While you are quite right to be suspicious of multi-turn builds for units as a general rule, I don't really see how a single rule for ICs would be complicated. It's no harder to grasp than an NO. In fact, whether the rule is 'It takes two turns' or 'you can only upgrade a space by one level' (none -> Minor; Minor -> Major), I don't think that is going to strain the memories of any of our players...

In addition, there are usually only a limited number of IC builds in a game so it wouldn't be a rule that constantly needed to be consulted, but those few IC builds can currently be responsible for massively distorting the game (Norway US IC, etc).

To comment on the justification - how has the IC been being built 'for years', if you only invaded Norway (for instance) last turn?

It's good to be on guard against unnecessary complexity, but I don't think that this either of those - it is justifiable simplicity.

_________________
Caractacus.

I like some of the ideas here for IC's. I think the 2 stage (IL) is the cleaner method. It still takes 4 turns before you can drop 10 units on a captured tt.
1) Take tt
2) Build minor (no units)
3) Upgrade to major (3 units)
4) Major (10 units).

I have also thought about using a 3 level IC build that starts w/minor and must pay 12 ipc upgrades. (have not tried it)
1) Minor------3 units/must be on 2 ipc tt/12 ipc
2) Mid minor--6 units/must be on 3 ipc tt/12 ipc upgrade (or on 2 ipc home tt)
3) Major-----10 units/must be on 4 ipc tt/12 ipc upgrade (or on 3 ipc home tt)

I think this has some merit. It is a compromise that US can't build more then 6 units at Norway, or Korea, but is cheaper for them (maybe upgrades should be more). It also allows Germany to double its Berlin IC capacity w/o having to spend 20 ipc's. It more or less moves us from new builds of major IC (10 units) to mid majors (6 units) because there isn't to many 4 ipc or more tt in play for the conquer. It also would help you if one of your capitals are liberated (was reduced to minor), and you could double you capacity for 12 ipc's (instead of paying 20 ipc for more units that you may not need). If you allow a mid major on an original 2 ipc tt, Anz could get 6 units if they ever got rolling.

I like the new rule that major IC's are reduced to minors upon capture. I also like scorched earth (IL-max damage). We generally just roll a dice when you lose an IC (also reduced to minor if upgraded) to determine how many damage points it gets. You can roll for damage for AB/NB too. We have a damage system, so why not use it.

I don't like multi turn builds for factories or units. also the scorched earth idea, should not be variable. War always causes the area thats being fought over to suffer the most damage, especially factories would be the target of destruction either by you blowing them up so the enemy cant use it, or by fighting and damage done by both sides.

It is most simple to just max them out on damage.

Also, captured AA guns are destroyed. In the real war nobody used flak batteries of the other side like some half eaten lunch food. Rather these were destroyed to avoid any use by the enemy.

_________________
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

To each his own. It might be hard to convince the US player that he can't build a major on Norway, or Korea through a house rule. 2-3 level builds (and where you can build them) might be a good compromise.

Any kind of scorched earth is better then none that we get OOB, and I like the randomness you get with the dice (it is a dice game after all). As far as AA guns, you can't destroy the built in AA that the facilities come with, only the AA that protects your ground units (unless your using something different then OOB, which you probably are).

I like mob IC for Russia. Sounds like you don't allow them to move the Moscow IC though. Unless you allow them to reduce it to a minor when they move it east. I like the fact that you only allow them to move each one back only once, but do you let them move them back to the original space if the enemy is pushed back?

I think that was me, not IL...




This sounds great. IL won't like it, but I do. You could try to call the mid-level IC 'Standard. Then you have Minor -> Standard -> Major.



Should Minors be removed altogether?



This is a good idea of IL's. I am agnostic on the roll dice vs maximum damage doctrine.

_________________
Caractacus.

If we want Larry to consider it, it needs to be KISS friendly. Marathon House Rules are great, but not his domain. The friend I played almost exclusively with for the last few years, mostly due to geographical location, and I had lost touch with reality until recently. We would be lucky to get 3 turns done in a weekend (and that was based on Anniversary). We are currently getting ready to play some new people and are learning Global. Pacific, Europe, and Global are amazing and have amazing potential to get better when the official rule changes come out.

So Larry, if you are listening, consider taking away the ability to buy a major complex from nothing in one turn. It has historical and logical basis, is simple and will only improve the game.

On another note, I wonder about the America can declare war on anyone at the end of turn 3 rule. I think if Japan has not declare war against Great Britian or Anzac, that America should not be able to attack Japan.

Just sayin'

And then Japan puts all its resources against China and Russia. if the UK declares war on Japan, it never has to worry about the US