The case for a single UK economy



  • Here’s the idea…

    The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom will now collect one income for all territories owned on the map.

    All IPCs must be relinquished each time an enemy power captures London, however, Calcutta is no longer a capital city, and the major IC on India has been downgraded to a minor.

    Japan still receives their $5 NO for capturing Calcutta, but will not gain the UK’s IPCs. The UK may still spend $20 to upgrade the India minor IC into a major.



  • I like this idea for a few good reasons like allowing flexibility for the allies, preventing unnecessary confusion, and it helps to balance the game. However, I like it mostly for the reason that it makes 1940 Global, feel more GLOBAL.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    I am happy with it too. It means the UK player has the US’ player’s problem of how to split his income. More thinking. More mistakes!
    It makes sense too. England owned the Empire and should decide how beer to spend its money.
    Of course, if London falls, the in one must be split amongst India, Egypt(or South Africa) and Canada.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    It would help keep Japan more honest since it won’t be able to whittle the UK Pacific’s economy down to nothing in anticipation of an invasion of Calcutta. At that point an IC in Western India would be useful for supporting both the Middle East and Southeast Asia.



  • Makes sea lion a much less viable option for the Germans.  To me that’s a big drawback, but I like the added flexibility and challenge of balancing spend.  Playing them would be become more like the US.



  • Makes the game much less realistic because the UK could in the real world not just abandon india and its production in india was far less then in europe.
    IF you do this you might get into a revised situation where UK and russia pile up on germany ( with 60 ipcs for london this might not be that hard ) and the US can go full front against japan. Well just enough to stop both haway and sidney from falling.
    Clear germany then all against japan so what if they have india they wont have 6 cities and against russia and UK comming from the west and US defending on the east it is good night as well.



  • @IKE:

    Makes sea lion a much less viable option for the Germans.  To me that’s a big drawback, but I like the added flexibility and challenge of balancing spend.  Playing them would be become more like the US.

    I think the risk of a Sealion strategy is greater, but so are the rewards. Germany will gain around $40 instead of around $30, and without any income to spend, Calcutta becomes very vulnerable (If London falls, the UK has zero dollars world wide until London is liberated).



  • Agree, but with $45 to spend I just don’t see London ever falling.


  • '14 Customizer

    Its a very interesting idea.  It does seem to solve a lot of the recent problems with global and Japan’s rush to India. Its difficult to say whether it will balance the game or tip the favor into the Allies side.  Balancing is always a difficult thing to do in a game.  I think the only game I have ever played that is completely balanced is chess or checkers, 🙂  I do think its a move in the right direction though.  Needs to be play tested to find loopholes if they exist.  I believe it will cause UK to focus more on the Europe side and let USA take the Pacific.  Whether that’s good or bad I’m not sure.  It may keep Japan from DOW on USA early though.


  • Official Q&A

    Five points to whoever comes up with the game-breaking Allied strategy first…



  • @Krieghund:

    Five points to whoever comes up with the game-breaking Allied strategy first…

    I’m guessing it has something to do with building a major IC somewhere, like in Malaya?



  • @Young:

    @Krieghund:

    Five points to whoever comes up with the game-breaking Allied strategy first…

    I’m guessing it has something to do with building a major IC somewhere, like in Malaya?

    Yea, this is a tough one.  Hard to see the game breaking part.



  • I think it has more to do on the europe side than the pacific side.



  • I don’t know, I was sort thinking the opposite, that this would make Japan much easier to contain.

    This is just off the top of my head, but I was thinking of doing something like
    Turn 1: build sea lion defense (infantry) + upgrade India to a major IC
    Turn 2 on: build 100% land units in India, perhaps even buying an IC in west India. Use majority of USA money to contain Germany.

    With that much cash in India, you can probably prevent Japan from ever taking it, and may even be able to push them off the main land entirely. Plus from India you can defend the middle east as well.



  • The only Major IC options are Malaya and Kwangtung, and Japan would have to be pretty backed up to safely build there. The true threat against Japan would by a quick major on India, but that’s gonna cost the Allied war effort $20. I can see the UK building a minor IC every round starting with Egypt and carrying on as they take the middle east, but that’s what I do with Japan as well on the Asian coast. Of course the UK can drop 10 of whatever they want on London, they could even have a D-Day landing as early as round 4, but I would think it’s good for the game if Germany had something else to worry about rather than trying to break their record time for sacking Moscow. The key for the Axis when decoying Britain’s money is the same when drawing American income away from their teammate, fake sealion and dominate the money Islands. As for a game breaker (the kind that can guarantee a win in a series of undeniable moves) I’m very curious to find out, my group is play testing this single economy idea Sunday, and I’m hoping to know the gambit before then.



  • @ChocolatePancake:

    I don’t know, I was sort thinking the opposite, that this would make Japan much easier to contain.

    This is just off the top of my head, but I was thinking of doing something like
    Turn 1: build sea lion defense (infantry) + upgrade India to a major IC
    Turn 2 on: build 100% land units in India, perhaps even buying an IC in west India. Use majority of USA money to contain Germany.

    With that much cash in India, you can probably prevent Japan from ever taking it, and may even be able to push them off the main land entirely. Plus from India you can defend the middle east as well.

    UK doesn’t need to upgrade its IC in India, ofc.  😉



  • ItisILeCleric,

    We are discussing the possibility of a single UK economy and if it is good or bad for Global balance, in the suggestion… the India IC would be downgraded to a minor to begin the game, however, the option to spend $20 to upgrade is still viable.

    Here’s the idea…

    The British economy is no longer split between London and Calcutta, instead, the United Kingdom will now collect one income for all territories owned on the map.

    All IPCs must be relinquished each time an enemy power captures London, however, Calcutta is no longer a capital city, and the major IC on India has been downgraded to a minor.

    Japan still receives their $5 NO for capturing Calcutta, but will not gain the UK’s IPCs. The UK may still spend $20 to upgrade the India minor IC into a major.

    Krieghund, has given us a chalange to come up with the game breaking Allied strategy that makes this idea a problem… any thoughts?



  • Well one idea would be to focus all of US vs japan and all of the UK vs Germany ( maby a little leftovers to india ) with a 55 ipc income round 1 this would be verry painfull for germany as the UK will have a fleet ready turn 2 and sea lion will be impossible. Imagine a turn 2 navy that can easy take norway or even challenge western germany.
    How would germany move towards russia in that position?

    And with full US income spend in the pacific i doubt that japan can take both hawai and australia even without india being annoying.
    You can playtest this in tripleA with a bit of editmode but i dont think it would be really fair on the axis. Germany cant possibly attack russia when they have the US on their doorstep literaly turn 1 and japan wont take away 6 cities. Once germany is contained russian arm + mech will kick japan off the mainland.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Well one idea would be to focus all of US vs japan and all of the UK vs Germany ( maby a little leftovers to india ) with a 55 ipc income round 1 this would be verry painfull for germany as the UK will have a fleet ready turn 2 and sea lion will be impossible.

    Just a correction, 28 (london) + 17 (calcutta) = 45 IPC round 1.  Still though, I agree with your premise, I don’t see Sea Lion as a viable threat any more.



  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Well one idea would be to focus all of US vs japan and all of the UK vs Germany ( maby a little leftovers to india ) with a 55 ipc income round 1 this would be verry painfull for germany as the UK will have a fleet ready turn 2 and sea lion will be impossible.

    I’m pretty sure the most the UK could spend during round 1 is 45 IPCs, they would collect around 50-53 IPC to spend for round 2 if Japan doesn’t declare war turn 1. If there’s an issue with the UK making 50+, the NO for original territories on the Europe map can be house ruled to include the whole world.

    In our group games, the Allies have it tough. Japan takes all the money Islands, hammers the India production down to zero, and pushes China back to their last 3 territories using mechs from minor ICs built on the coast. Meanwhile, Japan builds a massive navy off the Philippines and taunts America to come closer so they can annihilate them, which America refuses to do because the idea of re-building a navy 6 sea zones away while the Japanese hammer the mainland is unsettling. If there is a an issue with tilting power and money, I think it would be on the Europe board, $45 from the UK + $70+ from the US would be lights out for Germany, but we have found that leaving Japan unchecked is Allied suicide. It’s much easier to dominate the Pacific with Japan than it is to dominate Europe with Germany, but something has to be done about the Moscow crush and I say the best way to do that is a D-Day landing (which have been very difficult to generate lately in our table top games). Of course there is one thing that can kill the Axis every time, and that’s a lack of proper execution, but as the Allies do you really want to place all your hopes on the Axis beating themselves?


  • '14 Customizer

    After UK drops 10 inf in London they can build another IC in West India or upgrade the minor in India as YG suggested. Then the race is on… Can UK + USA take Japan before Germany and Italy take Russia. I would suspect Japan would never have a chance vs USA at 72 and UK at 45+ and climbing. If UK can hold the DEI UK may have a comparable economy to USA. Meanwhile Japan will have to fight a strong India that does not sink when convoyed or bombed. They will have to contend with a large multi-national navy I suspect. Barring any Bovine Dice 😉 I would think this would spell defeat for Japan.



  • @cyanight:

    After UK drops 10 inf in London they can build another IC in West India or upgrade the minor in India as YG suggested. Then the race is on… Can UK + USA take Japan before Germany and Italy take Russia. I would suspect Japan would never have a chance vs USA at 72 and UK at 45+ and climbing. If UK can hold the DEI UK may have a comparable economy to USA. Meanwhile Japan will have to fight a strong India that does not sink when convoyed or bombed. They will have to contend with a large multi-national navy I suspect. Barring any Bovine Dice 😉 I would think this would spell defeat for Japan.

    Than it would finally be the Axis spending over a year at the drawing board looking for counter strategies  😄


  • '14 Customizer

    LOL, yes it would.  I look forward to the results from your playtest game.



  • @cyanight:

    LOL, yes it would.  I look forward to the results from your playtest game.

    Thanks, I’m hoping to hear from Krieghund before then.



  • Would this change mean no bid? Even so I still think the allies would win most games. Upgrade IC in India first turn and build 8 infantry in London. Have US go 100% pacific for the first 4 turns. Pull all Russian troops from the east home. Have UK send enough fighters to Moscow to stop a T6 or T7 take. On T8 your Russian player gets 14 more troops, so he should be safe on this turn as well. US should then spend 100% in Atlantic starting T5. Japan should be screwed on the mainland by then, and UK can now start building 10 mechs a turn in India to go against Germany.

    This might change depending on how Italy was doing, but you would also build a factory for Egypt T2 if Italy and Germany couldn’t kill it. If you got the factory in Egypt down then the axis loose because they would never be able to take Cairo.

    Or another build could be 2 mechs infantry for India, and 8 infantry fighter for London. Then on T2 you upgrade your factory in India, and build a factory in Egypt.

    If you modified the NO for UK to say the whole world they would never collect that NO unless Japan waited till T2…


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 5
  • 7
  • 8
  • 8
  • 5
  • 8
  • 30
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

40
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts