I am not that familiar with NOs but am with convoy lanes as it was in the original Pacific version. If Canada deserved a NO (then there would be about 20-30 for proportionalities which makes me doubt if it deserves one) it should be something along the lines of convoy duty in the North Atlantic. Canada took a beating due to equipment shortages and poor training to the point it had to pull out of the Atlantic at the end of 42 to requip and regroup. However, within a few months the revamped RCN came back and eventually was solely responsible for north atlantic covoy duties including routing, scheduling and guarding freeing the US navy to concentrate in the pacific.
Mind you the other half of the North Atlantic “issue” is that you need to encourage U-boat patrolling as well otherwise no NO would be enough to encourage the Cdn player to ptl empty sea zones.
I don’t know if the ocean’s big enough and the control of it is vital enough to make a real Battle of the Atlantic.
#591
To respond to a slightly off topic point…
I believe NOs are good for promoting objectives that really existed in the war, and they are good motivation for a player accomplishing those. But some of them I find kind of freebee-ish. A Canada NO, like the one proposed, is sort of freebee-ish. Germany will almost never take any part of Canada, and it is more than likely that Germany won’t have the resources to keep subs or ships stationed off the North American coast or in the North Atlantic. So Canada won’t have to station fighters or ships near North America preparing for opposition that will never come in the vast majority of games played.
And by ‘freebee’ NOs, I don’t just mean Canada. The US NO for having East, Central and Western states is a freebee too, and I don’t agree with it. The US is going to be getting astronomical IPCs in the Global game… do they really need 5 more a turn for no good reason?
Oh yeah… what is IMTO?
For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.
#594
For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.
#594
Okay, gotcha.
But what is IMTO?
If I’m playing UK then no I don’t want to be forced to spend $ in Canada then transport or fly it over. UK will need its units that round, not placed in Quebec then be available next round (especially navy). As a separate power I think Canada would just be an air plane factory. That would be the safest way to get units over. I like the fact that Quebec has an IC, if UK chooses to use it. Say it’s not safe to drop ships in the sz around UK, so build in the Hudson, as the UK I like having options, not being force fed by some house rule. Then there’s give Canada an NO. Ok, but would you not have to also give the axis an NO too, or do you feel that splitting Canada from UK is hardship enough to warrant just an ally NO.
After playing the game several times we might toy with a house rule allowing Canada to be its own power, but I can’t see it being used more then a few times in our group. Canada becoming a minor power to continue the fight after UK falls is very intriguing to me though. That’s why I checked the maybe box.
For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.
#594
Okay, gotcha.
But what is IMTO?
In My Temporary Opinion.
My Posts are like Swayze.
Read fast.
#596
For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.
#594
Okay, gotcha.
But what is IMTO?
In My Temporary Opinion.
My Posts are like Swayze.
Read fast.#596
Hmm… IMTO … I like it.
Well IMTO the Commonwealth should permit the UK player to remain in the game post-Sealion and should disperse production.
Now that’s a pretty normative statement ranking up there with I shouldn’t pay so much in tax and my fries should never be cold, so the harsh realities of game balance arise to make me think that’s a pipe dream.
Now aside from that I’m thinking patriotism might be the only reason that someone would actually volunteer to play Canada.
#597
Now aside from that I’m thinking patriotism might be the only reason that someone would actually volunteer to play Canada.
Entirely.
In terms of giving Canada a role based on its historical contribution, to make matters worse (of course) using it as a fighter factory and then having a huge RCAF wouldn’t be historically correct either.
The T in BCATP stands for Training after all. So maybe half of the air units being “produced” in Canada should actually be UK units.
Couldn’t use the maple syrup-flavoured Cdn pieces at all. Pity.
#598
Yes, please put in an independent Canadian power that will take 10-15 IPCs away from the UK when it really needs them the most at the start of the game during US/USSR neutrality. This will ensure German Sealion attempts to be 100% successful all of the time.
Thank you.
OK, I’ll bite: how do you get 10-15 IPCs?
#600
OK, I’ll bite: how do you get 10-15 IPCs?
…and why would the Canadian player/controller place units in Canada unless it was advantageous to them?
Yeah, the person who said it just weakens the UK and makes SeaLion more likely is 100% correct :-o
Dispersing the UK income just means it has less resilience to Axis attacks, i.e. it falls into the “I can’t buy anything useful this turn so I’ll just save money” category. This gives the Axis continuous initiative. Similarly, at 10IPCs or less for Canada etc, they can’t huy anything useful either. 1 DD in the Atlantic per turn will just get killed off by lucky German Subs and Bombers.
Even worse, this splits the attacks of the Allies. Previously you may have had 3-4 Allied DDs in the Atlantic operating as a nasty ASW force. Now you will have 1-2 each, making each attack weaker.
I can’t believe the designers didn’t think of this, and if they did, what was their superior justification? :?
Cheers,
Lozza007
What about making Canada a separate minor power with a national objective, but to counter weakening the UK, don’t split UK income. It will give the UK more money and deploying options, and if Japan doesn’t attack, the DEI money will come in handy to replace lost Canadian IPCs.
If Canada were to be a seperate power in AAE40 I would like them to:
a) have at least 10 IC
b) have a series of NOs for the UK linked to keeping the commonwealth intact. So, As long as Canada, India, ANZAC and S. Africa remain intact the UK gets bonus cash. When one or all fall, their bonus cash (via NOs) evaporates.
That way the designers could allow options for a minor Canada ally while also keeping the UK economically viable (and relaint on its overseas colonies)
OK, I’ll bite: how do you get 10-15 IPCs?
#600
If Canada is around 6-8 IPCs, and has a +5 NO bonus for staying intact (like the US) as suggested, it will definitely be around 10-15 IPCs a round. The only logical place for the Canadian units to invade would be North Africa or France. I doubt there would be a minor/major industry placed in Western Canada, just a major placed in Eastern Canada.
I just think it will be a bad idea as the UK income is already split into the European and Pacific theaters, splitting the European UK AGAIN into Canadian and British powers spells bad news for England at the beginning of the game, when Germany will be at its strongest with the UK as its only enemy for the first 3 rounds.
I guess the Canadian power could be used to liberate the UK once or twice on the second and/or third turns from the Germans.
Canada should have about 1/5th to maybe as much as 1/4 the IPC of england proper. That would be about 2 IPC, which doesn’t reflect the US to Canada ratio of 10:1 on GDP. A simple guide to GDP production ratios would be a 9:3:1 of USA:Britain:Canada. So if Canada were to have an income of 10, britain (scotland, northern ireland, wales and england) would be 30 and the US 90. So with commonwealth countries Britain would be maybe in the mid 40s without Canada then?
I just think Canada’s GDP is too small to justify as an individual power. California has (maybe not then) now a larger GDP and population then Canada so….
If Canada is its own power, it would be about the same size as the Anzac in Pac (13-15 ipc w/NO). The UK will get hammered the first couple of rounds because its allies may still be neutral. I could see the axis gaining control of Africa, and the Middle east plus having ships (subs) around England very early on (convoy’s). UK will become like India in Pac, a very poor minor power. We would be talking about a round 3 London crush, just like there is the India crush in Pac, and there would be noway to stop it (bye bye UK). Look at the bright side though, Canada would still be a minor power in play (not that it could do anything) :-D.
You have to keep in mind that there is normally no fighting going on in North America, so why would you want to be forced to mobilize units there and then fly/transport them over to where the fighting is (you would be creating a mini US w/o the resources to make a difference). As the UK I want to get units into Africa (S Africa IC), or ships directly into the waters surrounding England. Don’t handicap game play for UK for symbolic reasons. I like the fact the Canada gets a minor IC (that shows it importance). If UK it unable to drop ships in the water due to axis presence, the Hudson, or Quebec coast will be a great addition to the game for building navy in a safe zone. You could use all UK resources and drop in a carrier, and or BB (not just 10-15 Canadian ipc’s), then bring them over on your next turn and add to them creating a formidable force (a great option).
I’m not sure how the new neutrals work, the british allies in a game of AA stay neutral until a specific event? Hitorically the only ally that sat back during the first part of WWII was the United States……From wiki:
The United Kingdom and other independent members of the British Commonwealth, known as the Dominions, declared war on Germany separately, either on the same day, or soon afterwards; these countries were Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. However, Newfoundland had given up self-rule and was at the time under effective rule from the UK; it did not become part of Canada until 1949. Southern Rhodesia, while self-governing, did not have independence in foreign policy or military matters.
Following the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the Dominions of the British Commonwealth had independence in foreign policy. Australia and New Zealand accepted and reiterated the British declaration of war on Germany. The South African Prime Minister, Barry Hertzog, refused to declare war, leading to the collapse of his coalition government on 6 September; the new Prime Minister, Jan Smuts, declared war that same day. Canada declared war on Germany on 10 September; this was necessary as Canada had ratified the Statute.
The Indian Empire (including the areas and peoples covered by the later Republic of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan) and territories controlled by the Colonial Office, namely the Crown Colonies, were controlled politically by the UK and therefore also entered hostilities with Britain’s declaration of war. The Indian Empire contributed about 2,500,000 personnel. It suffered 1,500,000 civilian casualties (more than the United Kingdom), mainly from the Bengal famine of 1943 caused by the fall of Burma to the Japanese,[15] and 87,000 military casualties (more than any Commonwealth country but fewer than the United Kingdom). The UK suffered 382,000 military casualties.
