Cool, It’s good you agree that the process of computing and distributing NO IPCs is quite simple. Now on to the issue of more IPCs in the coffers and game length.Imperious leader wrote:The argument against NO's is primarily one against making the game longer and historical modeling. A very minor concern is what you elude too ( e.g. too many to remember)
The other argument is they don't really in most cases address anything but a translation of an advantage by CASH. Strategic advantages are not in most cases economic, but military, political, or other means and the solution does not model all the cases and these issues better than a solution that allows for greater dynamic historical modeling.
More cash means more pieces means more time playing and most people don't have 10 hours to play.
The main issue for game length is not more IPCs, but increased board size (and therefore territory count), along with an increase in number of turns per round.
NOs do create more fighting in more theatres, and yes, that may make turns take longer, but isn’t that better than having a game based on whose inf stack on the Eastern front does better?
Don’t forget the fact that Transports need a lot more protection than they did back when they could be taken as casualties.
In games with NAs, the games can take pretty long as well, potentially because of less income, among other things. Look at AA revised. I'm not sure what your NA system is, but it's quite conceivable it could add to game length if not implemented with extreme care.
Maybe the game takes longer, but there sure is more action. In AA revised, Germany's income is more than US's for most of the game. In 1940, Germany only gets to US levels once russia is taken. This puts tremendous pressure on Germany not to inf turtle like it could in Revised. The game is going to be longer regardless because you have more territories, more powers, and more income than other versions.
There will be more income even without NOs. The main issue with length is not income, but more things to do on the map and more turns. Consider this simple fact. Germany is 4 turns away from Russia in Revised. In 1940, Germany is 5 away. (The real center of German Power, Western Germany, is 6). Remember that one more (well, debatably 2 more) territory(ies) to go to Russia does not mean only one more round of play. The game can actually often times go slower with lower income, because when there is less income, income is less of a driving force. Look at how many NOs reward activity that leads to victory. At least 9 of them reward activities that also lead to victory. Income drives victory in 1940 more than any other version.
MAYBE the game will be shorter without NOs, but when income is made less important, turtling results. I'd rather have a 10 hour dynamic game than a 7-9 hour infantry fest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, that’s the long version. I’ll bullet the main points (If you want to address these it would be best to break them up IMO, it would help me stay organized)
Game length is a result perhaps of more IPCs, but what should not be ignored or underemphasized are:
-More territories/sea zones
-More powers (more turns)
-Transports require more protection
More IPCs may mean more units and more time to physically move and manage the pieces, but:
-NOs are for the most part tied DIRECTLY in what it takes to try to win the game. Therefore, the side who is most actively trying to win the game reaps the rewards. The game is not just about capitals. It creates more fighting in more theatres (This might actually make the game longer, but how is more fighting not worth it?). NOs make victory cities incredibly more important, in an incredibly simple way compared to ideas tied into units costs and such.
-An income-oriented game puts pressure on the axis to HURRY UP and attack. The gulf between initial Axis and initial Allied income is one of the biggest, if not the biggest in an AA printing so far. This gulf makes it essential that the Axis get moving.
-For the most part, allied NOs are based on keeping what they have, while Axis’ are based on getting what they don’t have. This creates an incredibly more dynamic game.
-A game less driven by IPCs will only make turtling a more viable strategy.
-Reduction in IPC rewards for opening multiple theatres will mean there will be less battles. Less battles mean less units being killed, along with more static warfare (skirmishes between two powers where territories are attacked only with the bare minimum to take it, and the two trade back and forth, until someone gets the guts to push everything.)
-In summary, the NO system encourages the game to last shorter in terms of rounds, but the realities associated with more territories and more turns per round are much larger effects.
Is making the game a few minutes shorter per round really worth sacrificing multiple fronts and the incentive for axis to get moving and not turtle? Other than the time it takes to physically move pieces, less income does no good. A game with less IPCs may take less time to move pieces per round, but it will ultimately result in more rounds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last point, separate from the others, is the unflinching and unreasonable insistence on calling IPC's "CASH." Let's look at how wrong that is first by examining them in the aspect of cash. They never, ever, ever ,ever (etc.) were just “cash”. Ever. Obviously they are not just cash (first by what was printed on them back when they were paper), since you can’t just throw money and have an organized military. It takes bureaucracy and trade networks to acquire resources, among other things.
Second by examining the concept of them being man-hours (like what was printed on the paper IPCs back when we had them), we are left with another interesting discovery. Let’s say the UK produces X IPCs per turn. They get X*1,000,000 (I think that’s what’s printed on there) man hours of production, according to this definition. So let’s say they save those IPCs a turn or two. So they have their workers sit around and drink tea, and then have them work twice or 3 times as hard? Well lets say people in wartime were working 8 hours a day producing for the war. If you save for 4 turns, assuming production is consistent, all of a sudden people are working over 24 hours a day. Clearly, this too is not exactly what IPCs are all about.
Enter AAG1940 (and anniversary too) Now you have the definition of IPCs being expanded, to represent advantages like propaganda value, motivation, national prestige, hegemony, trade, strategic value, oil, lend-lease, defense perimeters, and treaty obligations.
THE GAME IS AN ABSTRACTION
A definition of IPCs that actually works is “Measure of the ability to wage war.” Not just cash, not just man hours, not just national prestige, not just propaganda value. An efficient abstraction combining all of those and more, that’s what IPCs are.
Just because they at one time looked like monopoly money doesn’t make them cash.
