UK has too little IPCs when you split their income. Do you think UK’s income should be able to merge and why?
I disagree with it unless you think the allies are underpowered. Letting England choose where to spend all of its IPCs makes Sealion more difficult then the capture of India more difficult for example. If you have a new British player it could be a bone to throw him.
This would be similar to making the French Navy and land units roll to see how many side with the Germans after France falls. As rolling for Vichy helps the Axis.
There are alternate set-ups available on the Larry Harris message board. The last Alpha.1 was pretty “pro-London” if I recall and still a decently balanced game (at America’s expense). Featured more early battles with the Brits and Italians in particular.
If you want to try merging the U.K. income, then create a separate Canadian economy of 7 ipcs. And then possibly change the major in india to a minor and add a minor in west india.
Horrible Idea. I have not had a chance to use the newest Alpha+2 rules, but in the other versions, barring some extraordinary dice rolling by the Germans, the US simply ignores the Japanese, builds 8 inf for the Wst US 3 or 4 times, and concentrates all its other efforts in Europe. In every game I have played, the Germans take London, and 2 turns later, the US either takes it back, or takes Rome for good. Either case is game over for the Germans. To increase UK money means even harder time for the Germans.
I’ve been waiting for a chance to get my native country of Canada into the war in a meaningful way. If the UK income was combined it would be needed for balance to lose some of it to Canada. They would attack at the same time as the UK but the units could only be built in Canada.
By gving the entire Economy to London you make it the over all capital and put both the West and the East at risk. Imagine Sea-Lion succeeding and Germany capturing all of Calcutta’s cash as well. Not pretty for the Allies at that point.
UK has too little IPCs when you split their income. Do you think UK’s income should be able to merge and why?
Larry has explained this on his forums (maybe about the time of AAE40 release?).
It was unfair to the Germans that ALL the IPC from the UK world could be dumped on England, turn after turn.
(You know, the old strategy of leave Japan side of the board completely alone while all the Allies gang up on Germany as fast as possible before Japan can get big. This equals the same old boring race.)
To me, the split money is what makes the Pacific feel more like a side-show. In AA50, every IPC that Japan took from Britain in the Pacific was one less IPC Germany/Italy had to deal with. It also meant that there was a real reason (beyond artificial VC locations) for Britain and the US to fight for those IPCs in the Pacific. I think it gave AA50 a very dynamic feeling across the globe.
Global feels more like 2 games being played simultaneously, with a lot less interaction. Western UK really couldnt care less about India UK unless Japan threatens a single-theatre win. But barring that, Britain is losing nothing by losing her colonies in the Far East (which feels wrong IMO). To me, a better solution could be found to ‘Britain dumping all it’s money into Europe’ than the artificial split. Perhaps a minimum amount has to be spent in the Pacific or something (so every IPC would still matter to the Western UK, no matter the source).
In any case, I think this split income is one of the most disappointing aspect of Global since it really creates separation between the theatres that did not exist in the earlier titles.
But with the Split it is as if Japan actually means something, in that all the resources of the British in that theatre are devoted to fighting Japan, not Germany, so the old Idea that expansion for Japan meant less for the Germans to worry about is still true, but at the beginning of the game, the germans are gleaning the benefits of japans being at war, and not fighting the British IPCS. Additionally, if the british are combined, then all the british would do every UK1 is build a minor IC in Egypt, and 10 infantry in UK to show they mean to resist the Germans. At this point the European axis is screwed both ways. The idea of the European strategy is that the British must either choose to defend Africa, or defend England, but they are supposed to lack the money to do both simultaneously. By combining the British can just forget the Pacific, they’ll probably lose it anyway, and then screw the Germans and Italians hardcore.
I think with the split victory conditions, the Brits spending NOTHING in the Pacific would quickly lead to an Axis victory via Japan.
I dunno, to me it just feels like a ‘cheap’ way out (as in, we couldnt balance the game ‘globally’, so we put an artificial ‘crutch’ in to force the Brits to spend in the Pacific).
If you merged the incomes then you would need to give some incentive for the UK to care about spending its IPC’s on the pacific side. I suppose you could use some negative NO’s. For example:
The UK must pay 5 IPC (to the bank) if the Axis controls Calcutta.
The UK must pay 5 IPC (to the bank) if the Axis controls Hong Kong.
This would make it in the United Kingdoms interest not to neglect the pacific side of the map, in case the Japanese victory conditions aren’t enough.
You would lose half of your starting income if 1 capital was captured. There would be 2 overall capitals, London and Calcutta.
I think with the split victory conditions, the Brits spending NOTHING in the Pacific would quickly lead to an Axis victory via Japan.
I dunno, to me it just feels like a ‘cheap’ way out (as in, we couldnt balance the game ‘globally’, so we put an artificial ‘crutch’ in to force the Brits to spend in the Pacific).
It definitely is a cheap way out. Just like the huge imbalance of the original game. What sucks is that, although Larry has fixed the balance, he hasn’t fixed this. The U.K. is a huge part of the game and they are not being represented nearly well enough.
To fix this, the game should have a separate Canadian Power to depict the ipcs spent in canada as well as fighting on after London’s fall. The game should have a rule that says Commonwealth powers (Canada, U.K., and ANZAC) can attack together. The game should have a capital in exile rule that represents continued resistance (like being able to build inf w/ half of your remaining production). The game needs revised capital capture rules that limit the attacker to only taking half of a powers ipcs. And the game needs to differentiate between building infantry and industry. There should be a building piece that allows the building of only inf (conscripton).
Planes or ships that transport IPCs. Maybe the value of the piece is how many IPC’s you can transport. That takes, what, three turns for a fighter to get to UK from India? Maybe two for a bomber? I haven’t played in a while. It also means that it costs UK money to shift it’s IPCs and forces greater movement by the Brits. I think this could be fun, and solve at least a few of the problems raised above without disadvantaging the any one side too much. The question is, can Indian planes get to UK in time?
In the house rules of G40 that my friends and I play, the income is generated seperatley, but money can be transferred through transports. we use green and yellow tokens to denote 5 and 1 IPC respectively and can be moved like units on a transport ship. We don’t play with a limit cause its fun watching stacks of IPC get captured if Uk tries to go through the mediteranean.
We find this encourages UK to pay attention to the pacific as if they control a route to London the IPCs can help fight the germans
I think all of the comonwealth were really seperate economies.
I thought UK/Canada/SouthAfrica/India/ANZAC should all handle their monies seperately but they should all move simultaneously - i mean they all cooperated as part of the comonwealth I don’t see why ANZAC moves seperately from UK.
I think all of the comonwealth were really seperate economies.
I thought UK/Canada/SouthAfrica/India/ANZAC should all handle their monies seperately but they should all move simultaneously - i mean they all cooperated as part of the comonwealth I don’t see why ANZAC moves seperately from UK.
This would be a logistical nightmare and there is NO WAY i would have enough patience to play A&A. Maybe historically yes, but it’s a game people…
I think all of the comonwealth were really seperate economies.
I thought UK/Canada/SouthAfrica/India/ANZAC should all handle their monies seperately but they should all move simultaneously - i mean they all cooperated as part of the comonwealth I don’t see why ANZAC moves seperately from UK.This would be a logistical nightmare and there is NO WAY i would have enough patience to play A&A. Maybe historically yes, but it’s a game people…
Yes that is true, but i hate the fact that if London Falls Canada and South Africa stop building. (Remember Churchills speach … fighting on the beaches, the landing fields etc. And ending with fighting on with the comonwealth and the remainder of the British Fleet.)
we played a game the other week that you could move your capital when captured (not for victory conditions, just for building and production) to any territory you had an IC on, Major if you had it, or choice of minor otherwise. While it certainly added a different aspect of allowing you to continue to build, it resulted in nations never being defeated.
