• Is there any time that India can build units out of the South African industrial complex?
    Suppose London has fallen and Africa is captured. If India liberates South Africa, can they use the comlex?
    What if ANZAC liberates South Africa? Can they use the complex? Do the 2 IPCs go to ANZAC or to India as it is a British territory?

    These questions go for the Canadian industrial complex too, even though that is far less likely a scenario.


  • Sadly no, so if London falls, its best to move all UK assets to the Pacific map, or at least ground units.  At least that is my interpretation, UKIndia only can collect income from the Pacific board, not the Atlantic.

  • '10

    Does another Ally have to enter OR Liberate a territory to collect the IPC income when a Nation has fallen?


  • @FieldMarshalGames:

    Does another Ally have to enter OR Liberate a territory to collect the IPC income when a Nation has fallen?

    Liberate, it must be captured by an enemy before, then it recaptured and is given to the capturing power, not the original power, until their capital is liberated.

  • '10

    So if India “liberates” south Africa… then they can produce there?  Why would the rule be biased against India?


  • Well I guess if the Italians managed to take South Africa(pizza factory?) and Pac UK gets it back then they (Pac UK) would get the income and stuff.


  • @Zallomallo:

    Well I guess if the Italians managed to take South Africa(pizza factory?) and Pac UK gets it back then they (Pac UK) would get the income and stuff.

    UK Pac only receives income from the Pac side of the map.
    I believe it is clarified by Krieg somewhere in the FAQ thread

  • Official Q&A

    India can never receive income from UK territories on the Europe map or use their industrial complexes, and London can never receive income from UK territories on the Pacific map or use their industrial complexes.  It is not an issue of control, as all UK territories are controlled by UK, not its individual economies.  It is an issue of splitting income and production between the two UK economies, and this never changes.

    If South Africa is taken (liberated) by UK forces (UK being one power, there is no such thing as “UK Europe units” or “UK Pacific units”), control of the territory is returned to UK.  The territory’s income and production continue to be utilized by the London economy.  If London is Axis-held, that income and production capacity are used by no one.

    If South Africa is taken (captured) by another Allied power (including ANZAC) while London is Axis-held, that power temporarily takes control the territory, gaining its income and production capacity.  The difference between these two cases is liberation by the original power (UK) versus capture by another Allied power.

    It is the same situation that would exist if Leningrad were recaptured by the Allies while Moscow is in Axis hands.  If USSR does the recapturing, it cannot collect the income or use the IC, but if another Allied power does the recapturing it can collect the income and use the IC.  The only difference is that UK’s territories’ administration is divided between two capitals.


  • Yes, and i think that is what irks people the most that the allies are kind of penalized for having the UK recapture its own territory.

    This is caused because the UK is the only power that is able to function after its capital is taken.

    Remember if a French infantry takes over a conquered French territory nobody gets to collect income from that territory because the French will claim it, there isn’t the disconnect though because the French capital is being held. However the Indian infantry liberating Egypt seems to equate more to America liberating Egypt so people feel that India should get the income.

  • Customizer

    I don’t think that it is right that India can not collect on a UK territory on the Europe map if London is in Axis hands and Indian forces liberate the territory in question.  Even though they use the same units, London and Calcutta are treated as two entirely separate powers with separate incomes and separate combat unit buys.  Therefore they should be able to operate in that manner, i.e. collecting income on liberated territories if the other’s capital is in enemy hands.  I would go so far as to say maybe we should be using slightly different pieces for India, like perhaps the dark tan you could get from old games of Pacific.

    This brings up a couple of questions:
    1:  What about technologies?  Do UK London and Calcutta share tech advances?  For example, London rolls for tech and gets “Improved Shipyards”.  Can Calcutta get the cheaper naval pieces as well?

    2:  What about Pro-Allied neutrals, specifically Persia?  Can India activate Persia for the Calcutta income?  Persia is actually on the Europe board and it’s been said that India can NOT collect any income from the Europe board (with the exception of West India of course).  One of the first things I usually do when playing UK is send that infantry on West India over to activate Persia for India.  Is that income supposed to go to London now?  Even if London is captured?


  • i think 1 yes, 2 no


  • @Krieghund:

    India can never receive income from UK territories on the Europe map or use their industrial complexes, and London can never receive income from UK territories on the Pacific map or use their industrial complexes.  It is not an issue of control, as all UK territories are controlled by UK, not its individual economies.  It is an issue of splitting income and production between the two UK economies, and this never changes.

    If South Africa is taken (liberated) by UK forces (UK being one power, there is no such thing as “UK Europe units” or “UK Pacific units”), control of the territory is returned to UK.  The territory’s income and production continue to be utilized by the London economy.  If London is Axis-held, that income and production capacity are used by no one.

    If South Africa is taken (captured) by another Allied power (including ANZAC) while London is Axis-held, that power temporarily takes control the territory, gaining its income and production capacity.  The difference between these two cases is liberation by the original power (UK) versus capture by another Allied power.

    It is the same situation that would exist if Leningrad were recaptured by the Allies while Moscow is in Axis hands.  If USSR does the recapturing, it cannot collect the income or use the IC, but if another Allied power does the recapturing it can collect the income and use the IC.  The only difference is that UK’s territories’ administration is divided between two capitals.

    Thanks for the clear answer. I imagine the rules were written this way more for the sake of gameplay than for a sense of realism.

  • Official Q&A

    @edfactor:

    Yes, and i think that is what irks people the most that the allies are kind of penalized for having the UK recapture its own territory.

    No, it isn’t penalized.  No other power can collect income or produce units when its capital is enemy-held.  UK is no different.  It is no more “penalized” for recapturing its own territory when its capital is held by the enemy than USSR, Germany, or any other power is.  If anything, it has an advantage, as its other capital can continue to collect income and purchase units (in its own territories).

    @edfactor:

    Remember if a French infantry takes over a conquered French territory nobody gets to collect income from that territory because the French will claim it, there isn’t the disconnect though because the French capital is being held. However the Indian infantry liberating Egypt seems to equate more to America liberating Egypt so people feel that India should get the income.

    There is no such thing as an “Indian infantry”.  There are only UK infantry.  Egypt is being liberated by its original owner, so its situation doesn’t change.  When London was captured by the Axis, Egypt ceased to produce income for UK.  Having it captured by the Axis and then liberated by UK doesn’t change that situation, just as it wouldn’t for any other power.

    @knp7765:

    Even though they use the same units, London and Calcutta are treated as two entirely separate powers with separate incomes and separate combat unit buys.

    No, they aren’t separate powers.  They are one power, with two economies.  Only unit purchasing, production, and income (the Purchase & Repair Units, Mobilize New Units, and Collect Income phases of its turn) are separate.  All other functions are combined.  If they were separate powers, all functions would be separate, up to and including separate turns.

    @knp7765:

    Therefore they should be able to operate in that manner, i.e. collecting income on liberated territories if the other’s capital is in enemy hands.  I would go so far as to say maybe we should be using slightly different pieces for India, like perhaps the dark tan you could get from old games of Pacific.

    If they actually were separate powers, that would be warranted, but they are not.

    @knp7765:

    This brings up a couple of questions:
    1:  What about technologies?  Do UK London and Calcutta share tech advances?  For example, London rolls for tech and gets “Improved Shipyards”.  Can Calcutta get the cheaper naval pieces as well?

    Yes, as they are both part of the same power.  London doesn’t roll for tech - UK rolls for tech.  The IPCs paid for the roll can come from either or both economies.

    @knp7765:

    2:  What about Pro-Allied neutrals, specifically Persia?  Can India activate Persia for the Calcutta income?  Persia is actually on the Europe board and it’s been said that India can NOT collect any income from the Europe board (with the exception of West India of course).  One of the first things I usually do when playing UK is send that infantry on West India over to activate Persia for India.  Is that income supposed to go to London now?  Even if London is captured?

    The income always goes to London (unless London is Axis held, when it goes nowhere).  As I said, there are no “Indian units”, only UK units.

  • Official Q&A

    @MacNaughton:

    I imagine the rules were written this way more for the sake of gameplay than for a sense of realism.

    Both, actually, although in this case gameplay was the paramount consideration.  UK is really a unique power, as its holdings are spread literally throughout the globe.  Unlike other powers, it has no major concentration of assets in one place.  It makes sense that its economic activity should be decentralized as well.  This hasn’t mattered as much in previous A&A games, as they lacked the level of detail in this one.


  • Sorry to drag out a pretty well covered topic, but I thought of a few more situations to be clear on.

    If Alaska, Western US, or Mexico came under UK control, which economy would collect the income? They are on the Pacific map, but they are so near to Canada that I expect London takes control. Hawaii should be clarified too as it is a little more ambiguous.

    Also, can the London economy build an industrial complex, airbase, or navel base on a UK territory (whether original or captured) on the Pacific map? If yes (though I don’t expect a yes), which economy can produce units there? This, of course, could be reversed to ask: can the India economy build facilities on the Europe side of the map?

  • Official Q&A

    @MacNaughton:

    If Alaska, Western US, or Mexico came under UK control, which economy would collect the income? They are on the Pacific map, but they are so near to Canada that I expect London takes control. Hawaii should be clarified too as it is a little more ambiguous.

    North American territories go to London.  Hawaii goes to Calcutta.

    @MacNaughton:

    Also, can the London economy build an industrial complex, airbase, or navel base on a UK territory (whether original or captured) on the Pacific map?

    No.


  • Thanks.

  • Customizer

    @Krieghund:

    @knp7765:

    This brings up a couple of questions:
    1:  What about technologies?  Do UK London and Calcutta share tech advances?  For example, London rolls for tech and gets “Improved Shipyards”.  Can Calcutta get the cheaper naval pieces as well?

    Yes, as they are both part of the same power.  London doesn’t roll for tech - UK rolls for tech.  The IPCs paid for the roll can come from either or both economies.

    So, theoretically, the UK could get 2 Tech breakthroughs in the same turn.  UK Europe pays for research dice and gets a breakthrough.  Then UK Pacific pays for research dice and also gets a breakthrough.  I know it’s unlikely, especially given Calcutta’s rather limited income I doubt they would be spending money on tech research, but it is theoretically possible, right?

  • Official Q&A

    No.  The dice may be paid for by either or both economies, but only one roll is made.  For example, the UK player may decide to roll two research dice.  He/she may pay the 10 IPCs from either London or Calcutta, or 7 from London and 3 from Calcutta, or 5 from London and 5 from Calcutta, etc.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 4
  • 18
  • 5
  • 6
  • 5
  • 12
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

36

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts