Yes, they can do that even if the powers are at war. The presence of a sub belonging to an enemy power does not block movement.
Marsh
Do you want canada as a power
-
@WILD:
You know that including Canada in the game could also diminish the capture the flag rule. The UK would basically still be able to fight on through Canada. If you house rule Canada in, you could also allow either power to take ownership of the others tt in the event that their capital falls. Now Canada may have some extra value. It would be considered more of an asset in this case, to over come some of the hurdles that it would cause for the UK.
But I’m of half a mind (on a good day) to suggest that while the UK can continue the fight thru Ottawa, the Axis should not have to capture it as well to win.
-
I think it should be optional for Canada to be a power.
If you have enough players, then one player can play as Canada. Otherwise it is controlled by the UK player. -
i think brazil should be its own power….
seriously… they did contribute to the war…oh… and why not make south africa a power too… i mean realistically any income gained in south africa was not spent in the british isles…
i am canadian, and i am totally against them being a power in the board game… we have enough powers to keep track of as it is…
do you really want to wait 2 hours before america’s turn? i mean seriously… sometimes people play the board game with actual friends, and the guy playing america already has to wait 1 hour before he gets to do anything at all -
then why not we (Belgium) united with netherlands?
we have belgian congo, belgium itself, netherlands itself, suriname, curaçao, perhaps even south-africa ( :-D) and dutch east-indies -
This is becoming like holidays in the US, everyone has to be represented. Honestly the game can already take a long time. We don’t need more countries represented. I love Canada too, I couldn’t wish for a better neighbor, but please leave Canada as an optional power.
-
Obviously, including Canada in the game does not require you to include every other nation. :roll:
But, if South Africa–or even Brazil–were to be represented in A&A, ask yourself: would this ruin or enhance the game?
Personally, I think that every power that is added to the game makes it richer and more interesting, up to a point: the point that the power represented is so small that you have to save up for more than one turn to buy a (decent) unit.
So unless South Africa gets all UK IPCs in Africa, it shouldn’t have its own economy (though this doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t or couldn’t be represented by a different colour of units, for the sake of tracking their exploits–this would be definite added value).
ANZAC, for example, is only an interesting power to control because you can usually buy at least one of any type of unit (short of a capital ship) each turn.
So, given the projected IPC value of Canada in the Global '40 game (about the same or slightly less than ANZAC), and it should likewise be highly playable.
Unlike, perhaps, Brazil.
-
Okay you have a point there Make_It_Round. But there is still the time factor issue.
-
Round you continually bring up excellent points before I have the chance to! :-D
I’m glad that Canada has its own roundel and if it wont be a power then there will likley be a political rule to allow them to continue the fight if London falls. It will be interesting to see if they get an IC.
I don’t understand those who mock the introduction of Canada as a power into the game (IL, Vqy etc.) by claiming we should just let every country into the game.
As far as total wartime economic contribution goes Canada was the largest contributer outside those already represented in AA50. The largest “middle power” if you will. They had a larger wartime economy by the end of the conflict than either Japan or Italy. They are really the only other logical addition ot the geame after France and ANZAC (Neutrals notwithstanding).
I will, however, give you the time issue BD.
-
I must admit Canuck you do make a good arguement for Canada. With your arguement about paralleling Canada and Italy makes me a liitle undecided. I feel a little stronger about keeping them completly british just to keep the british stronger.
-
As a Canadian I would love to see Canada as a separate power but I just cant see this being possible in axis and allies, the amount of time and money required to form a force large enough to do anything, the game will be over.
If it gets around 10 Ipcs a turn, that’s two turns to fill and build a transport, another to build a basic escort unit (DD) and another two or so to get anywhere, and then everyone dies due to either a fighter attack on the navy or a hopeless attack on European soil.
It would do better if it was grouped together with Britain, as pretty much all of the British commonwealth fought under the same command structure.
AT MOST i would say there should be an optional rule to group them in with the ANZACs, and like Australia and India in the original AAA pacific, and form some sort of commonwealth turn (dump in South Africa or any other former British Colony that someone wants to have their own turn) just separate income, but I don’t think they should ever need their own turn if they want to stand a chance against the Axis.
-
would certianly make for a fun house rule but where would they fit in? like who would they go after?
-
No
-
I think Canada should be like China, with its own pieces, but controlled by another player unless you have enough players.
-
would certianly make for a fun house rule but where would they fit in? like who would they go after?
They could/would go after the Germans in game terms i suppose,as they wouldn’t be doing much in the Pacific besides air crews and some naval personnel.
places to go-Hong Kong, Sicily, Italy, Dieppe, Normandy,southern France, Canadians fought for all of them.
And I believe by war’s end they had the 3rd largest navy.
-
I wonder if instead of adding Canada and Anz etc as separate powers, if you could just lump all the Commonwealth (CWP) into one power. You could use the Anz units to represent the Commonwealth Power (CWP). It would take its turn in the Anz spot in the rotation. What ever the total IPC value is for UK (including Anz) take a % (maybe as high as 1/2) and spend that much money at any of the 4 minor IC’s. Maybe have to split between at least 2 of them with some kind of cap per IC based on a given region in its control.
If there is an NO geared to a particular IC (like the Anz-New Guenna, Dutch New G, Sol, and New Britten) then earmark it to that IC. You probably should have an NO for each mini power. If you start loosing control of the 4 IC any left over $ would revert back to the UK itself, keeping in mind that each minor IC would have a cap. If England builds other IC it should also be included in the CWP.4 minor IC locations:
- Anz
- India
- Canada
- S Africa or Egypt
Does anyone think this is doable, or have suggestions that might make it work.
-
They had a larger wartime economy by the end of the conflict than either Japan or Italy.
I have to say, I’m not entirely convinced by this line of thinking. Canada was untouched by the war and able to manufacture in peace within it’s own borders. Its wartime economy was also boosted by the fact that Britain and Russia were buying things it made. Like the US, Canada was one of the only countries to make money from the war.
Italy was occupied from 1943 onwards, and had the war fought on its own soil. Japan’s industrial centers were bombed relentlessly from '44 onwards, and they were being starved of fuel and materials vital for production in the later war stages by the Allies. Also, there is no comparison between the number of men fielded and lost by both Italy and Japan to Canada.
And I believe by war’s end they had the 3rd largest navy.
See above.
I do, however, think that if Anzac deserved its own place, then so did Canada. In fact, I think Canada deserved it more. I would like to see an option in the global game where the Empire is under British control, but if new players are introduced then Canada and Anzac could be a stand alone under a single player. I still think that whatever we see in the European game may differ from the ‘global rules’ merged game. We shall see.
I don’t think splitting the ‘minor’ Empire territories makes sense. They were really ‘support’ arms for British efforts. Canada is an exception in terms of production.
I would really like to see the stats for war production/troops fielded for all Empire territories (UK included) in order to see just how the Empire would break down. All house rules should at least start from some kind of historical basis.
-
One of things about the "global game"is that there are so many new powers. I think what they should have considered was different sculpts for some of these powers still under the control of one player (limit the differing scuplts for Canada and Anzac to Infantry maybe). In the European version Canada as a power should be fine. In the global game a trillion different powers will drive me nuts.
I would rather see different infantry sculpts for Anzac and Canada rather than see them as whole new powers, merely to keep gameplay flowing.
-
I can see adding Canada for accuracy reasons, but I think it would add uneccesary complexity with no real gameplay benefit…
-
I can see adding Canada for accuracy reasons, but I think it would add uneccesary complexity with no real gameplay benefit…
Agreed
-
i don’t know, remember candida did help the UK a lot in the war
Suggested Topics
