UK merger income in G40

[Uncle_Joe]

I think with the split victory conditions, the Brits spending NOTHING in the Pacific would quickly lead to an Axis victory via Japan.

I dunno, to me it just feels like a ‘cheap’ way out (as in, we couldnt balance the game ‘globally’, so we put an artificial ‘crutch’ in to force the Brits to spend in the Pacific).

[Meethos]

If you merged the incomes then you would need to give some incentive for the UK to care about spending its IPC’s on the pacific side. I suppose you could use some negative NO’s. For example:
The UK must pay 5 IPC (to the bank) if the Axis controls Calcutta.
The UK must pay 5 IPC (to the bank) if the Axis controls Hong Kong.

This would make it in the United Kingdoms interest not to neglect the pacific side of the map, in case the Japanese victory conditions aren’t enough.

[nutbar]

You would lose half of your starting income if 1 capital was captured. There would be 2 overall capitals, London and Calcutta.

[The Fire Knight]

@Uncle_Joe:

I think with the split victory conditions, the Brits spending NOTHING in the Pacific would quickly lead to an Axis victory via Japan.

I dunno, to me it just feels like a ‘cheap’ way out (as in, we couldnt balance the game ‘globally’, so we put an artificial ‘crutch’ in to force the Brits to spend in the Pacific).

It definitely is a cheap way out. Just like the huge imbalance of the original game. What sucks is that, although Larry has fixed the balance, he hasn’t fixed this. The U.K. is a huge part of the game and they are not being represented nearly well enough.

To fix this, the game should have a separate Canadian Power to depict the ipcs spent in canada as well as fighting on after London’s fall. The game should have a rule that says Commonwealth powers (Canada, U.K., and ANZAC) can attack together. The game should have a capital in exile rule that represents continued resistance (like being able to build inf w/ half of your remaining production). The game needs revised capital capture rules that limit the attacker to only taking half of a powers ipcs. And the game needs to differentiate between building infantry and industry. There should be a building piece that allows the building of only inf (conscripton).

[Bodeacious]

Planes or ships that transport IPCs. Maybe the value of the piece is how many IPC’s you can transport. That takes, what, three turns for a fighter to get to UK from India? Maybe two for a bomber? I haven’t played in a while. It also means that it costs UK money to shift it’s IPCs and forces greater movement by the Brits. I think this could be fun, and solve at least a few of the problems raised above without disadvantaging the any one side too much. The question is, can Indian planes get to UK in time?

[elzario]

In the house rules of G40 that my friends and I play, the income is generated seperatley, but money can be transferred through transports.  we use green and yellow tokens to denote 5 and 1 IPC respectively and can be moved like units on a transport ship.  We don’t play with a limit cause its fun watching stacks of IPC get captured if Uk tries to go through the mediteranean.

We find this encourages UK to pay attention to the pacific as if they control a route to London the IPCs can help fight the germans

[edfactor]

I think all of the comonwealth were really seperate economies.
I thought UK/Canada/SouthAfrica/India/ANZAC should all handle their monies seperately but they should all move simultaneously - i mean they all cooperated as part of the comonwealth I don’t see why ANZAC moves seperately from UK.

[Birdman86]

@edfactor:

I think all of the comonwealth were really seperate economies.
I thought UK/Canada/SouthAfrica/India/ANZAC should all handle their monies seperately but they should all move simultaneously - i mean they all cooperated as part of the comonwealth I don’t see why ANZAC moves seperately from UK.

This would be a logistical nightmare and there is NO WAY i would have enough patience to play A&A.  Maybe historically yes, but it’s a game people…

[edfactor]

@Birdman86:

@edfactor:

I think all of the comonwealth were really seperate economies.
I thought UK/Canada/SouthAfrica/India/ANZAC should all handle their monies seperately but they should all move simultaneously - i mean they all cooperated as part of the comonwealth I don’t see why ANZAC moves seperately from UK.

This would be a logistical nightmare and there is NO WAY i would have enough patience to play A&A.  Maybe historically yes, but it’s a game people…

Yes that is true, but i hate the fact that if London Falls Canada and South Africa stop building. (Remember Churchills speach … fighting on the beaches, the landing fields etc. And ending with fighting on with the comonwealth and the remainder of the British Fleet.)

[elzario]

we played a game the other week that you could move your capital when captured (not for victory conditions, just for building and production) to any territory you had an IC on, Major if you had it, or choice of minor otherwise.  While it certainly added a different aspect of allowing you to continue to build, it resulted in nations never being defeated.