UK India UK London control question.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but London/India is only separated for purchase/placement of units, not movement (combat or otherwise).

Your London/India forces are free to mix once placed on the board as they all move at the same time.  Only incomes and purchases/initial placement of units are kept separate.

@Rorschach:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but London/India is only separated for purchase/placement of units, not movement (combat or otherwise).

Your London/India forces are free to mix once placed on the board as they all move at the same time.   Only incomes and purchases/initial placement of units are kept separate.

this is correct. only for purchasing and placing units are the capitals’ separate. the move at the same time

If London falls to the Axis and the Axis capture Egypt and the rest of Africa.

What happen if India takes them back while London is still in Axis hands? Do the IPCs count goes toward India?

No.  Europe economy IPCs can never go to Calcutta, and Pacific economy IPCs can never go to London.

I’m a little confused here.
If London falls and Egypt is captured by Italy, then the USA comes in and takes Egypt while London is still in Axis hands, then the USA can get the 2 IPCs for Egypt until London is liberated.  This works for any other Allied power as well (USSR, France, ANZAC).  Yet if UK Indian forces capture Egypt while London is still in Axis hands, they CAN’T get the 2 IPCs because Egypt is on the Europe board?
If this is the case, what happens with the 2 IPCs that Egypt is worth?  Do you treat it as simply a liberated territory, move the UK Europe control marker up 2 spots on the income board as IF London were free and then nobody really gets those IPCs?

That’s correct.

@AllyAxis:

thanks everyone for the input.

I found the global rules vauge on the whole india thing.  Perhaps Larry Harris needs to explain it better in rules releases.

Seems odd that the US can liberate and take IPC’s if London has fallen on the Euro map, but can never ever gain if the UK india liberates africa since they invested the money to liberate it.    Maybe I’ll leave that one to a “House” rule among my players.

No photo journal for the game I just played last weekend.  We have previously kept the moves with india and london seperate, but since that isn’t the case the game will actually go much faster now.  which is good news…

I need to buy more UK india markers that are the Union Jack.  I’d actually prefer to use them for UK europe and the standard markers as UK india.   I found them on historicalboardgaming.com  as well as cool units.  I would love to use different forces for UK india and UK london especially since they move together so I can track my investments a bit closer for which theatre invested what in gaurding the Caucus.

I think it actually makes a lot of sense.  India is controlled by Lord Louis Mountbatten.  So he sends a few Gurkha brigades and they reclaim Egypt.  Should those ipcs go to India because thats where the troops went or should the ipcs go to London because that’s where you’re manufacturing base is?  (i know London is captured, that doesn’t really matter though because this game has no ‘moving capitals’ rule)  Mountbatten might really really really want those resources to flow towards India, but Churchill and the exile government, who control ALL UK holdings, expect those resources to flow back to London or the recapture of london.

Remember these are not 2 powers, just 1 power with 2 command structures, one for the ETO and one for the PTO.

While I love the Global 1940 game, sometimes I miss the earlier games where UK was simply it’s own power and all UK territories went to the UK, period.  I can understand why Larry Harris separated them into UK Europe and UK Pacific.  He probably felt that UK Europe was too strong and Germany and Italy would never be able to fully overcome London.  ALso, UK Pacific was probably too weak in previous games, especially with the UK’s only factory clear over in London, India almost doesn’t stand a chance (which is probably also the reason for ANZAC being a separate power).
It was just simpler when it was all simply United Kingdom.

If Anzac ukp and uke had 1 income and had at least 3 of their original NOs it would almost be better then America at war with all original territories (72 UK vs 77 US) in this intins I think the allies would be way OP.