India produces more troops for Allies

[kriegspieler7]

As I reviewed manpower figures for the different belligerents in WW2, India raised about 1 soldier for every 2 raised in Great Britain, that is, India had 2 plus million to GB/s 4 plus million.  Could we give India the opportunity to produce 2 infantry units instead of just one periodically?

[Mark]

Wow - sorry I missed this post - was on vacation for a couple weeks and missed a few apparently. . .

Interesting observation.  Potentially - but, you would probably have to compensate by saying Australia couls only produce 1/2 an infantry unit - I think we simplified it to one each to try and average things out.

Also, it is a tough call on maximum builds to judge between "how many they actually produced during the war" vs. "how much they had a realistic capability to produce logically". 

For example, German built more subs in WW2 than the U.S. - should Germany have a higher sub maximum builds?  -OR-  Did the US just choose not to build up to their maximum  build potential during the war?

anyway - my 2 cents.  I think letting the Brits build one each in Australia and in India works fairly well for game balance - I don't know how dificult it could make things for Japan by letting the Indians build 2 a turn - might prove to be overwhelming.

Mark

[kriegspieler7]

Roger that.  It would be tough, like saying India is able to produce 1 extra infantry every other turn.  it would make it a little more tedious to try to keep track of something extra like that.

I made the suggestion as it would show the logistical problem the U.K. had in trying to defend it's far flung empire with the troups it had available, i.e. soldiers needed in north africa, but they have to be moved from India, etc.

What you've done will probably get the idea accross just as well.  I've not played the game for any amount of time, I hope to get 'er done 4 sure at Gen Con Indy.