Confused about UK split economy

The game is basicaly 2 separate games remember.
Also if England gave say all it’s money to pacific for even two rounds Japan would never amount to anything to keep it fair it’s split.

America is 1 country divided by two body’s of water so it’s money can be split any which way but as for England if one side falls there’s still hope and England was wageing war from both Great Britan and India.

Perhaps but remember it also has to be set up to be easy for younger kids to play this aswell plus if your playing the pacific add your nothin a wanna do negative this or that just have Calcuta as the capital of that side

It’s really simple

Hello Darkranger and welcome to A&A.com. I know I may not seem very qualified to be answering a question due to my post count, but I’ll give your question my best shot.

The main reason for separating the UK into two economies is to prevent them from being too mobile of a power. With a Major factory in both London and India, The UK (And its starting income of 45 with potential to increase in Europe but lose in the Pacific) would just be too flexible.

The UK basically has 3 territories that they really don’t want to lose, in order of importance: London, India, Egypt. If they UK is making more than 40 a round and can spend it anywhere, they can make a panic defense of London or India very easily (and Egypt but to a lesser extent due to the fact that it is lacking a major factory, and requires a minor one to be built). If the UK had the ability to spend both UK Europe and UK India’s money wherever in the empire they desired, they could play very flexibly, and this would be a serious disadvantage to the Axis.

This combined income would end any chance of an invasion of London by Germany (Operation Sealion), which is a very real possibility in this version of axis and allies if the UK isn’t very careful. The extra few IPCs that the UK could spend in London instead of India would be able to stop this invasion, and if Germany spends all of its money for a round on transports for London but is unable to invade it, they have essentially wasted a lot of money that should be going to Russia. The threat of Operation Sealion is crucial to controlling UK Europe’s spending in the early game against Italy, and if the UK could just spend India’s IPC’s in London for a round, those extra 3 infantry or so would make Sealion next to impossible.

The combined income would be especially apparent with India because it has a minor factory. In Axis and Allies Global 1940, India’s income will quickly be knocked down to 10 IPCs or less by Japan. However, if the UK was one economy, the UK player could continue building many units in India until it became impenetrable to Japan (which would probably only take 3 rounds of building 10 units a turn), and if Japan has no threat on India, it likely has no shot at doing anything in the Pacific. After this build up the UK would be free to use all of it’s income in Europe, or continue spending in India, depending on where it would be needed.

The most likely UK strategy that would occur would be for the UK to spend all of its income in India early (except required land defenses for Egypt and London), which would completely stop Japan very early in the game if the US focused there as well, before transitioning its full force to Europe. The only way to prevent this strategy would be for Germany to threaten Sealion, which would of course easily be stopped because the UK would have too much money from the combined economy.

The original reason for this split was because Global began as two different games as has been stated above so there had to be one UK Power for each game. The simplest way to combine the global game is to leave these two separate powers separate, but it is also probably the best for game balance and to give the game more of a “Global” feel rather than a Germany has to win really fast in Europe while UK and US smash Japan really fast and whoever accomplishes that first wins type of game, which nobody wants (because it really limits the amount of strategies that can be employed).

I’m positive that my answer is way too long for this question :-P, but hopefully it is at least coherent enough to answer the question.

Happy gaming :mrgreen:.

@pokemaniac:

Hello Darkranger and welcome to A&A.com. I know I may not seem very qualified to be answering a question due to my post count, but I’ll give your question my best shot.

The main reason for separating the UK into two economies is to prevent them from being too mobile of a power. With a Major factory in both London and India, The UK (And its starting income of 45 with potential to increase in Europe but lose in the Pacific) would just be too flexible.

The UK basically has 3 territories that they really don’t want to lose, in order of importance: London, India, Egypt. If they UK is making more than 40 a round and can spend it anywhere, they can make a panic defense of London or India very easily (and Egypt but to a lesser extent due to the fact that it is lacking a major factory, and requires a minor one to be built). If the UK had the ability to spend both UK Europe and UK India’s money wherever in the empire they desired, they could play very flexibly, and this would be a serious disadvantage to the Axis.

This combined income would end any chance of an invasion of London by Germany (Operation Sealion), which is a very real possibility in this version of axis and allies if the UK isn’t very careful. The extra few IPCs that the UK could spend in London instead of India would be able to stop this invasion, and if Germany spends all of its money for a round on transports for London but is unable to invade it, they have essentially wasted a lot of money that should be going to Russia. The threat of Operation Sealion is crucial to controlling UK Europe’s spending in the early game against Italy, and if the UK could just spend India’s IPC’s in London for a round, those extra 3 infantry or so would make Sealion next to impossible.

The combined income would be especially apparent with India because it has a minor major factory. In Axis and Allies Global 1940, India’s income will quickly be knocked down to 10 IPCs or less by Japan. However, if the UK was one economy, the UK player could continue building many units in India until it became impenetrable to Japan (which would probably only take 3 rounds of building 10 units a turn), and if Japan has no threat on India, it likely has no shot at doing anything in the Pacific. After this build up the UK would be free to use all of it’s income in Europe, or continue spending in India, depending on where it would be needed.

The most likely UK strategy that would occur would be for the UK to spend all of its income in India early (except required land defenses for Egypt and London), which would completely stop Japan very early in the game if the US focused there as well, before transitioning its full force to Europe. The only way to prevent this strategy would be for Germany to threaten Sealion, which would of course easily be stopped because the UK would have too much money from the combined economy.

The original reason for this split was because Global began as two different games as has been stated above so there had to be one UK Power for each game. The simplest way to combine the global game is to leave these two separate powers separate, but it is also probably the best for game balance and to give the game more of a “Global” feel rather than a Germany has to win really fast in Europe while UK and US smash Japan really fast and whoever accomplishes that first wins type of game, which nobody wants (because it really limits the amount of strategies that can be employed).

I’m positive that my answer is way too long for this question :-P, but hopefully it is at least coherent enough to answer the question.

Happy gaming :mrgreen:.

One helluva good response sir!

Great answer, pokemaniac!  I’d have a tough time saying that better myself.

Welcome, Darkranger85!  You’ll find the folks around here more than helpful with sorting out the rules.

Also, from a historical point of view, the split-income rule does to a certain extent reflect the fact that, in WWII, Britain’s interests were global in scale.  Britain’s economy depended on international trade, notably within the British Empire, and India played a very important role in that economic network.  (A schoolchild allegedly once wrote the amusing sentence “The sun never sets on the British Empire because the sun sets in the west and the Empire is in the east” – a remark which in fact contained a good deal of truth.)

The two economies are separate only for the purposes of purchasing, mobilization, and income collection.  For all other purposes UK is a single power.  Once a unit is mobilized, it’s just a UK unit - it’s not tied to either economy.

@Darkranger85:

Thank you guys for all the helpful responses! :)

So, the economy is the only thing that is split? Like can my units come together and fight in the same battle if I wanted?

There are also some peculiar territory ownership rules that tie into the split economy rule for the UK. Any territorial acquisitions on the Europe board (excluding West India) have to go to the London economy. Any territorial acquisitions on the Pacific board (excluding Western Canada) have to go to the India economy.
For example, a standard move in most of our games is for the UK infantry that starts out in West India (thus belonging to UK India) will march over and activate Pro-Allied Persia. Persia then is controlled by UK London and the 2 IPCs go to the London economy, even though it was an Indian UK soldier that activated it.
Also, if the capital on one side or the other is in Axis hands, and units from the other side capture an Axis territory on that side, control of that territory and it’s IPC value still go to the side which has it’s capital under Axis control.
EXAMPLE: Germany pulls off a successful Sealion and takes London. Some UK units from Calcutta go over to Africa and capture Ethiopia from Italy. Ethiopia and it’s 1 IPC are now under the control of UK London, even though Germany has London. So, basically, nobody will collect that 1 IPC from Ethiopia until London is liberated by Allies. It kind of sucks that the Allies can’t benefit but it’s still taking income away from the Axis so it’s not a total loss.
Same goes for Calcutta. Say Japan has taken Calcutta and some UK units manage to get into the Pacific and liberate Malaya. The 3 IPCs for Malaya would still fall under the Calcutta income (NOT London) even though Calcutta can not collect income while still under Axis control.
However, another Ally (USA, ANZAC) could collect on those territories if they liberated them. Then once the capital was liberated, the other territories would revert to UK control.

If Japan captures India do they take India’s money?  And then London can’t collect income for Pacific UK territories?  Or does all the money get transferred to London?

Thanks

Yes to both. All Pacific territories (minus British Columbia plus W. India) under British control are considered controlled by UK Pacific, even if their capital (India) is enemy-controlled. Same if London is enemy-controlled, India doesn’t get that extra income.

@ColonelCarter:

Yes to both. All Pacific territories (minus British Columbia plus W. India) under British control are considered controlled by UK Pacific, even if their capital (India) is enemy-controlled. Same if London is enemy-controlled, India doesn’t get that extra income.

OP noted as First Edition - It’s probably best not to confuse him further by bringing in 2nd Edition map changes in a question that is more broad.

London does not and cannot EVER collect income from UK Pacific territories.
Calcutta does not and cannot EVER collect income from UK Europe territories.

Money is NEVER transferred between BUT they may share the cost of tech research rolls.