India.

I personally think it should be split, perhaps into north/south.

As it is, it's way too costly to even imagine buying as a starting country (unless you get 50k).

Another issue is that losing control of it, even temporarily, is a huge blow.

Personally, I don't understand why India wasn't sectioned up like the others. A north/south split wouldn't be handicapping in the least, as I'm sure both sections would still be plenty more powerful than thailand, vietnam, and others in the area.

I think the country should be 3 parts and i also think china(into providences), japan and turky also need to be split up into 2 sections each there way to overpowered for the rest of the world.
i feel all countrys should have ruflly the same starting capital and spliting up the big ones would be a good start to ballance out the map.
also after sliting them up drop the number of troops they produce but add a few citys to each providence there huge countrys with tons of citys. So insted of 8 bombers in 4 citys you would end up with 4 bombers in 8 citys within 2 providences.

Kirjutas Vespre, 13.03.2011 at 23:38

I personally think it should be split, perhaps into north/south.

As it is, it's way too costly to even imagine buying as a starting country (unless you get 50k).

Another issue is that losing control of it, even temporarily, is a huge blow.

Personally, I don't understand why India wasn't sectioned up like the others. A north/south split wouldn't be handicapping in the least, as I'm sure both sections would still be plenty more powerful than thailand, vietnam, and others in the area.

Because we wanted to leave one big country. India was still compact enough to leave it intact.

I propose Orissa.Jharkhand,Bihar west be one province, Madhya/Pradesh,Gujarat and nort of that be another then the rest be the 3rd. thins way they all get a sea zone.

Japan could be devided with tokyo north as one and the rest south.

china needs 2 per zone now

Germany east and west

Turky east and west


this would ballance out the game alot. and still alow players to blitz the countrys during early turns without hindering the map.

Kirjutas UrlanderPendragon, 14.03.2011 at 02:49

I propose Orissa.Jharkhand,Bihar west be one province, Madhya/Pradesh,Gujarat and nort of that be another then the rest be the 3rd. thins way they all get a sea zone.

Japan could be devided with tokyo north as one and the rest south.

china needs 2 per zone now

Germany east and west

Turky east and west


this would ballance out the game alot. and still alow players to blitz the countrys during early turns without hindering the map.

tsch, the idea of splitting anything up would kinda break how i think the admins wanted to keep the map: in the present. Technically, India is already split up into India and bangladesh, if you go back far enough. Keeping in the present, India is a godly country to start out it for 50k world games, and splitting it would cause something like all those small countries in europe no one ever wants to take.

Kirjutas Ivan, 14.03.2011 at 02:34

Kirjutas Vespre, 13.03.2011 at 23:38

I personally think it should be split, perhaps into north/south.

As it is, it's way too costly to even imagine buying as a starting country (unless you get 50k).

Another issue is that losing control of it, even temporarily, is a huge blow.

Personally, I don't understand why India wasn't sectioned up like the others. A north/south split wouldn't be handicapping in the least, as I'm sure both sections would still be plenty more powerful than thailand, vietnam, and others in the area.

Because we wanted to leave one big country. India was still compact enough to leave it intact.

I think India should be split into 3 sections, North, South (Dravida) and Northeast (Assam).
The same should be done to Mexico with North, Central and Yucatan. If smaller countries like Canada and Australia are split then these giants should be too for a more balanced gameplay, also Asia and North America need more countries.
I also personally think another partition of China in the Central Plains region should be considered (Zhengzhou area), right now China: South is a bit too stretched for my taste. Just my personal thoughts.

Even with the split North India should be quite big.

Made this in five minutes, don't judge quality.

I like the game it is, seriously. Also, i dont't think the game needs to have a balance, or else it would be a boring and predictable game. Every country has it's own positive and negative points and they should stay like this. What's the funny in a fair game btw?

Kirjutas Psychostick, 14.03.2011 at 15:47

Splitting it would cause something like all those small countries in europe no one ever wants to take.

You mean like Turkey and Spain?

India can survive one split for sure, probably even two. The south would still be more powerful than anything in the immediate area, and the north would still be plenty more powerful than Pakistan.

Throw in Mumbai under southern India, and you have two equally matched regions.

Another reson most people are forgeting for indea's power is its proxcimity on the map. from indea you control the entire aisian continent and most of the middle east. any stratagy will work good there because if its income and troop production, it is also a great place to remove china from. Now if the entire continent of africa were to fight india under curent system indea wins 9 out of 10. thats not a ballanced that makes the game more enjoyable.
Also i do disagree with the comment who cares about ballance, I do. Play is right now like the movie war games only 3 coutrys are ever in the war in asia thats china and indea and japan. But if you take japans more expesive first turn costs out of the equasion due to transport,distroyer,sub or Air tran build out of the equasion then it leaves only china and indea. and if you had to start with either china or indea under the current format we all know what country we would pick. PS: afgan takes indea in 1 turn verry un-realistic for a 5k start

India

I agree, it is one of the best countries you can have in a game. However splitting it up would be stupid. Why split up countries that are good? The only way for you to get it without spending some time getting it is when you start out with 50k. Even then you can lose since you lose so much money on 1 country.

I suggest to keep it at it is.

Agreed with Yihkah about not splitting India.
Agreed with pendragon about the importance of holding India.
Disagree with pendragons India vs Africa example Africa can win against anything by itself period.
There are few reasons for obtain or starting in Africa.
1) Your fighting your enemy it's a stalemate and you desperately need cash (this tends to hurt you since you can't disband units yet)
2) It is the beginning of the game a majority of your allies are in the east most enemies are in the west. Your buddies are giving you cash so you can severely hinder the opponent's movements.
3) There's probably one to go here too but I'm tired.

The balance from countries is made with money income, it should stay as it is.

India is the key country in any Eurasia game, it give a lot of interest to the large maps games.Cut it and the side who expands first between europe or east asia will always got the win.

For Turkey it's close to be the same, it's the only country that could balance west side countries money income.Cut it and the east side of the map become useless.(as starting countries)

Well if we're not splitting India, does anyone think it should have militia rather than infantry?

Someone starting out as pakistan has to fight through all the infantry in india, just as someone starting out in the far east. The difference, though, is that the far east has a lot of GREAT militia countries (south korea, taiwan, Northeast china, north korea for reinforcements) while south asia has India, which is riddled with infantry.

Don't forget that western china (closer to china than india) and all of southeast asia are only militia. And given that the far east is richer to begin with, I would definitely support making India a militia-defended country.

I think India should be split not because its unbalanced or it makes the game unfair but simply because without a split India, the southern majority of the Indian subcontinent becomes almost completely irrelevant. Throughout history southern India had been a valuable trade location as well as a much desired area. Also, we must look to the fact that the indian subcontinent is passed by all naval units going between Asia and Europe. However, for the most part this landmass is ignored simply because the capital is so far in the north that having dominance over the Indian Ocean helps little in obtaining and controlling India. While ,in real life, the majority of southern India is aptly controlled by anyone who had a naval force that rules the Indian Ocean.

In short, Breaking India up into North and South would simply make the game more fun because south india becomes an extra obtainable nation in a dynamic position that could really spice up game play.

Kirjutas Otokonoko, 20.03.2011 at 11:33

south india becomes an extra obtainable nation in a dynamic position that could really spice up game play.

No pun intended, huh?

Yeah, I personally think it'd make the game more fun for sure. Any feedback on having India stacked with militia rather than infantry?

It's always a huge pain in the backside to conquer India. This goes for both the first conqueror, and the second person who wants to defeat this conqueror.

This greatly unbalances the game. An enormous force is required when attacking from either side against a fully united India, due to the sheer number of troops available to its owner.

• The west will be heavily fortified, likely covered by defence lines. It's only common sense for the player to do this.
  
• The east is a long distance with lots of exposure due to the low number of cities there
  
• The south is way, way too much of a distance. Due to human nature, the player will undoubtedly want to conquer a few cities first, but no amount of rare units can save someone attacking the capital from the south-west (the horn of Africa and Arabian peninsula) or south-east (Sri Lanka).
  

It's awfully unbalanced at the moment. I'd like a three-fold split, perhaps not the same split as the one shown in the map above, but a split nevertheless would be greatly beneficial to the game's fairness.
And due to the above reasons for difficulty in invading India, there can never be a rally to conquer India or anything of the sort. It will always be Bangladesh or a country to the north of India that takes over. No hope for everyone else in the region. This is yet another reason to split India. It should not be a major bargaining chip simply based on location (which is very unfair). It should be just another area. So please split up India.

Right now india is key in any euro/asia game to take on china and I think the board is fine the way it is.. only thing would be a little more islands out at sea

Kirjutas MarcJr, 20.03.2011 at 17:11

Right now india is key in any euro/asia game to take on china and I think the board is fine the way it is.. only thing would be a little more islands out at sea

...and greenland

Yell thats Because China is also overpowered. it takes all of europ and part of ither the mid-east or russia to conqure china+japan with indea.

Lets face it tighten up the map make indea 3 parts and split china up into a few more parts, make Russia get a little bost by moveing a few of its citys to more strategic locations and add a few to indea and chinas new split up. this will leave the units,money and map the same but make it harder to get a Monster country in 1 turn for 12 tanks.

Kirjutas MarcJr, 20.03.2011 at 17:11

Right now india is key in any euro/asia game to take on china and I think the board is fine the way it is.. only thing would be a little more islands out at sea

I don't think splitting India would make it any less important at all. All the troop numbers would stay the same. The fact that there are two capitals has pros and cons, which outweigh each other. Pro is that your enemy can't take control of the entire country in one attack, and the con is that you'll have to maintain two capitals. Either way, I think the southern part is a bit out of the way.

India should definitely start out with militia when neutral, regardless of whether or not it ever gets split.

Kirjutas Vespre, 21.03.2011 at 00:20

Kirjutas MarcJr, 20.03.2011 at 17:11

Right now india is key in any euro/asia game to take on china and I think the board is fine the way it is.. only thing would be a little more islands out at sea

I don't think splitting India would make it any less important at all. All the troop numbers would stay the same. The fact that there are two capitals has pros and cons, which outweigh each other. Pro is that your enemy can't take control of the entire country in one attack, and the con is that you'll have to maintain two capitals. Either way, I think the southern part is a bit out of the way.

Agreed, but I disagree with using militia instead of infantry simply because of India's tactical importance. With the amount of reinforcements it has, if it was only protected by militia, there would no longer be any consideration to what country you were gonna go after on certain maps. As it is now, you have to weigh your options: 1) take less significant countries to build up revenue and reinforcements to fight other players, or 2) spend all your resources (BECAUSE it is protected by Infantry) capturing India due to it's massive amount of reinforcements. Note that you can win a game choosing either of these options.

I think that this problem is going to remain persistent even if you split India. As an example, USA, Canada, Russia and China used to each have just 1 capital. Now, it is understandable that these countries would be split into territories due to their landmass (it used to take 20+ turns to capture any of these completely). India takes up a much smaller landmass. It is possible to take the entire country in less than 10 turns. My point here is that once you split India, you are going to find the next biggest country and demand that one be split, then the next, and so on and so forth.

I can't count how many times there has been a discussion about 'unbalanced' countries. The fact of the matter is that 'unbalanced' countries are a NECESSARY part of the game. They are an integral part of the decision making process that leads to a successful war campaign.

If we are going to split India, why not just push the fast forward button on this trend and make all countries have exactly +300 AC per turn and let's go ahead and make them all have 10 reinforcements per every 4 turns.

Sific, my point is that if you're starting out in the middle east, you have to fight loads of infantry in India to capture it and get full reinforcements and the country bonus.

Comparing the west (excluding europe) to the east, the east comes out much stronger. Even comparing the whole of India to just the Shanghai and Guangzhou provinces, the latter two come out stronger, or at least close.

If having all militia would be too OP, how about a mix of militia and infantry? I definitely think India should be easier or at least as easy to conquer as china.

Let's say it takes a player 10 turns to conquer all of India, like you said. In less than 10 turns, a player in the east will conquer south and southeast china, and get the two big country bonuses. The player in India needs to go through 10 turns (usually longer) of grinding in order to even GET the country bonus. Granted, the bonus is larger, but not by much. (Compare the Indian and Japanese country bonuses, both fairly similar, yet India has FAR more cities.)

And don't forget about the reinforcement heavy cities in southwest china, which are defended by militia.

My point is that it's FAR easier to get two provinces of china than it is to get the whole of india. And when those two provinces are roughly the same, or at least close to India's income/country bonus, and you consider the huge disadvantage india has against china to begin with, the region looks a little underpowered.

If it were split, the player would at least get a nice north indian country bonus, fairly quickly. If it were stacked with militia, it'd at least be easier to take over. But as of now, you need to conquer the whole thing, AND it's stacked with infantry. And with the far east being easier to conquer, and richer to boot, I don't see any reason not to consider the idea.

Don't forget the high income, militia stacked countries in the far east, south korea and northeast china. As opposed to pakistan and bangladesh.

Now, that is a well stated argument for this debate. I rescind my opposition to the militias and now remain impartial to this idea. I do, however, still oppose splitting the country.

I agree, i also think the us should be split up into 50 states, and that the provinces of every country also be similarly split up.

Actually, the countries of the map should just be equal sized (costing the same of course) with an equal amount of cities, income and an equal amount of troops be given to each. That way the game becomes more about strategy then picking countries first.

Though a good number of people object, I'm also going to throw my lot in with splitting India into 2 or 3 pieces. Yes, 1 huge India adds to the game by forcing players to weigh its risk and benefit, but the same would be true with it split up. Having 20 cities in the same province, and just Delhi as the capital puts too much emphasis on that one city.
No one is calling for all provinces to be perfectly identical; far from it. There will still be many small provinces and many large provinces, with different strategies that keep the game interesting. The giant India actually has the opposite problem; it makes any Asia game predictable as it is so important and so vulnerable, it's always one of the first targets. Splitting it up will create tons of viable new strategies, like the bottom being used as a staging area for SE Asia, fortifying just half as another player picks up the other, or the entire country being passed over for a quicker entry into Iran or China. As it stands, every country that has the option to expand into India takes it, just because it is such a tempting prize. Splitting it up will not remove India's special importance as an incredibly important province, but it will turn it from a game-defining uber-region to a uniquely powerful but not absurdly valuable strategic target.

Indea As is,
Advantages
1 kill one city to get a great bonus to your income.
2 You can conqure middle east with 1 transport and the melitia you get.
3 you can boat over to saudi arabia with southern city
4 you can hold off japan and china with Just melitia
5 the countrys bordering it are all wimps and free points(again with melitia+1 air trans)
6 Prozimity to china makes is a launchpad for invading china.
7 Bigger then the USA
8 Bigger then china
9 Bigger then turky or Germany Or britton
10 Creates 80+melita when all citys are captured which you can use to capture more citys

Disadvantages
1 Large land mass
2 lots of inferntry(easy to kill when you wait 1 week before invading)


I think that there are way to many advantages here and that=Unballance Expecialy if its stronger then the US or china. If i have to take multiple capitals for china or the US why not indea?

Consider this: The Shanghai and Guangzhou provinces alone have half the amount of cities that India has (with additional cities on). With normal city numbers, it's still 2/3 the amount of Indian cities.

Together, their income is 1500, as opposed to India's 1100. Their combined country bonuses are somewhere in the 400 - 550 range, India has a single bonus of 343.

Also consider that japan has a bonus of 298, while having 5 cities. India has a bonus of 343, while having 12 cities.

India is getting disadvantages here and there despite being much poorer than the east to begin with. Splitting it would naturally allow for it to have militia. The idea that the entire country is as hard to conquer as all of eastern China is pretty ridiculous, I've found that in most games it's not even worth conquering unless you've no enemies nearby.

Also remember that the east asia region has the added bonus of being isolated, and subject to attacks only from one direction, while the south asia region gets invaded through multiple directions.

Correct BUT china is not 1 country and Japan is sea locked so it has to build transports to move its units.
SO indea can take out any china province 1on1 and it will also beat japan when it gets there from land.
Remember Indea does not only give you a great income it also gives you insaine troop advantage, all you need to win with it is move them.

Yes, japan is sealocked, so you have to build a transport to get to it. After that, all you have to do is capture the 5 cities (as opposed to 12 or 16) for almost the same country bonus.

I don't see why it matters whether China is one country or not. Capturing Guangzhou and Shanghai entirely takes half as much effort as capturing India. Capturing Guangzhou and Shanghai gives you twice as much money as capturing India. Less effort AND more money.

Sure, India gives a big troop advantage, but don't you remember north korea, northeast china, and south korea? All are stacked with militia, and together give you 6 cities with 8 troops each. And they're all stacked with militia. Every infantry Chinese city has 8 reinforcements as well, except for hainan dao, and one city in the north.

As it is, China is overpowered against India. For the wrong reasons, not the right ones. Splitting India doesn't matter so much, but militia vs. infantry does. In an Asia game, north korea will ALWAYS demolish pakistan, unless there are a lot of alliances or something like that.