My ideas for splitting India.

It has been on the cards for a long time, but with Thisthread addressing changes in Asia, and one being in India, I thought I would offer my opinions.

Reasons why India needs a split:
It is huge, it has massive amounts and reinforcements, close to 100, and is very difficult to take, i think splitting India would boost play in the middle east dramatically.
It is Incredibly easy to defend if you hold it as well as Asia or as well as Europe, you can stack 100's of units and defend it without an issue.
I think a split will create an awesome battle ground for Europe and Asia, especially if we have some coastal capitals.

Possible ways to split:
i have looked at actual regions of India, by culture such as Bengal, Hindi, Kashmir. and actual physical borders, but really, none of them make any sense for Afterwind.
It just turns out that in USA, China and Brazil actual defined already regions worked perfectly, but regions I find on India would not make a great battleground.

So, without further ado, here are two ways I think could work:

4way split:
This is the way that seems most natural to me given the cities I have, it will most likely require all 100+ cities in India to be placed in by default, and not require 100+.


White: India: North (Infantry)
Red: India: West (Infantry)
Green: India: East (Militia)
Black: India: South.(Militia)

edit:
adding Jabalpur

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 17:05

It just seemed natural to add one in that space, with India being split up, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (it's only a 3 reinforce in an area with low reinforce compared to the others). It would be a +100 city anyways.

Also, 100+ cities would be:
Ludhiana, Indore, Kakinada
without 100+ all regions have 24 except west with will have 27
With 100+ East and west will have 29, South will have 26, east will have 28.

I chose capitals by the most populous cities in the territories.

The reason I believe this will work the best is because it offers two regions to the west side on india, two on the east, And both sides have one port capital, which will make for great battles.

Perfect scenario example:
Imagine: Europe is assaulting India from the middle east, but a player in China has not had enough time to prepare a defensive force in India, and Europe takes North and West India by reinforcements.
Asia will still have south and east, and also has reinforcements from Asia, which are much easier to get to India than Middle East to Dehli, it makes a perfect battle ground, if Asia can compose himself, he will hold India and become a strong force again, and be ready to face the middle east. If not, Europe will reign supreme.

Scenario 2:
Player 1 chooses Burma, player 2 chooses Pakistan
Pakistan has to fight through hordes of infantry, while Burma can expand into west India fairly easily, while also expanding into indo-china.
At this point Pakistan and Burma could ally, and be a formidable force against China within a few turns,
another example is a Pakistan Europe alliance, or a Asia Burma alliance,
in a 2v2 game, imagine Germany, Pakistan vs Burma, south Korea, doubt it would happen, but it would make an amazing fight.

With this split, I believe will become the most important strategic region in a Eurasia game.

3 way split:
Honestly, I made this look as good as it could, to offer a 3 way spilt to India, but it still doesn't make much sense to me, 4 way is much better, but with some revision, this is an option.


White: India: West (Infantry)
Black: India: South (Militia)
Green: India: East (Militia)
So thanks for reading this, and please offer as much criticism as you can :3

Splitting India, yes, but
>adding more cities to India
Too many cities, too little space.

JUST NO M8

It just seemed natural to add one in that space, with India being split up, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (it's only a 3 reinforce in an area with low reinforce compared to the others). It would be a +100 city anyways.

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 17:05

It just seemed natural to add one in that space, with India being split up, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (it's only a 3 reinforce in an area with low reinforce compared to the others). It would be a +100 city anyways.

I forgot to mention that you've buffed a bunch of other cities up to 8, et al...

Napsáno YOBA, 27.05.2012 at 19:18

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 17:05

It just seemed natural to add one in that space, with India being split up, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (it's only a 3 reinforce in an area with low reinforce compared to the others). It would be a +100 city anyways.

I forgot to mention that you've buffed a bunch of other cities up to 8, et al..

they already were 8, if you look at the stats i added under the quote in the op, all regions get around the same troop count.

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 19:28

Napsáno YOBA, 27.05.2012 at 19:18

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 17:05

It just seemed natural to add one in that space, with India being split up, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (it's only a 3 reinforce in an area with low reinforce compared to the others). It would be a +100 city anyways.

I forgot to mention that you've buffed a bunch of other cities up to 8, et al..

they already were 8, if you look at the stats i added under the quote in the op, all regions get around the same troop count.

Napsáno Garde, 27.05.2012 at 19:05

snip

yeah this is cool except there is no point in that northeast region, and i think mine balances troop count for all regions perfectly

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 19:30

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 19:28

Napsáno YOBA, 27.05.2012 at 19:18

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 17:05

It just seemed natural to add one in that space, with India being split up, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (it's only a 3 reinforce in an area with low reinforce compared to the others). It would be a +100 city anyways.

I forgot to mention that you've buffed a bunch of other cities up to 8, et al..

they already were 8, if you look at the stats i added under the quote in the op, all regions get around the same troop count.

Napsáno Garde, 27.05.2012 at 19:05

snip

yeah this is cool except there is no point in that northeast region, and i think mine balances troop count for all regions perfectly

Gameplay my friend. It would be a much more intriguing battle if we had northeast split off. Land grab is always fun, and diversity is key to map use. The more practical splits, the better. It would also help in Scenario creation. I see the reason of not splitting in, but it being so far away from the practical capitol, makes it's head city untouched most of the time, especially since it does not offer as much as other cities. The borders I made were designed off of physical, political, and ideological boundaries, which would be much, much better than just drawing random lines. You also have to take into account which culture exists where, if we were to split America up, and conjoin Great lakes with the South, people would be harsh about it. I love the idea of splitting India as an option, however it must be done in moderation, and add new challenge to Asia, as I presented my with my version.

Napsáno Garde, 27.05.2012 at 19:37

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 19:30

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 19:28

Napsáno YOBA, 27.05.2012 at 19:18

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 17:05

It just seemed natural to add one in that space, with India being split up, it wouldn't make much of a difference to me (it's only a 3 reinforce in an area with low reinforce compared to the others). It would be a +100 city anyways.

I forgot to mention that you've buffed a bunch of other cities up to 8, et al..

they already were 8, if you look at the stats i added under the quote in the op, all regions get around the same troop count.

Napsáno Garde, 27.05.2012 at 19:05

snip

yeah this is cool except there is no point in that northeast region, and i think mine balances troop count for all regions perfectly

Gameplay my friend. It would be a much more intriguing battle if we had northeast split off. Land grab is always fun, and diversity is key to map use. The more practical splits, the better. It would also help in Scenario creation. I see the reason of not splitting in, but it being so far away from the practical capitol, makes it's head city untouched most of the time, especially since it does not offer as much as other cities. The borders I made were designed off of physical, political, and ideological boundaries, which would be much, much better than just drawing random lines. You also have to take into account which culture exists where, if we were to split America up, and conjoin Great lakes with the South, people would be harsh about it. I love the idea of splitting India as an option, however it must be done in moderation, and add new challenge to Asia, as I presented my with my version.

I think with my version, with infantry in the west, and militia in the west, will make a battle between indochina and pakistan an amazing fight.

i also think it will became more of a stragetic point than it is atm.

also, Guwahati is only 3 reinforcements, and has no money, it is basically like adding another Nepal to the region
if it is part of the east region, people will have to take it for full income, it is therefore an important city.

Napsáno nonames, 27.05.2012 at 19:42

I think with my version, with infantry in the west, and militia in the west, will make a battle between indochina and pakistan an amazing fight.

i also think it will became more of a stragetic point than it is atm.

also, Guwahati is only 3 reinforcements, and has no money, it is basically like adding another Nepal to the region
if it is part of the east region, people will have to take it for full income, it is therefore an important city.

That's my point another Nepal adds a sort of Buffer zone, or a necessary land to be taken to advance eastward. Plus, a more diverse India would be more beneficial, just as a diverse Europe is more beneficial; it adds more opportunities and strategy. I also think a 4/5-way system for India would prove more beneficial in the long run, as the main three powers (Madras, Bengel, Rajputana) could serve as equivalents of Europe base powers (Germany, France, Turkey etc), while Assam and Nicobar could be smaller, buffer countries high-ranking players could try and master, or use as buffer/fodder. Adding Assam to Bengel would only make Guwahati more useless, not many players care about full income (When you generalize the population, more players are less micro-managers than more experienced players, so if the majority won't care about the city, then fid a way to make it more important, which was the task here. You could also buff it's income a tad for it to be a step above Nepal).

I updated the map. All three Alpha Indian territories have 34 Units and 5 cities, while the two Omega territories are still just buffer or 100+.
Also, the cities in Alpha India are positioned just right so that some cities cancel out going one way, cap one way, or lose one way. Kudos to the Admins
for placing them like that, as the factors put in make some 8 cities perfectly balanced for many outcomes. I'd also suggest splitting India be a 100+ option,
as I'm aware a minority and the Admins like India as is.

I like the way gardevoir splits it

Alpha and Beta India?

Napsáno YOBA, 28.05.2012 at 14:45

Alpha and Beta India?

Alpha as in Alpha Male- Just a figure of speech denoting mainland India as the more important sector, while the two buffer zones are less important; Omegas'.

Good idea
this big country is so useless

Guwhati is closer to kolkata than nagpur, and you were talking about how useless Guwhati is to the territory because it is too far away from the capital, and too small to take.

it would basically be equivalent to taking Bilabo from madrid, or liverpool from london, or hamburg from berlin, or milan from rome.

you can reach it in one move from kolkata, it will not be ignored if it forms one region, it will actually be more likely to ignored if you split it up because of no reinforcements and terrible money.

You have to think of this on a strategical level, it just does not make sense to have it as a capital, anyone attacking from burma will choose bangladesh, then kolkata over it every. single. time.

Good one

Napsáno nonames, 28.05.2012 at 19:14

Guwhati is closer to kolkata than nagpur, and you were talking about how useless Guwhati is to the territory because it is too far away from the capital, and too small to take.

it would basically be equivalent to taking Bilabo from madrid, or liverpool from london, or hamburg from berlin, or milan from rome.

you can reach it in one move from kolkata, it will not be ignored if it forms one region, it will actually be more likely to ignored if you split it up because of no reinforcements and terrible money.

You have to think of this on a strategical level, it just does not make sense to have it as a capital, anyone attacking from burma will choose bangladesh, then kolkata over it every. single. time.

I am thinking of it on a strategical and relative level. A normal player does not care about random small cities, which Guwhati is. If it forms another country, they will have to take it to get that territory. If we add Guwhati to Bengal, it just unbalances the Indian continent anyhow, as Bengal will be unequal to the other two Indian powers. It will also have less strategical options when confronting the other two. Distance isn't the problem, it's the willingness of your average player. He is more inclined on bigger/important cities, than smaller/unimportant cities. By making Assam a buffer country you make it important in his goal for perfect domination. I have been working out the factors for India since Indo made his post about it, the Map I produced is the most accurate you can get without interrupting gameplay. The positioning of each city corresponds to it's sister across the border, some falter when attack, but some work together to take others down. The strategical aspect is applied to each and every city, you must think before acting with these borders.

Good idea

Napsáno Donald J.Trump, 28.05.2012 at 20:41

Good idea

This^

Napsáno Ivan, 14.03.2011 at 02:34

Napsáno 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.

Asked and answered; unless Ivan's opinion has changed.

Napsáno Guest14502, 28.05.2012 at 22:25

Napsáno Ivan, 14.03.2011 at 02:34

Napsáno 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.

Asked and answered; unless Ivan's opinion has changed.

So even if splitting India was proven beneficial to the game, he would refuse?

Well the devs don't seem to have played enough to know india need a split, though almost every player has said India does need a split

the fact is that india has 2 or 3 times as many troops as every other country in the game, and they are all packed with infantry, the game will be much more fluid for people starting in the middle east, and more importantly, indochina. because they will have an easy way to gra land in india other than walking all the way to dehli.

I'm simply reporting what's been said by the powers that be on this issue. Maybe the topic will change their opinion, maybe not. Anyway its a good discussion (except for the part that the devs hardly know anything).

Every player who actually plays the game knows splitting india will be beneficial to gameplay, it's just about finding the correct way to split it..

and yeah, sorry for putting it blunty, i meant to say the admins could of done it better. but USA could of been split a lot better too, if the admins say okay to this, I may propose some changes to america.

Napsáno nonames, 29.05.2012 at 11:37

Every player who actually plays the game knows splitting india will be beneficial to gameplay, it's just about finding the correct way to split it..

and yeah, sorry for putting it blunty, but USA could of been split a lot better too, if the admins say okay to this, I may propose some changes to america.

I should let you know your original map inspired me to make mine (In other words, I really like your's )- sure, neither of them are perfect yet, maybe we should exchange the data we have on both to produce a better one, and collaborate with other general players and a couple advanced ones, to produce a final version the community can agree on? If it's backed with enough substantial datum and community support, the Admins will surely implement it, yes?

Napsáno Garde, 29.05.2012 at 14:02

Napsáno nonames, 29.05.2012 at 11:37

Every player who actually plays the game knows splitting india will be beneficial to gameplay, it's just about finding the correct way to split it..

and yeah, sorry for putting it blunty, but USA could of been split a lot better too, if the admins say okay to this, I may propose some changes to america.

I should let you know your original map inspired me to make mine (In other words, I really like your's )- sure, neither of them are perfect yet, maybe we should exchange the data we have on both to produce a better one, and collaborate with other general players and a couple advanced ones, to produce a final version the community can agree on? If it's backed with enough substantial datum and community support, the Admins will surely implement it, yes?

Honestly, your 3 way split with Guwahati included in bengal would work fine, i should of thought of that split than my one. I doubt the admins would bother with Nicobar though to be honest, even though it would be cool.

the reason why i really like my four way split is that with it, Indo-China can have a fair fight against Pakistan by fighting over different territories in India, with militia in the east cities, it will easier for Indo-China to set up for a prolonged fight with Pakistan while possibly waiting for support from china or Oceania

Also, if you look at the capitals in my 4-way split, 3 of them are ports, so a good naval commander in oceania can move onto pakistan, and possibly beat asia there >:D

Napsáno nonames, 29.05.2012 at 15:02

Napsáno Garde, 29.05.2012 at 14:02

Napsáno nonames, 29.05.2012 at 11:37

Every player who actually plays the game knows splitting india will be beneficial to gameplay, it's just about finding the correct way to split it..

and yeah, sorry for putting it blunty, but USA could of been split a lot better too, if the admins say okay to this, I may propose some changes to america.

I should let you know your original map inspired me to make mine (In other words, I really like your's )- sure, neither of them are perfect yet, maybe we should exchange the data we have on both to produce a better one, and collaborate with other general players and a couple advanced ones, to produce a final version the community can agree on? If it's backed with enough substantial datum and community support, the Admins will surely implement it, yes?

Honestly, your 3 way split with Guwahati included in bengal would work fine, i should of thought of that split than my one. I doubt the admins would bother with Nicobar though to be honest, even though it would be cool.

the reason why i really like my four way split is that with it, Indo-China can have a fair fight against Pakistan by fighting over different territories in India, with militia in the east cities, it will easier for Indo-China to set up for a prolonged fight with Pakistan while possibly waiting for support from china or Oceania

Also, if you look at the capitals in my 4-way split, 3 of them are ports, so a good naval commander in oceania can move onto pakistan, and possibly beat asia there >:D

Haha, Port Capitols can be very important in the right situation ^^
Well, I debated with myself out loud for a half hour, figuring out all of the factors that go into my ruling on Assam, so i'll share them here. Basically, a separate Assam is a better Assam. Why? Well, for starters, it leaves Alpha India (The Main Triangle, Mainland, Bollywood, whatever you wish to call it) balanced, with each province have 34 units and 5 cities (5 right? sorry if i'm wrong). If Assam is included in the Bengal package, it makes India unbalanced, with Bengal being the obvious choice, with added income and units I mean. Now, it may not be many units and income, but in the right hands, it could definitely change the tide of a battle. Assam also is different culturally and geographically than Bengal, which could be reasoning for it's separation. There's also the argument that it could be used in various Scenarios, but I honestly wouldn't need it much. Not to say others wouldn't, though. My final point on Assam is it's buffer-zone quality: It acts as a sort-of "Nepal clone" in some aspects, but offers a much better incentive for players. The added bonuses with it will entice the Asian players to take and fortify it, along with Bhutan and Bangladesh. It creates a very near line, separating the Asiatic expansion and the Mid-Eastern power as well. It also may make the Roof_of_the_world region much more important, with the added incentive I mean. Now, what else do I need to explain here? I would love to talk more about it! Please give specifics, if you may ^^