Fast Production

[qxxx]

I am trying a new fast production rule - it only affects units in the 2 and 3 box. Once a unit is placed in the box, on the next turn it can be moved forward for the stated cost, if it is moved forward again it is at double the cost. Example a Factory is placed in the 3 box for 6, next turn it is moved to the 2 box for 6, then the 1 box for 12, and then the 0 box for 24. total cost for the factory 48; however it took 2 turns to build it.

This rule only applies to units already on the production track.

If you really need that destroyer, it can be done in 2 turns at a cost of 12
Comments?
ken

[John D.]

Sounds fun! Did you try it out?

[Yoper]

An alternate idea for increased production was put forth by Eric of our group:

If you wanted to go above a stated production limit for a unit you could pay an additional PP per unit.

The idea being if you wanted more armor units for Germany or more fighters for Japan, you could play an extra PP per unit to produce units above and beyond the stated limit on the production chart.

There are always trade-offs but sometimes you really want those extra units and it is worth the extra PPs to get them instead of being prohibited as the rules state now.

[John D.]

That is a neat idea too! Have you guys tried it? - Is it an extra PP per turn? - so a battleship costs 4 exra PP in the end?

[Yoper]

We never fleshed it out, since that was something we came up with near the time that we stopped playing Struggle.

I would think that as long as you were above your limit, you would pay.

I say that since there may be instances where you are building something that is a two-turn (or more) unit like fighters and you have say a limit of four.  You have two on the chart and move them forward, but want to put down three this turn.  You would pay the extra point and place three. 

On the next turn, the game situation changes and you shift your production to something else.  Let's say that you decide that you need to buy something else- so you still move forward the three fighters that are on the chart, but you don't start any new ones (or only one start one new one).  In this case, I would say that you wouldn't need to pay the extra PP since you are back below your limit.

Or you could just make some kind of marker that signifies that one of the fighters is an extra one at the time you place it on the chart and you will need to pay extra for it when you chose to move it forward.

Either way, you can have units above your stated limit but you are paying a premium price to get it.  The first one is more forgiving since you can come back below your limit and in doing so, pay less for the continuation of the unit.  The second version makes you pay the extra PP every turn you move it forward.   

[qxxx]

I tried it in the Fencon IV game and it didn't seem to unbalance the game

The extra production for 1 pp/turn is too low!  You are either shutting down your assembly line production facilities of one unit to produce more of another or building more assembly line production facilities for the wanted unit.

This is not a bad idea - like airbases, pay 5pp to increase the production build limt on a type of unit for the entire game.   I like it

ken

[qxxx]

Yoper

In the way yall were playing, I would suggest this - one a unit is started over production, the extra cost should be continued until it is placed on the board.

This would continue even of the unit is held in the 0 box, or unit production falls under the limit
Makes tracking easier and goes with what i mentioned in the previous post.

ken

[Bobsalt]

We never fleshed it out, since that was something we came up with near the time that we stopped playing Struggle.

Craig - Just curious - why did you stop playing The Struggle?

[Yoper]

We never fleshed it out, since that was something we came up with near the time that we stopped playing Struggle.

Craig - Just curious - why did you stop playing The Struggle?

We stopped right after the one Origins (2007) that we played the big grudge match with the Bostonians.

The main reason at the time was that we then put in 4-5 months of playtest work in on the A&A Anniversary game for Larry Harris.

Then we started working on different versions of our own WW2 games.  Not to long ago (March) we did get in game of Struggle which prompted me to make comments on changing the USSR Tension Level Chart.  I then set the game up in the basement with the idea of running through it with the new info, but I started to put up walls down there and had to clean up the game.

Don't worry, we think about the game all the time (good and bad!) when we are working on our own designs.  And should get back to a game soon.  You never know when it will hit the table again.

[Bobsalt]

We never fleshed it out, since that was something we came up with near the time that we stopped playing Struggle.

Craig - Just curious - why did you stop playing The Struggle?

We stopped right after the one Origins (2007) that we played the big grudge match with the Bostonians.

The main reason at the time was that we then put in 4-5 months of playtest work in on the A&A Anniversary game for Larry Harris.

Then we started working on different versions of our own WW2 games.  Not to long ago (March) we did get in game of Struggle which prompted me to make comments on changing the USSR Tension Level Chart.  I then set the game up in the basement with the idea of running through it with the new info, but I started to put up walls down there and had to clean up the game.

Don't worry, we think about the game all the time (good and bad!) when we are working on our own designs.  And should get back to a game soon.  You never know when it will hit the table again.

We have actually toyed with the idea of making our own design as well. Not to sell, but for our own enjoyment. The house rules we're working on for this game are in many places a complete replacement for the rules, so the idea of writing up a completely new game has come up more than once.

[Mark]

Please share them when you have them wrtten-up.  I'm sure players would like to take the best out of all the game ideas

[qxxx]

We tried the extra build rule that I suggested; however we did not allow the infantry a +1 to the build limit.
I used the pay 5pp, a single build item is increased by 1 - France and Japan used the rule change - The other countries should have used it.

If the rule that only requires a 1pp extra everytime you build over your limit would have been used. I think it would have changed the game.


ken

[qxxx]

In the latest games where I allowed the +1 to build maximums for 5pp, I found that the land units were to unbalancing (infantry, paratroops, and forts) I have since disallowed their increase in maximum builds.

ken

[Yoper]

In the latest games where I allowed the +1 to build maximums for 5pp, I found that the land units were to unbalancing (infantry, paratroops, and forts) I have since disallowed their increase in maximum builds.

ken

Interesting to hear.

We were thinking about units like extra Japanese fighters.  They get outproduced by the US. 

It definitely would have to be playtested to see the areas where it would affected the game, just like you said.   

Maybe you could go over but only another two units. 

Or the first one over is +1, the second one is +2, etc.  A progressively higher amount would hopefully limit your production while still allowing the player to go above the original build limit.

We are looking for flexibility without breaking the game.

[qxxx]

The +1 +2 etc can only be applied if the country is at war (Russia, USA, and Italy can not increase until at war).

In the games so far no limit was placed on the number of increases.
above +1 was only added to land units - thus the change

aircraft has not been increased in any of the game so far, the only one that might would be Japan, then 5pp is a lot to spend on +1 build.

ken