I have nothing against more realism, but in the end, it’s a board game. Game balance is extremely important because without it, the game can’t really be played. In a historically realistic setting in terms of forces and income, the Axis wouldn’t stand a chance.
So for a change like this to work, it would be necessary to avoid putting the Allies at a disadvantage, especially because consesnsu has it that they already need a considerable bid right now.
@Caesar:
What I want to test this by making Canada its own nation, combine UK’s income into one making London the capital. I want to buff the Canadian military by giving it a fighter, maybe one for two more infantry, putting one inf. in Hong Kong, two inf. in London. Canada will go last and France will go first, not sure on National Objectives yet.
So if I understand this correctly, you advocate abolishing UK Pacific in order to boost the UK’s income and compensate the UK for not having Canada’s 7 IPC? That change probably favors the Allies at least during the first few turns, but historically, it would ignore the significant contribution India made to World War II, so I’m not so sure about it from a viewpoint of added realism. And Canada would still need a bigger income than 7 - I suppose the easiest way would be to just upgrade a few of their home territories.
And by “France will go first”, do you propose that France will move before Germany, or just that France will move before Canada? France before Germany would be a major change and a big advantage to the Allies.
Natioanl objectives for Canada…. I’m thinking: 5 IPC for having a land unit in Normandy-Bordeaux. This would reflect Canada’s role in liberating Western Europe and from a game perspective, might provide the Germans with an extra incentive to kick the Allies out of Normandy-Bordeaux as opposed to just holding Paris.