Aircraft Question

Hi Hitler’s Left Hand Pinky.  I am not sure the UK started with a Fighter.
In his 1st turn as them Larry bought one for 6 IPCs, then placed in it London.
It would seem, therefore, that you can buy air units on T1.

@wittmann:

Hi Hitler’s Left Hand Pinky.  I am not sure the UK started with a Fighter.
In his 1st turn as them Larry bought one for 6 IPCs, then placed in it London.
It would seem, therefore, that you can buy air units on T1.

Yes, but Larry is the designer of this game, I’m not sure a casual player can do the same just as easy as that, man

Based on the previews for each power, it looks like aircraft are indeed available turn one– whether or not one should buy them, however, is another matter, and will require a few play-throughs to see what is wise.  I already have my copy reserved through my local game shop.

Yeah, Larry big man, him genius. He buy anything he want. He buy aircraft carrier, nuclear sub if he want. Nobody argue.

@Razor:

Yes, but Larry is the designer of this game, I’m not sure a casual player can do the same just as easy as that, man

@Flashman:

Yeah, Larry big man, him genius. He buy anything he want. He buy aircraft carrier, nuclear sub if he want. Nobody argue.

No, he cant buy nuclear sub since this is a WWI game. Are you trolling ?

No, but those Indian-built fighters are gonna tear Turkey a new one. Get the sage and onion ready…

How hard would it have been, as the UK (One of if not THE most industrialized and rich country in the world in 1914), to build a factory in India that makes little WWI fighters?

It would have taken years. Indian had no manufacturing industry capable. Far easier to ship planes out there.

I would maybe allow a transport to be placed off Bombay, but representing Australian  navy.

Again, if you allow fighters to appear in India the assumption has to be that they’re of Australian origin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Flying_Corps#Operations

A limit on the number of Indian placed units will be crucial in the Asian theatre. It should be a viable objective for Turkey to capture India and close down this Allied monster generator. But if said machine can plonk down 5 or 6 units a turn then Turkey is well stuffed.

Agree that Turkey could be stuffed, but the UK wouldn’t be able to put down 5-6 units in India AND ship them to Africa/Mid East unless Germany was already losing to France.  They can’t be in both places in strength.

@BJCard:

Agree that Turkey could be stuffed, but the UK wouldn’t be able to put down 5-6 units in India AND ship them to Africa/Mid East unless Germany was already losing to France.  They can’t be in both places in strength.

They may be able to easily go through Iran.

Unless Iran is 3IPCs or more, expect Turkey to be fighting two fronts against British units.

Yeah, Persia is crucial in this theatre, it borders Sevastopol, which borders Romania!

The point is that if Turkey moves in there with the obvious aim of closing down the India generator, the UK may be able to spawn enough units there to build an impregnable defence. If those units are missing from the western front, they can soon be moved through into Sevastopol to reinforce Russia after Turkey has been spit-roasted.

It’s important to note, though, that GB can’t create units in Africa, which means that one of the fronts dies down, when the British army there is defeated - I think it will be somewhat easily done, if the Ottomans put their back into it.

Pretend, then, that the British pour all their money into Indian units - then, yes, they are indeed able to crush the Ottomans because they earn +14 IPCs per turn, but then France/Italy is definetly toast. If they spend around half their IPC-values there (seems fair, right?) then the fight is even - 16 IPCs against 15 IPCs.
There is hope for the Ottomans - furthermore, I think that Bulgaria is worth 3 IPCs (would be fair considering Romania), so they earn roughly the same amount of IPCs as the US after the first turn.

Just one fighter in India would save the UK a lot of pain. I’m only advocating a big UK build there to counter a Turkish drive to take out India; if the Turks do that then the Russkie eagle will soon be gobbling up their giblets.

I can’t see how the Turks can be much threat to the UK in Africa.

As you pointed out Flash, units that are mobilized in Bombay will represent both Indian and Anzac units which would most defiantly included Aussie air craft. I don’t see a problem with this historically. Larry didn’t give us some BS about Indian factories building these units, he explained it very well IMO (see below). This has always been his stand about ICs throughout (although this game doesn’t have ICs). They are staging points bring in fresh units through air, sea, or land (rail?).

Quote:
Britain may place newly purchased land and fighter units in India during the Mobilize New Units phase of the turn (Phase 4). These forces represent troops from India and the Pacific British Crown colonies and they are staging in Bombay

Game play wise it really depends on if there are restrictions to how many British (Commonwealth) units that can be mobilized in Bombay. It could be tied to the IPC value of Bombay which looks like 4 (which seems like a lot to be honest). It could also just be self governing to where if you over build in India to gain an advantage in the Middle East and Africa that it will cost you in Europe.

PS, as you also pointed out the Ottomans or US didn’t have the equipment they are allowed to mobilize either, but they got the stuff by some means. It was either supplied by their allies, or purchased somehow. You need to get over the image of these powers producing these units in their own factories, and see it for what it is. A central place to introduce new units to the game. This would include their own industrial means, purchasing from allies (sometimes even black marketed enemies), staging points for industry from their colonies, or simply pulling in all available resources from the surrounding region by air, ship, or rail.

BUT IT HAS TO BE LIKE IT REALLY WAS!!

Turn 1: Fall 1914
Turn 2:
Turn 3: Battle of Jutland.  UK wins a strategic victory, but loses more ships than Germany.
Turn 4: … 
Turn 188: USA joins war with nothing but a dingy and a 6 yr old kid with a bb gun(made in France)
Turn 189: Russian civil war.  CP take one side and allies take another.  Commies win.
Turn 190…
Turn 200: Central Powers Surrender

Every game would be the same!

Oh- did I mention… RAILROADS?>?

Just Kidding Flashman.  All in fun.

You’re thinking of Imperious leader’s game.

My position is clear - an exact set up for August 1914 - after that anything can happen that was possible and credible given known parameters.

Ahh yeah it was IL’s turn order thing.  Sorry about that.

I just think the political actions of countries should be such that they allow the military for each country to do what it wants within the rules of the game.  So, America could have built up for war in 1914, but they only have 20/turn, so it isn’t that much actually.