Matrix Games Forums

is it possible? or are bonus 4 LCUs of scen 2 necessary?

Possible? Sure, anything is possible. Esp against the AI...

The number of variable factors at play in India make it difficult to forecast how it plays out.

Where did the 18th British Division go from Capetown? Where are the two very good Australian Divisions at that come in at Aden?

Did the Allied Player get beat up in Burma or did he get the 1st Burma Division and the 17th Indian out in good shape.

Did the Allied Player get any Chinese units into India?

All the possibilities in India are a lot of fun and one of the things that seem to make it a popular place to do battle in AE.

All the possibilities in India are a lot of fun and one of the things that seem to make it a popular place to do battle in AE.

I would agree with you. One bad thing is that an intense Burma campaign in scenario #1 ended my first PBEM game, and I think it is going to end my second PBEM game. The IJ opponets just could not believe the destruction one can do by rerouting the 18th British Division and Aussie refs to India, along with buying out some key Indian armor units. Rather than as the subject suggests can India be taken? ... the other question comes into focus .. how long can the IJ hold Burma if the Allies determine to take Rangoon in scenario one?

One thing that happend in both of my PBEM games. The IJ diverted forces that could have been used to secure Burma, to take Darwin with very bad results. Worse, what forces that were committed to Burma split off from advancing on India to invade Southern China. In both games the Aussie reinforcements, 18 Div, and Armor jumped into Burma from Kaylemo and cutoff the IJ from supplies, and took the Irrawaddy Valley in a bliztkrieg.

There are a couple of game mechanics that make Burma an absoute critical place for the IJ to hold. If the IJ divert attention elsewhere in scenario #1 and Rangoon is taken in mid 42 .. it is quite possible to use paratroopers to take bases in Thailand. Then once Bangkok/Ayutthaya falls forces can rail rather than march there way across Thailand. The speed of this blitzkreig maneuver is mind numbing, and exposes weakness in game mechanics. Thus without home rules .. it is imparitive IMHO in scenario #1 for the IJ to invest in Burma, and at least theaten India.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

... it is imparitive IMHO in scenario #1 for the IJ to invest in Burma, and at least theaten India.

Personally, I feel in all scenarios this to be true ...

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

... it is imparitive IMHO in scenario #1 for the IJ to invest in Burma, and at least theaten India.

Personally, I feel in all scenarios this to be true ...

I am focused on scenario #1 where the IJ have less free divisions and have to make decisions. The decision to invest in attacking PM as an example rather than threaten India is what I was eluding to .... however, the IJ can invest in Burma and then decide to go northward rather than take 3 very key Indian border bases .. I think this decision ends in disaster too with the right Allied strategy .... I am 2 for 2 [8D] In these two scenrario the IJ invested enough forces to "secure" Burma but then decided to attack PM before threatening India. Add on to that moving armored units toward China ... and it was a piece of cake to find a crossing point into the Irrawaddy Valley. But, if the battles are taking place on the Indian border . then it is much harder to surround the IJ forces ..[;)] So I believe in scenario #1 simply investing 5 divisions as an example will not do the trick .. the IJ have to take the fight into the Indian Border

In the other scenrarios there is so much IJ stuff that the decision is much much easier to make [:'(].