@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…