• I’m wondering if anyone has thought of this or tried it. Why is the UK two separate economies when the US is one. Would making the UK a single economy actually help to balance out the game?

    It’s a thought that just came to me a little earlier today. I’m not sure if it has been tried or discussed. I didn’t see it as an option in TripleA. At least I missed it if it was in the list.

  • So, would you have it so that you don’t capture the cash if you take a capital? or maybe half the cash? or whatever that economy got the last turn?

  • I honestly have no idea. Maybe it would work like the US where Washington is the capital and so London would be the capital. It would make it very very hard to do a sealion, I would assume, but the money would could be pushed to england, then the middle east, africa, or india whenever it would be needed. Maybe both london and india would have to fall for them to lose their money.

    I don’t know if it is a good change or not. The thought simply came to my mind suddenly and I was wondering if anyone had tried or considered this before. And was this an option when designing g40 but Larry scrapped it.

  • '22 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Letting the UK dump 40+ IPCs on London the first turn virtually removes Sea Lion off the table and a second turn dump in Calcutta also puts a major crimp in Japan’s plans. The one compromise I’d make is to have the Calcultta IC be a minor so the UK has to pay to upgrade or build a second IC in order to fortify India.

    Or as an alternative if you peel Canada from the UK then having a combined economy is more justifiable.

  • I honestly do not know why this isn’t already a rule anyways. Raj India was under UK command still and while India did have their own economy, it was still tied to London. The excuse I get for two banks is to make UK force spending against Japan however as it has already been pointed out that it limits Axis play book which is why I think this is done. US is limited by terms of action, UK is by having two banks to work with. I argue however if UK is spending all on London and then all on India and flips this method. It doesn’t change that for a turn, one side of the board is being ignored.

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Calcutta and such will never fall with one economy. Besides that’s crazy over build in India.
    In my game not g40 oob fantasy game I have it were US has to at least do a 60/40 for either side per turn. Granted they may get to do 2 turns at 70/30 but now with Japan getting bonus points towards win for Dutch Islands they can’t be totally ignored.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I think this idea would make the game a lot less fun, for many of the reasons already posted. Would certainly give the Axis a black eye. So many inf can be bought in India that it may never fall.

    I actually think that Canada should be its own economy or even power. It irritates me that the Canadian money can be spent in London and not spent in a Sea Lion game. The problem is that it makes it too easy to do Sea Lion, enough that UK1 you have to buy all inf for London. The other problem is the created power is not that much fun to play.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    This is how Anniversary works. Its fine idea, but its overpowered. Might need to pull the India factory down to minor and make them upgrade it if they want to express the full might of UK.

  • I pitched the idea that Canada needs to be it’s own power and to balance this out, make UK has one economic power. Even HGB 1936 didn’t make Canada it’s own power when Canada acted on their own accord, they left UK in 1931.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    I like making canada grey pieces and 2nd grey factory

  • @SS-GEN Exactly. If UK can dump 10 infantry into India anytime it wants then Japan will never take it and never take China.

    Then they can build fighters for the Middle east/Russia there, saving on a factory, so UK’s entire game could be UK1 anti-Sea Lion buy, UK2 build in India and S. Africa until forever.

    I mean… imagine UK 2 they do mechs/artillery, etc and then start buying navy with their combined 45 ipcs so the U.S. can spend all its money in Germany for 5 rounds.

  • If India is being mass defended, then it gives Germany and Italy more freedom in their theater of war, and because it doesn’t require both Axis Powers to win, it actually doesn’t change the outcome that much compared to OOB.

  • Then just keep India a minor factory and can’t up grade.

  • I might test this to see how well it works out. I wonder if the rule that India can only produce Infantry solves the issue?

  • '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Ya. As you probably know with HBG 39 game had a minor and could build 6 units but first three had to be inf. You could upgrade but then you’d have no money due to split economy’s but that’s why u could build 6 units instead of 3. Besides we figured out how to take Calcutta t3 every time.

  • 1936 is a whole different kind of beast. I image if India can produce ten infantry a turn, that might stop Japan from taking India but it will not stop Italy from taking Egypt or Germany having so much freedom to crush USSR.

  • I meant 1st edition 39

  • Still HGB drove their game to be more realistic for both 36 and 39. G40 is a whole different beast. I think my method will work for G40.

  • I think many of the others are correct in assessing that India would need to be bumped down to a minor IC. Others also mentioned making Canada its own separate power, however, what if Canada is added on to ANZAC?

  • @Tirano There is a Commonwealth build you can find somewhere on G40 about it, there is two different versions which merge ANZAC and Canada as the Commonwealth and then another variant that adds South Africa into the Commonwealth.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 6
  • 26
  • 32
  • 108
  • 14
  • 59
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures