India

Yes.

I really think India should be limited to 2 or 3 units per turn. The ability to  place new pieces at either end of the board is a tremendous advantage, particularly when you consider the Central Powers handicap in having to place units in Capitals rather than closer to the front line.

Perhaps even as a separate mini-economy or draft of units; if the CPs can take India they shut it down for good, and the UK cannot build the units at home to compensate.

So perhaps:

Make India worth 6 IPCs (this is assumed to include Anzac income). However the UK does not add this to its general income, but instead can place units up to 6 IPCs in value in India every turn as long as it is held/contested. Any unspent “Commonwealth” income must be saved in India, and can be captured along with the tt.

This gives Turkey a realistic chance of driving through to India; knowing how many units the UK is likely to mobilize there gives them a clear timetable. Turkey can still capture & “annex” India for 6 IPCs per turn in the normal way.

I am with you on that Flashman.
Am happy to allow 3 units and leave at 3 IPCs for ease.

Another major effect is that a German naval blockade of Britain is worth thinking about.

If India can be overrun, then Britain surrounded by CP naval units cannot feed land units into the war but must break the blockade by buying ships.

Unlimited Indian builds mean that blockade wouldn’t be worth trying.

This of course in turn needs new rules making submarines more effective…

If India is limited to 2-3 units per turn, the Ottomans will plow over it every time. Britain starts with 18 units between Egypt, India, and Arabia, while the Ottomans start with 28, assuming 1 inf activates Bulgaria and they don’t come back. Not to mention the Ottomans are producing at least 5 units every turn, and it will increase if Britain can’t take Ottoman territory. Granted, the CPs still might not win due to the overwhelming British force in Europe, but I don’t want an Ottoman controlled India to be the Central Powers’ only chance at success.

I agree w/ColonelCarter, if you limit India to just a few units then the Turks will over power it and this  becomes the most predominant CP strat. I don’t like how the UK can spend all income in India for several turns, and ignore the Atlantic though either. It should be self regulating as a game mechanic. If UK ignores the Atlantic side for 2-3 turns, then its income should plummet resulting in fewer units produced in India. We shouldn’t just place a band aid on it by limiting units built in India causing yet another flaw to the game. The glaring fact is that sub warfare is non existent. Subs need to be harder to kill, and should cause income problems for the English if left unchecked. You also need to be able to effect the UK income w/o bringing the US into the war if you attack a sz next to England. We also need more sz’s to attack/convoy.

I understand the concerns about limited India, but you can’t just treat this front in isolation. The allies can ship units east to attack Turkey, Russia can send pieces south to harrass the Turks in Mesopotamia.

Another limit on India production is unit type; allow 1 art per 3 inf, otherwise its infantry only since India had no heavy industy (but then again neither did Turkey…)

Depending on which movement rule you use, it might actually benefit the Allies to have the main Turkish army stranded in India far away from the main action.

Another thought on this; even if you don’t like a limit on India placements to begin with, shouldn’t a Turkish takover or even contesting of Egypt (i.e. Suez canal) seriously effect British reinforcements from India?

UK would still be able to place India and Anzac forces in Bombay, but a CP squeeze on Suez would throttle the main “artery” of Britain’s Empire. At least this gives Turkey a viable strategy to survive if we enforce a limit of 3 units/turn in India if Egypt is contested.

I would rather weaken france and force the british to spend there rather then inda. Either less french troops, smaller navy or something. Maybe both and increase the german navy. Not enough to plow over the uk, but will at least be a threat, and the uk will think twice about attacking it.

That way the uk will only think about india if the ottomans are knocking on the door. Just limit it to one art to 3 infantry ratio and  when that time comes, the uk will have the ability divert the recources for the defence.

Another option is to rejig Persia into 4 provinces, each disorganized an effectively treated as independent neutrals.

I dont like the idea of more zones in this game as it will make it ever slower.

My suggestion to the India problem as well as the suggestion to lack of choice and lack of balance in this game is to make Bulgaria a separate state starting with 6Inf/2art and worth 6IPC.

More territories is dependent on faster movement.

Using full SRM the distances are less important; moreover it seems better if the relative distance between Berlin and Paris, and Berlin and Moscow is better represented.
Nevertheless making Moscow further from Berlin perhaps means adopting the 1 turn = 6 months system, putting automatic US entry back a couple of rounds. Then again I think AUSE shoudl be dependent on Russian collapse.

I too think India should have a unit limit, but 3 is way too low IMO. Maybe it could be based on what touches sz 29 (more of a regional thing).

Start out that India’s base production is the same as its IPC value (4 units). It can produce 4 units whether India is contested or not. The other territories that touch sz 29 can add to India’s production by the IPC values of each territory (Persia+2, Meso+3, and Arabia+1), as long they meet these requirements when UK’s turn starts.

1. The allies are in complete control of said territory (India doesn’t get bonus production for contested).

2. If the territory in question is friendly (say Russian controlled Meso), and the UK has at least 1 unit in it.

3. If the territory in question is owned by the UK (say Arabia, or UK controlled Persia), then the UK doesn’t need to station a unit in it.

4. (optional) Egypt can have a negative impact on bonus production of -2 (can’t effect base production). This only happens if Egypt is in CP control, if contested it has no effect. So say UK controls Persia, but has lost Egypt, it is a wash for bonus production (both valued at 2).

This may not seem like much but in the UK’s first turn they can only drop a max of 5 units in India (India 4 + Arabia 1 = 5 total. Even if the Russians come down and take Meso on Russia’s first turn, the English wouldn’t have a unit there when their first turn starts. This may slow them down when you consider OOB they could drop 10 inf units turn 1. The Turks may be able to contest some of those territories keeping India’s production down because India’s production is based partially on what is going on in the region when UK’s turn starts. The most the UK can drop in India would be 10 (which is a lot), but the CP may be able to limit it.

Maybe something similar needs doing with UK home income; make it much more vulnerable to German sub interdiction.

Or, simply deduct UK income for German ships in any SZ in the Atlantic or surrounding Britain.

The UK is overpowered both in terms of overall income and ability to place units at either edge of the warzone.

I love your idea WILD BILL, it is the best I have seen by far.

The way I see it is that there are two possible solutions to the India problem, either make Germany slightly stronger in the west (slightly more naval, ground, or maybe some actually useable Submarine Warfare rules) therefore forcing the UK to spend money in the Atlantic because right now they really don’t have to since France can hold Paris even w/o support unless the Germans literally send everything they have to France (i.e. all of Hanover and Berlin go west) but this makes them just too weak vs Russia and I still am uncertain if they could take Paris. The other option is to limit India’s production in some way, and this is the option I will explore since it is easier to see the problems/benefits of various balancing ideas without play testing them.

By playing out the game it is obvious that limiting India to 4 or less production for the entire game would make it way too easy for the Ottomans to take India, considering their income after taking some territory in the Balkans and the fact that they start with more units than the UK in the theater.

However, something clearly needs to be done to limit the UK’s early spending in India, because otherwise any allied player with any sense will just buy 10 units a turn in India for a few rounds and completely overpower the Ottomans. I appreciate the attempts at historical accuracy like limiting/preventing the UK from building heavy units (art, figs, tanks) in India, but in reality India had about the same production capabilities as the Ottomans if not better considering that the UK could transport materials there from the homeland. I don’t want to alter the game board at all if at all possible, and overall I just want the changes to be as easy as possible (and maintaining traditional A&A mechanics, i.e. no infinite railroad, just balance the game with OOB, the FAQ, and a couple additional minor rules (like WILD BILL’s idea).

WILD BILL’s idea would take some testing to see if the UK could still smash the Ottomans in the first 4 turns, but I doubt it since for at least the first few turns the Ottomans would have at least the same if not more production capability than India. This would also add some more strategic gameplay to the theater as both sides try to control the new production mechanic for India. Basically if the UK wants to cripple the Ottomans, it should take at least 5-6 turns of steady building before they can get the upper hand, and neglecting the Western Front for this long would have consequences, leaving the UK with tough decisions to make about their spending. It would be nice for the UK to have any decisions, because in my experience they should basically spend everything possible in India for 3-4 rounds until the Ottomans are backed up all the way to Constantinople, then either go for the kill on the Ottomans or start building a large landing force for France.

The most important thing to remember here is that we are trying to add strategic options, rather than make the game even more strategically limited than it already is (this is what would happen if we completely limited India’s production to a small, unchangeable, number). IMO the best way to add options to the game is to make Germany a bit stronger somehow as I stated at the start, but I think that WILD BILL’s idea could certainly make the middle east a battlefield rather than a mass-grave of Ottomans.

Maybe pentalize the british then? How about an increase in the cost for units to be put in india. For every land troop you put in india, you have to pay 2 more ipcs for each infantry and 3 more for artillary. 4 More for any other unit that is bought there That way the British will be more inclined to pay for its units in britain, and if it wants to recruit in india, itll be more taxing on the economy. That way there isnt a cap limit, and can be improved by making gains by campaigning.Infantry will be the norm since artillary will be horribly expensive, industrial items like that should be rarer. If people feel the british are being to penalized too much, you could always reduce the rolls for the ottoman units by one to make the feel of the front better.

As well as these, also make Germany much stronger, or France weeker. That way we have a british player who can win or lose the game for the allies based on how they manage their recources.

The simplest balance is the Munich production centre, which increases the German threat to Paris meaning more UK units are needed for the Western Front.

How silly is it that the UK can place new units as far away as India, yet Germany cannot build in (more populous) western Germany?

Wanted to bring this post back from the dead. I just got 1914 and just had my first play through. Been thinking a lot about strategies (on of the reasons I love axis and allies games). It seemed too easy to dump most of Great Britain’s economy in India. And I wanted to make a house rule to restrict it to 4 units or 1/2 of Great Britains income (similar to how India is separate in 1940 global).

Is there anyone that has played it more that still has feelings about what to do with India. Is it fine OOB and the pressure on France should be enough that Great Britain needs to spend IPC in France and this doesn’t even matter?

We say only 4 units. Amy number is ridiculous.