Far East Command (FEC)

[WILD BILL]

I’m considering playing UK Pac (FEC) as their own mini power who’s turn is split between the UK and Anz tuns. This will allow some limited cooperation among the Commonwealth.

UK Pac still has their own econ, and UK Europe and UK PAC territories are still split on the Euro/Pac maps. I have moved Anz’s turn to be right after UK’s turn so it will be easier to set-up battles etc…

I’m using UK lime green units from my Revised game, and have painted a couple mech and cruisers to match to complete the set (use whatever you have available).

For the most part the FEC will take their turn with the UK as they have always done. You have the option of holding back some FEC units (can’t move on UK’s turn) to take their turn with the Anz. That way you can have FEC units participate in attacks with either UK or Anz (not both).

This is just a theory, but I have set it up and have taken the first turn (playing solo).

What do you think?

[CWO Marc]

Some concepts along these lines can be found over here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36143.0
SEAC (South East Asia Command)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36108.15
Splitting the UK into 2 nations

[WILD BILL]

I have followed YG’s threads for making a new Commonwealth power (Canada and Anz). I have also followed his splintering off the UK PAC as its own power know as the South Eastern Asian Command (SEAC).

In both these scenarios I feel that UK Europe gets neutered some. It either loses income due to a new power being added (re-distributed income), or in case of making UK PAC (SEAC) a separate power UK loses the ability to combine attack power from UK Euro/PAC units.

These are all part of the British empire, but the creators decided (rightfully so) that they needed to have the Brits econ split-up (too powerful if they plant all their eggs in one basket) They also created the Anz power with separate units so you couldn’t do combined attacks.

I’m looking at a tweener power that gets it own income, has its own goals (NO’S) but can combine resources with either UK Europe or Anz for attacks (cooperative effort). I realize this is not the norm for how a power operates, and it is a pretty big change.

[Young Grasshopper]

This is interesting, however, I wouldn’t allow designating individual UK Pacific units to move and attack with one or the other. I would allow the UK Pacific to choose either conducting their entire turn sequence using all units with UK Europe (as per usual), or with ANZAC. You would make your choice at the beginning of UK turn whether or not UK Pacific will do their turn sequence on UK’s turn, or with ANZAC using the same model. Perhaps something similar can be created for Canada where they would have their own economy and decide whether or not to conduct their turn with UK Europe or with the United States.

[Argothair]

Is there a less piecemeal way of coping with all of the various Allied minor powers?

You’ve got Canada, the United Kingdom, India, Singapore, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, France, and China. I might be missing one. Individually, none of them have a particularly meaningful economy or starting army, but collectively, they are carrying a major portion of the Allied war effort.

I hate to say something like “just lump them all together and call them the Allied minor powers,” but I also hate to have one set of rules for France, one set of rules for China, one set of rules for the UK and some of its commonwealth members, one set of rules for other British commonwealth nmembers, and yet another set of rules for Canada.

Axis & Allies shines when it lets you focus on combat, recruitment, and logistics – not on all of these one-off “political” rules. The core system’s not rich enough to really cover politics in a meaningful way, and tacking on a bunch of ad hoc restrictions and exceptions to try to cram the game into a more historical track winds up seriously increasing the complexity and the migrane you get from trying to keep track of too many rules without actually resulting in a rich political/diplomatic experience.

I would rather just play a combat-focused Axis & Allies where the only “politics” I have to keep track of is whether the Axis have attacked me yet, or play another series like Churchill or European Blitzkrieg or World at War, or really take the effort to design a full suite of political rules for Axis & Allies that’s integrated and internally consistent, instead of slapped on one layer at a time as we discover parts of the game that don’t “feel right.”

As one idea for coping with all the little Allied countries without having too many rules – I don’t know if it’s a good idea, but I want to throw something out there instead of just complaining:

1. UK, Canada, South Africa, India, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand are all just one nation with one economy and one turn, called “Britain.” The only capital of Britain is London. Calcutta and Sydney are not capitals.
2. Britain cannot spend more than 40 IPCs on the same physical game board on the same turn. So, if Britain as a whole is earning 65 IPCs, then the most lopsided you can go is to spend 40 IPCs in the Atlantic game board and 25 IPCs in the Pacific  game board (or vice versa). The border runs through the physical crack in the game board where you can see the wooden table underneath your two cardboard/plastic game boards.
3. Britain starts with no major factories, and with minor factories in England, Scotland, Eastern Canada, West India, India, South Africa, and New South Wales. This makes Sea Lion a bit more attractive, gives India a bit more durability against early Japanese attacks, and encourages Britain to spread out her first-round buys.
4. France starts with no major factories, and with minor factories in Paris, Marseilles, Algeria, and French Equatorial Africa.
5. China starts with no major factories, and with minor factories in Szechuan, Suiyuan, and Tsinghai. China can build whatever units it wants in its factories, like any other country, except that Chinese infantry cost 2 IPCs, not 3 IPCs. China cannot build units in territories with no factory.
6. Capturing a major factory downgrades it to a minor factory. Capturing a minor factory destroys it.
7. The first time during a game that you capture a nation’s capital, you loot their entire treasury. Additional capital captures don’t generate any loot. Countries who have lost their capitals continue to collect income just like any other country, so eventually they’ll be able to build troops again. For example, if Germany sacks Paris on G1, they steal the French income, so France has no cash to build anything on F1…but France will still collect income on F1, so on F2, France can use that income to place troops in other locations, e.g., French Equatorial Africa.

[General 6 Stars]

@Young:

This is interesting, however, I wouldn’t allow designating individual UK Pacific units to move and attack with one or the other. I would allow the UK Pacific to choose either conducting their entire turn sequence using all units with UK Europe (as per usual), or with ANZAC. You would make your choice at the beginning of UK turn whether or not UK Pacific will do their turn sequence on UK’s turn, or with ANZAC using the same model. Perhaps something similar can be created for Canada where they would have their own economy and decide whether or not to conduct their turn with UK Europe or with the United States.

This is in my 39 game  The FEC and Anzac attack on same turn.  The U.K. Europe attacks same time with Canada . All 4 have own income They also can all attack at same time.

[WILD BILL]

@SS:

This is in my 39 game  The FEC and Anzac attack on same turn.  The U.K. Europe attacks same time with Canada . All 4 have own income They also can all attack at same time.

So you basically have one power with 4 econs. The UK empire fights together, but each faction has its own economy and purchases its own units.

I have a couple concerns:

1. Does the London Econ have enough to hold off a sea lion
2. Is the Pac side overpowering with the combined effort of FEC and Anz

[General 6 Stars]

1. Yes
2. No