• I had an idea and just wanted to see what people on here thought about it.  I was looking at India and wondered why half should be governed by itself (Calcutta) and the other half (Western India) governed by the UK.  Then I realized the same thing about Canada, it is also governed by two separate governments.  (Keeping it simple; by governed of course I just mean the UK split income rule.)

    It would make since to me to switch West India to the Pacific side falling under Calcutta’s control.  Then of course they would gain the 2 IPCs.  Then, the Yukon Territory & British Columbia would like-wise be switched over to the European side falling under the United Kingdom’s control & again they would gain the 1 IPC in British Columbia.  Ok, so hopefully this will not cause an economic up-heaving between the two by changing 1 IPC; UK’s starting income will go down from 29 IPCs to 28 IPCs & Calcutta will go up from 16 IPCs to 17 IPCs.  I don’t see a big disadvantage in game play, and it seems so logical.

    Basically, India and Canada are each complete countries consisting of more than one territory.  It really don’t make much since to me that each of these counties is split up to be controlled by two different governments and it’s such a simple fix to make it more geographically correct if anything.

    The only other issue I see is, in my games West India always builds a minor IC and pumps 3 units into India each turn.  I really think this is not good because now India is not fighting fair allowing the Japanese to kick its butt like the game indented (pun).  However, the UK can still build a minor IC in Persia (once taken) and then they will have to travel two counties to where they were before.  I think this is also a good thing.  Between help from an IC in Persia & they still can get transporters in from South Africa, they won’t be missing anything.

    Please provide feed-back; I’m I missing something and this simple change will destroy the entire game play?

  • Then, UK may not be able to build as much to defend Sealion.

    The West India IC is fair because it diverts resources and Japan can still capture it eventually.

  • We’ve done this in every game since we started playing Global; we just thought it made sense.  West India goes to the Pacific side, while British Columbia/Yukon go to the Europe side.  This results in a simple +1 Pacific UK / -1 Europe UK IPC switch.  However, any Middle Eastern neutrals later captured get administered from London, of course.  Your point, however, on second thought, about the minor IC in West India may actually be what the designer(s) had in mind when they chose it.  I don’t know myself.  We’re still going to play with this house rule until they just make official.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys