The Fall of India; or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[kaufschtick]

My best friend TA (Buckeyeboy) and I are going to join battle again this Wednesday in Dayton, and I had this thought after a recent strategy bull session we had over the phone.

The fall of India isn’t the end of the world for the Allies, in fact, it can be down right helpful.

First off, the two of us have played about 110 game hours of this game so far. That’s 110 hours of honest to goodness, actual game time; and to be honest with you, there have even been a couple of those hours that didn’t involve drinking as well.

Now I know, you’re saying to yourself; “Not drinking while playing? How can that happen?”  :-o Well, we’re not proud of that part, but we hope you’ll understand anyway.  :-D

Now this Wednesday on the south side of Dayton, at my best friend’s place, we’re lined up for another 15-18+ hour game session Tuesday night-all day Wednesday. Earlier this evening, we were tossing ideas back and forth about the game and how to get the Allies into the fight. One of the key concepts we feel to achieving that aim, is for the US to get a complex going in Asia, if the opportunity should ever present itself.

TA pointed out rightly to me that the US can’t build a complex in either Kiangsu or Manchuria as they are both Chinese territories, and if the US takes either of them back from Japan, that they revert back to Chinese control, which = no complex.

So I thought, well if India falls, then the US can try for Hong Kong and a major complex there.

So you see, there are some perks to having India fall in the game for the Allies.  :wink:

[Dargoon]

Unless, misread something, what you are suggesting is for the US to mobilize an IC in Hong Kong. You can’t do that, US forces will liberate the territory, not capture it. Its a British territory. The only territory that the US can capture and mobilize a new major industrial complex is Korea.

[kcdzim]

@Dargoon:

Unless, misread something, what you are suggesting is for the US to mobilize an IC in Hong Kong. You can’t do that, US forces will liberate the territory, not capture it. Its a British territory. The only territory that the US can capture and mobilize a new major industrial complex is Korea.

If britain falls, and the US captures hongkong from japan AFTER India falls, then YES, the US will control Hong Kong and be able to build an IC there.  and if India is restored to British control, Britain will control the IC.

Seems like an unlikely scenario, but it’s not illegal.

[Dargoon]

Page 20: phase 5: Mobilize New Units: You can never use an IC owned by a friendly power.

Page 22: Industrial Complexes: (first sentence, last paragraph) You cannot place new units at an IC owned by a friendly power. Even if you liberate a territory with an IC in it, you cannot use the complex: the original controller can use it on his or her next turn. If you capture it, you can use it on your next turn.

LIBERATING Hong Kong does not give you control of the territory. It gives it back to the UK. The US can never build units in Hong Kong.

[reloader-1]

The UK does not exist anymore - if I (US) capture a territory (i.e Hong Kong) and India is out of the game, it becomes MY territory - I can build an IC on it and produce to my heart’s desire. Only IF I take back India does the UK reappear.

Read the rule - “owned by friendly power.” The UK (friendly power) does NOT EXIST if India is gone - hence no “friendly power” to worry about.

[Krieghund]

If India is held by Japan when the US captures Hong Kong, the US keeps the territory and may do anything it likes with it.  Page 18:

If the original controller’s (player whose territory you just liberated) capital is in enemy hands at the end of the turn in which you would otherwise have liberated the territory, you capture the territory, you adjust your national production level, and you can use any antiaircraft gun, industrial complex, airbase, and naval base there until the original controller’s capital is liberated.

[WILD BILL]

This is a legal move, and has been as long as I can remember. Its on page 18 liberating a territory, second paragraph.

If the original controller’s ….

Edit: I see Krieghund types faster then I do

Dragoon, I could see how you could interpret the way you did from the pages you quoted, especially when they use words like “never” on page # 20.

Any way, this is a very interesting strat. I was thinking Malaya might be a good target as well. Its 3 spaces from Queensland NB, and Japan might not see it coming. I guess it depends on what direction the US is coming from, and where the Jap navy is. At some point the US may want to liberate India, like if in the process you liberate the E Indies (UK NO extra $5). US could leave the new IC to the UK, and maybe build another (minor) on FIC if it takes it. FIC could also be an orig target if Jap built an IC (minor) there in its conquest of Asia.

[Krieghund]

@WILD:

Dragoon, I could see how you could interpret the way you did from the pages you quoted, especially when they use words like “never” on page # 20.

These rules don’t conflict.  Page 20 says that you can never use an IC owned by a friendly power even if you liberate it, which is true.  Under these circumstances the territory would be captured and owned by the US, not liberated to the UK.

[Dargoon]

I stand corrected, but now I am left wondering if this is a new rule added only to P40 or was it a rule added to other A&A games because I have been playing these games for over 22 years now and I never saw that rule before…

[WILD BILL]

@Krieghund:

@WILD:

Dragoon, I could see how you could interpret the way you did from the pages you quoted, especially when they use words like “never” on page # 20.

These rules don’t conflict.  Page 20 says that you can never use an IC owned by a friendly power even if you liberate it, which is true.  Under these circumstances the territory would be captured and owned by the US, not liberated to the UK.

I understand the rules and there intent in this case, but there are obviously a % of people (as small as that might be) that will just focus on “never” and not on liberate or capture, getting the wrong meaning. “Never” is a rather permanent term, and could get stuck in ones mind.

That’s why I’m really glad that you set the record straight on this forum and others.

[Krieghund]

@Dargoon:

I stand corrected, but now I am left wondering if this is a new rule added only to P40 or was it a rule added to other A&A games because I have been playing these games for over 22 years now and I never saw that rule before…

This rule has been around since 1984.

[kaufschtick]

Awe, come on now fella’s, this wasn’t supposed to be a serious thread, just having some fun.

Don’t spoil it by getting all serious and what not!

[cond1024]

Wow, I have been playing that rule wrong all these years!?!
Oh well, at least I know now.

[zooooma]

@kaufschtick:

Awe, come on now fella’s, this wasn’t supposed to be a serious thread, just having some fun.

Fun or otherwise, this is the best idea I’ve seen yet for the Allies against a devoted India crush.  Of course it needs some testing to determine the best execution and the overall viability…

And I’m delighted to find another fan of Doctor Strangelove!  I’ve seen that movie dozens of times and I never get sick of it.  You must like that old war game Supremacy?

[Make_It_Round]

In any game I’ve played where the US has made a dedicated push for Korea, it’s never been denied them.

You don’t need to sacrifice the UK just to get the US into the war on the Asian mainland…

[WILD BILL]

@Make_It_Round:

In any game I’ve played where the US has made a dedicated push for Korea, it’s never been denied them.

You don’t need to sacrifice the UK just to get the US into the war on the Asian mainland…

Well if Japan throws everything it has at India, its not a sacrifice, its normally a hostel take over. In order for Jap to do that it should leave some doors open for US (like Korea), but former UK tt would be an interesting  place for a US IC if India falls. The only problem would be if India was liberated to soon, and the US IC reverts back to a very broke UK. So building a US IC on captured UK tt would be rather risky, and would put the US out of business in Asia if/when India is liberated.  A US minor IC on FIC might be a better move, but only pumping out 3 units per rd might prove hard to hold unless the US landing force was over whelming, or it had other allied back up.

[finnman]

@WILD:

@Make_It_Round:

In any game I’ve played where the US has made a dedicated push for Korea, it’s never been denied them.

You don’t need to sacrifice the UK just to get the US into the war on the Asian mainland…

Well if Japan throws everything it has at India, its not a sacrifice, its normally a hostel take over. In order for Jap to do that it should leave some doors open for US (like Korea), but former UK tt would be an interesting  place for a US IC if India falls. The only problem would be if India was liberated to soon, and the US IC reverts back to a very broke UK. So building a US IC on captured UK tt would be rather risky, and would put the US out of business in Asia if/when India is liberated.  A US minor IC on FIC might be a better move, but only pumping out 3 units per rd might prove hard to hold unless the US landing force was over whelming, or it had other allied back up.

well if your going to use this strat then you won’t bother liberating India

[zooooma]

@Make_It_Round:

In any game I’ve played where the US has made a dedicated push for Korea, it’s never been denied them.

Just to be sure, you are using the board errata:

The Map: Sea zone 5 should not be adjacent to Korea. The border between sea zones 5 and 6 should
meet at the border between Amur and Korea, leaving Amur still touching only sea zone 5 but Korea
touching only sea zone 6.