Commonwealth IC's

I would suspect that it is pure play balance.  Giving the UK player the ability to build units immediately in India and Australia would definitely eliminate some of the strategies being discussed on the forums.  Probably the best way to check this would be to put Industrial Centers in India, Australia, and Canada in A&A Revised at part of the starting setup, and then play a few games, but use the reduced cost for some units from the Anniversary Edition.

If you play UK in the -41 Scenario, you start off with over 40 IPC. That should allow for a build of a factory in India/ Australia or India/Eastern Canada or Eastern Canada/Australia. I hope the Brits have some more IC’s at the start of their turn (Russia gets 3, get me a break…)

@Admiral_Thrawn:

I guess maybe I was hoping AAAE would be more like Europe and Pacific combined. Don’t get me wrong I think the board is a vast improvement over AAR but, unlike most I seem to enjoy to play AAE and AAP more than AAR because of the greater detail to the maps. I like in AAP how the Commonwealth(India, Australia) is given it’s due as countries that could hold it’s own against Japan and not just be easily defeated and conquered like Australia can be in AAR.

Admiral, you might want to take a look at my house rules for A&A Pacific in the house rules section of the board, where I have the Australians as a separate player from British India.  Personally, I would like to see the UK player in the new game have the option of locating one Industrial Center in either Canada, India, Egypt, or Australia, with a build limit of the IPC value of the area plus 2.  This would be in addition to the IC in the UK.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

I just don’t understand why the U.K. wouldn’t be able to build anything in India, Australia or Canada? Especially Canada, since it outproduced Italy and sometimes Japan on many aspects of war materials. I know you wouldn’t probably build there very often but in AAE sometimes when the U.K. in under pressure from German U-boats and aircraft it’s great to be able to build in Canada. I always have the house rule that the 3 IPC’s that Canada produces and the 5IPC convoy next to it must be spent in Canada. You should at least be able to build infantry in Australia and India without a IC.

That would be especially true of India, with its immense reserves of manpower.  Given the new rules for China, a house rule of one Infantry per turn for India would be valid.  As for Australia, they started building their own fighter, the CA-21 Boomerang, in early 1942, so what you could do is roll a dice, and on a roll of 1-3, Australia gets a fighter. You could probably also give Australia a sub, as the Dutch subs from the Netherlands East Indies withdrew to Perth, and continued to operate from there and Darwin throughout the war.

You’ll see many more ICs in this edition. If you look at the start-up for the -41 scenario on the pics at BGG, you’ll see that UK can safely build an IC in India and keep it for several turns. Japan would have to forgo Phillippine Islands to even have a chance of grabbing India on turn 2! IC in India on UK1 will a standard move in -41 and probably also -42 scenario. Remember that Russia can still throw a tank or two down India’s way if needed.

As for Australia, that’s more risky. Maybe some games will have an IC there built on turn 3 or 4 when an invasion looks unlikely and you want extra pressure put from the south.

I would agree with you about the IC in India for the UK.  With the Japanese transports postioned the way they are, the Philippines, Borneo, and the East Indies are the most the Japanese can do in Asia in Turn 1.  If they fail to get Borneo and the East Indies, I suspect that they loose their National Advantage IPCs for the first turn.  With average die rolls by the Allies in causing Japanese casualties, the Japanese are not going to be able to pass up the easy conquests there.  That slows down any attack on India.  With the cheaper subs, the US should be able to mount a submarine offensive on turn 2, going for the transports in conjunction with bombers.  The US can use the carrier to stage fighters into Australia for defense, and once that is done, you should be able to build an IC there as well.  I see only one Japanese destroyer, so subs should be pretty effective against the Japanese Navy early on.  Forcing the Japanese to build destroyers and transports dractically reduces their land and air forces.  In A&A Pacific, killing Japanese transports is very effective, and in the Anniversary Edition, with the limited number of them, killing transports should be ever more effective.

Admiral, I would say that a house rule putting an IC in either India or Australia is perfectly valid, based on A&A Pacific.  I am thinking of having India get one free infantry every turn, and giving an IC to Australia.

@Admiral_Thrawn:

I think a cool way to play U.K. would be to treat Canada, Australia, and India, like the U.S. treats China.

Not as China. You don’t want Australia, Canada or India be reduced to a popping inf minor who cannot join attacks with UK :-P
It would not work for Australia or Canada, isolated of any land fronts, and it will kill India totally, reducing them to a defensive force.

Better would be treat Canada, Australia, India and China as India/Australia in AAPacific  :-)

Agreed, and the same should be applied to China  :-)

Wonder why Larry changed that? Maybe he thought that that would make the Chinese a problem to the Japanese (makes it more realistic). What think the masses upon this?

I keep looking at 3 Russian Industrial Centers and keep thinking, if the Russians get 3, the UK gets another one.  Either Canada, India, or Australia, one of those three should get one, or take a real chance and put one in Egypt.  But with the 3 Russian, the UK should have one more.

The British better get another one. 3 ICs makes Russia stronger than in any previous A&A game.