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.
< Message edited by Crackaces -- 10/18/2012 10:55:18 PM >
Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward. - Kurt Vonnegut