) or lend lease/allied transfers. On the other hand this would still limit construction of high end vessels in low end or captured IC's.

Caractacus
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:18 am
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Limiting naval builds to IC level

Post by Caractacus » Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:27 pm

This is a fine rule in the sense that it moves the game towards greater historicity.

The only downside is that you will need to see how this affects the playability of the game; that is, if some nations are disadvantaged by this (and some are, as otherwise the rule would be unnecessary), does this mean that the enemy can swamp them now or otherwise benefit so greatly as to make the game unplayable?

You would need to play a bit and then tweak if necessary. One difficulty is that with so many rules and possibilities in this game, problems take some time to come out. When they do, sometimes it reveals that now there is one single strategy that can be employed to always win, if not the game, then a given major battle, so games always play out that way.

But then, this is the fun for some (certainly me) in these games: they are SO customisable - simply play it your way, and see how it goes!
Caractacus.

WILD BILL
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Limiting naval builds to IC level

Post by WILD BILL » Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:13 pm

I have a similar reservation for any minor IC producing capital ships (carrier, battleship, or cruiser). I have also thought that India getting a major IC is a bit over the top in that respect (should have maybe been a mid level IC, or allow placement of 2 minor ICs in 3 IPC original territory).

Anyway I think you allow minor ICs to produce capital ships but there is shipping involved that results in a 1 turn delay. I other words say Anz orders/pays for a carrier on turn 2, it is built in England but not mobilized until Anz turn 3 (New South Wales IC). Same for the USA if they get a French IC, or build a minor in Norway. Order capital ship in one turn, and it gets delivered/mobilized at the end of your next turn.
Last edited by WILD BILL on Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jwingram
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:21 pm

Re: Limiting naval builds to IC level

Post by jwingram » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:24 pm

I agree with this from a realism perspective and I would even extend it to the production of aircraft and cruisers in addition to capital ships, but to account for historical fact (yes, not always done) you would then have to upgrade Southern France and Normandy to major ICs to account historically for the production of French naval vessels prior to WW2.

It might have an impact on game play in the Pacific, since Japan has only one IC and can only build another major IC in one territory. That would work heavily to the advantage of the Allies, despite the impact the change would also have to ANZAC.

It feels like a R3 change to me if it's implemented.

Jonathan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests