India - The biggest mistake in the game.



  • India was horribly designed in this Axis and Allies.  In both historical accuracy and playability.  Let’s start first with historical accuracy.  India was known as the Crown Jewel of the British Empire.  It conducted much trade, and thus gave the British Empire a large income.  This is not represented whatsoever on the game board.  India is left at a value of three IPCs.  That’s not even a third of the ten IPCs that Australia, a much less economically important British colony, is worth in this game.

    Secondly, playability.  If Japan takes all of India’s territories, India is reduced to an income of three IPCs per turn.  That’s a single infantry per turn, which can in no way compete with the 6-10 total units Japan will be sending into the area each turn.  And that’s not taking into account the fact that just a sub and a destroyer will reduce India’s income to zero, so India will be forever doomed to get defeated by even a somewhat small Japanese force in almost every game.

    Let’s go back to history now.  Is it really possible that India would stop recruiting men to fight the Japanese because of a small blockade off the coast?  India is the second most populous country in the world, and was not willing to give up to the Japanese easily.  Sure, the Hindus may have been protesting British rule, but they weren’t exactly ready to submit to Japan.  Then there’s the vast Muslim population, who more willingly fought for the British due to the fact that the British rule kept democracy out of India, which the Muslims feared would lead to Hindu domination of the government and thus the persecution of Muslims.

    For these reasons, the territory of India in my opinion should be worth at least twelve IPCs.  I would argue that it should be divided into East India and North India, with East India containing Calcutta and the factory, AA gun, port, and airbase, and worth eight IPCs.  North India would have no sea border, and only border East India and the Himalayas, and would be worth six IPCs, meaning that India could continue to produce at least two infantry per turn even in case of a full Japanese blockade.  This would help balance the game, which many say is unbalanced, by reducing the success rate of the India crush, thus possibly causing Japan to lead a more balanced approach by attacking Australia and China more evenly to gain IPCs to attack India with.  A fourteen IPC India would also be much more historical, more realistically representing the size of the Indian economy.

    While I am at it, I’ll also say that Major ICs should be in a territories with a value of five minimum.  Three minimum is way too low by allowing mass production of units in relatively minor territories.

    Anyway though, what do you think?  Would this tip the scales too much in favor of the allies?  Maybe the Japanese home isle should get an IPC boost as well.



  • With that many IPCs India would India would be way to powerful. Just give the two free infantry in India a turn. This wouldn’t count toward factory total. This would represent how willing the people were to fight.



  • Yes, it’s inaccurate, but so is Japan having that many planes. They make the allies weaker and the axis stronger so both sides have a chance, unlike in reality.



  • You could just up the canadian IPC value to 7 to solve the problem.  Very unlikey that would ever fall to Japan, and is just as historically accurate.  Comon, all of British Columbia is just worth 1 IPC?



  • @dakgoalie38:

    India was horribly designed in this Axis and Allies.  In both historical accuracy and playability.  Let’s start first with historical accuracy.  India was known as the Crown Jewel of the British Empire.  It conducted much trade, and thus gave the British Empire a large income.  This is not represented whatsoever on the game board.  India is left at a value of three IPCs.  That’s not even a third of the ten IPCs that Australia, a much less economically important British colony, is worth in this game.

    Secondly, playability.  If Japan takes all of India’s territories, India is reduced to an income of three IPCs per turn.  That’s a single infantry per turn, which can in no way compete with the 6-10 total units Japan will be sending into the area each turn.  And that’s not taking into account the fact that just a sub and a destroyer will reduce India’s income to zero, so India will be forever doomed to get defeated by even a somewhat small Japanese force in almost every game.

    Let’s go back to history now.  Is it really possible that India would stop recruiting men to fight the Japanese because of a small blockade off the coast?  India is the second most populous country in the world, and was not willing to give up to the Japanese easily.  Sure, the Hindus may have been protesting British rule, but they weren’t exactly ready to submit to Japan.  Then there’s the vast Muslim population, who more willingly fought for the British due to the fact that the British rule kept democracy out of India, which the Muslims feared would lead to Hindu domination of the government and thus the persecution of Muslims.

    For these reasons, the territory of India in my opinion should be worth at least twelve IPCs.  I would argue that it should be divided into East India and North India, with East India containing Calcutta and the factory, AA gun, port, and airbase, and worth eight IPCs.  North India would have no sea border, and only border East India and the Himalayas, and would be worth six IPCs, meaning that India could continue to produce at least two infantry per turn even in case of a full Japanese blockade.  This would help balance the game, which many say is unbalanced, by reducing the success rate of the India crush, thus possibly causing Japan to lead a more balanced approach by attacking Australia and China more evenly to gain IPCs to attack India with.  A fourteen IPC India would also be much more historical, more realistically representing the size of the Indian economy.

    While I am at it, I’ll also say that Major ICs should be in a territories with a value of five minimum.  Three minimum is way too low by allowing mass production of units in relatively minor territories.

    Anyway though, what do you think?  Would this tip the scales too much in favor of the allies?  Maybe the Japanese home isle should get an IPC boost as well.

    I agree with you dakgoalie38, Japan was horrobly represented in P40. The goal of the game for Japan should have been to see how long they could hold-off the Allies, not how they could dominate them. Something more along the line of after the tenth turn, if Japan still holds 2 or more vc, Japan wins. The amount of air power they start with is just plain dumb. India and China were not easily pushed over, they were tough has hell and they made the Japs fight for every inch of territory they were trying to take. But more importantly, Japan’s biggest problem was logistical. They had a hard time expanding beyond the islands of the pacific and the shores of Asia. The terrain was rough and vehicles like tanks could not manoeuver well. All tanks and mechanized infantry should have there movement reduced to 1 on the pacific board. Furthermore, Japan could not produce units on the mainland. The only factories they had was in Manchuria and they were only producing supplies for the war effort. And you are also right about ICs. No one should be able to buy new ones. What you start with is what you get.

    Sorry about this, just venting some frustration…


  • Sponsor 2017 TripleA '11 '10

    @Dargoon:

    @dakgoalie38:

    India was horribly designed in this Axis and Allies.  In both historical accuracy and playability.  Let’s start first with historical accuracy.  India was known as the Crown Jewel of the British Empire.  It conducted much trade, and thus gave the British Empire a large income.  This is not represented whatsoever on the game board.  India is left at a value of three IPCs.  That’s not even a third of the ten IPCs that Australia, a much less economically important British colony, is worth in this game.

    Secondly, playability.  If Japan takes all of India’s territories, India is reduced to an income of three IPCs per turn.  That’s a single infantry per turn, which can in no way compete with the 6-10 total units Japan will be sending into the area each turn.  And that’s not taking into account the fact that just a sub and a destroyer will reduce India’s income to zero, so India will be forever doomed to get defeated by even a somewhat small Japanese force in almost every game.

    Let’s go back to history now.  Is it really possible that India would stop recruiting men to fight the Japanese because of a small blockade off the coast?  India is the second most populous country in the world, and was not willing to give up to the Japanese easily.  Sure, the Hindus may have been protesting British rule, but they weren’t exactly ready to submit to Japan.  Then there’s the vast Muslim population, who more willingly fought for the British due to the fact that the British rule kept democracy out of India, which the Muslims feared would lead to Hindu domination of the government and thus the persecution of Muslims.

    For these reasons, the territory of India in my opinion should be worth at least twelve IPCs.  I would argue that it should be divided into East India and North India, with East India containing Calcutta and the factory, AA gun, port, and airbase, and worth eight IPCs.  North India would have no sea border, and only border East India and the Himalayas, and would be worth six IPCs, meaning that India could continue to produce at least two infantry per turn even in case of a full Japanese blockade.  This would help balance the game, which many say is unbalanced, by reducing the success rate of the India crush, thus possibly causing Japan to lead a more balanced approach by attacking Australia and China more evenly to gain IPCs to attack India with.  A fourteen IPC India would also be much more historical, more realistically representing the size of the Indian economy.

    While I am at it, I’ll also say that Major ICs should be in a territories with a value of five minimum.  Three minimum is way too low by allowing mass production of units in relatively minor territories.

    Anyway though, what do you think?  Would this tip the scales too much in favor of the allies?  Maybe the Japanese home isle should get an IPC boost as well.

    I agree with you dakgoalie38, Japan was horrobly represented in P40. The goal of the game for Japan should have been to see how long they could hold-off the Allies, not how they could dominate them. Something more along the line of after the tenth turn, if Japan still holds 2 or more vc, Japan wins. The amount of air power they start with is just plain dumb. India and China were not easily pushed over, they were tough has hell and they made the Japs fight for every inch of territory they were trying to take. But more importantly, Japan’s biggest problem was logistical. They had a hard time expanding beyond the islands of the pacific and the shores of Asia. The terrain was rough and vehicles like tanks could not manoeuver well. All tanks and mechanized infantry should have there movement reduced to 1 on the pacific board. Furthermore, Japan could not produce units on the mainland. The only factories they had was in Manchuria and they were only producing supplies for the war effort. And you are also right about ICs. No one should be able to buy new ones. What you start with is what you get.

    Sorry about this, just venting some frustration…

    You should try the original A&A Pacific if you haven’t already. I think you’d find it to your liking.



  • You know, thats not a bad idea.

    Has anyone ever tried implementing the old Japanese victory point system in the newer Pacific 1940?



  • @Admiral:

    You know, thats not a bad idea.

    Has anyone ever tried implementing the old Japanese victory point system in the newer Pacific 1940?

    It can’t be done, not with the current unit setup anyway. Way too many Jap units on the board. The problem with P40 is that in this game Japan can effectively… dominate the Allies. Something that was highly improbable in real life. In WWII, Japan had a hard time advancing in China, very little hope of taking Calcutta and absolutely no chance of taking the US. Yet in this game, Japan can easily crush India and China…



  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    Yes, it’s inaccurate, but so is Japan having that many planes. They make the allies weaker and the axis stronger so both sides have a chance, unlike in reality.

    But the Axis almost did win the war the just… didn’t


  • 2019 2018

    Japan did dominate the allies at the start of the pacific war.  After Pearl Harbor they proceeded to invade Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Guam, Burma, Borneo, Hong Kong and capture Wake (just in December).

    In Janurary they invaded DEI, Dutch Borneo, advance in Burma, invade Rabaul, Soloman Islands.

    Feb Japan invades Java, Sumatra, (Britsh surrender singapore), Japan air raid against Darwin, invade Bali, and they also found time to shell an oil refinery near Santa Barbara.

    March- Brits evacuate Rangoon and Japan invade New Guinea, Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal.

    April- Batann death march, and they take central Burma

    May- Japan occupies mandalay, and on May 20 they complete capture of Burma and reach India.

    Only six months after Pearl Harbor Japan is on India’s doorstep, they controll all of the DEI as far west as Wake and are a stones throw away from Australia.  If that is not domination I don’t know what is.  The only reason we are able to say we owned the Japanese during WWII was because we broke their code and were able to read their play book for two very important and decisive battles, Coral sea and Midway.  In fact the battle of the Coral sea on May 7-8, 1942 was their first defeat in the war, and Coral sea was really more of a draw.  The big turning point was Midway and without having broke the code I think we would have lost that battle.

    After the battle of Midway it was all downhill for Japan, they were not able to regain the momentum and they ended up getting dominated by the allies.  I think the P40 is the same way.  If they allies can withstand the initial onslot of Japan the tables will turn and the allies will dominate, just like in the real war.

    Reference: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/timeline.htm



  • @Dylan:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    Yes, it’s inaccurate, but so is Japan having that many planes. They make the allies weaker and the axis stronger so both sides have a chance, unlike in reality.

    But the Axis almost did win the war the just… didn’t

    germany could have won the war, japan never had a decent chance.



  • germany could have won the war, japan never had a decent chance.

    Yes they did if they didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor they would have been able to fight the British and Chinese using the resources from the DEI. It might have taken them a while but assuming US neutrality they would have had a helluva chance.


  • TripleA

    depends on what you mean by “won the war”. if you mean land troops in usa and take over government, then no they never had a decent chance.

    if you mean capture resources in south east asia, then negotiate peace they did have a decent chance.

    like amirable admiral stated, japan could have taken the resources they needed, crushed uk and dutch, and hoped usa would not declare war. this would have accomplished japans objectives and would have been a “win” for japan.

    as japan decided to not only take the resources crush uk and dutch they also wanted to keep usa out of the pacific. i believe if japan had been luckier in pearl harbour with the usa carriers location and more effective in damaging pearl by carrying on after the 2nd wave of attack with a 3rd wave destroying pearls infrastructure. more importantly if usa did not crack japans code and midways outcome was as japan planned then japan did have a decent chance, at keeping usa out of the pacific and “win” the war.



  • just create a peice with a shovel who kills on zero and defends on zero is just willing to die for his country and take a hit and maybe the shovel can hurt the guy who shoots is and then takes them down a die number….



  • @robbie358:

    You could just up the canadian IPC value to 7 to solve the problem.  Very unlikey that would ever fall to Japan, and is just as historically accurate.  Comon, all of British Columbia is just worth 1 IPC?

    and then a quick left turn down the “how the heck did we involve canada in this conversation” hallway and back we go…

    and yes, Brit Col. 1 IPC, sounds good… 😮 :roll:



  • The problem is not BC. WUSA just one territory? For 3 millions of square kms? Come on!



  • If they had taken Anzac and combined it with the UK and made India the separate power that would make it very interesting for an independent power to back up China and be between Africa (Italy) and Asia (Japan), but then there would be the historical questions about India building planes and ships that they didn’t do historically I suppose…  alas…



  • @Funcioneta:

    The problem is not BC. WUSA just one territory? For 3 millions of square kms? Come on!

    Of course it’s not, that’s the point of asking why would it even be involved!!  And what’s 3 millions of square kms in WUSA?  It’s the US, they don’t use the metric system.  shoot, most Canadians don’t even use it still…

    seriously though, I’m sure it goes back to the thought of if you can take the WUS, then the game is over and you should just reset the board.  Sorta like what happens when you take France in most games as the Allies.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 2
  • 20
  • 74
  • 14
  • 105
  • 17
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

56
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts