Split UK Units

[Fighter212]

how are units bought in london and india differentiated.
is it by which board the units is located on
if so couldnt a naval unit on the european board move two onto the pacific board on uk london turn and than move two more on the uk india turn

[BadSpeller]

The UK has but one turn.

It is the purchasing, mobilizing, and income that are kept separate.  Units form the Europe board my freely go to the Pacific side and vice versa.

The split income is to prevent 45ish IPC of stuff being put in London at the same time.

[SAS]

To clarify what BadSpeller said, all UK units are part of the same army and all share the same UK combat move and non-combat move in the UK turn.  The entire UK is one power, they are just restricted as to where they may spend their IPCs.  IPCs from the Pacific board must be spent on the Pacific board and IPCs from the Europe board must be spend on the Europe board.  After that, it's all the same, so movement of any troops is not restricted in any special way.

[GrayBlaZe]

I have a question; who gets this National Objective,
"+5 for ANZAC and Canada having all their original territories"?
Oh course I know it's early and we're not sure if this is listed correctly. 
But if it is, maybe it's a choice were we place the IPC units bought with the NO's IPCs.

[Krieghund]

All UK NO IPCs go to its European economy in the global game.

[Dylan the Canadian]

Isn't ANZAC it's own power though Kreighund, I don't get that.

[Krieghund]

While it's unusual for an NO to depend upon another power's status or behavior, it's not unprecedented.  After all, one of the Soviet NOs depends upon none of its allies moving units into its original territories.

[FieldMarshalGames]

Isn't ANZAC it's own power though Kreighund, I don't get that.

ANZAC is a separate power, BUT they are part of the "British Empire".  Their interests are connected.

[Dylan the Canadian]

Isn't ANZAC it's own power though Kreighund, I don't get that.

ANZAC is a separate power, BUT they are part of the "British Empire".  Their interests are connected.

I don't think I'll put them together. Seems a bit weird still.

[SAS]

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It's basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don't have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don't have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.