Who plays with Canada as temporary capital?

[Witt]

I was playing a Global with my long time best friend and A&A player.
I was the Allies(boo, hiss!) and lost London.
My friend just presumed after taking my 28IPCs on G3, that on UK4 I would plonk 2 Subs/Destroyer off Canada with the remaining 20 IPCs. I explained like all A&A games of old, once the capital had been lost, no income is drawn.
He had forgotten and thought it a bit rough for the UK. His argument was that the UK still had 2 VCs, from which to produce.

He also said I could have the 22 IPCs end UK4 for Canada or Cairo.
I replied: next game, house rule.

I just wondered how many of you play with Canada as a replacement capital.
Should have done this as a poll. (Or has it been done?).

[Guest]

Canada as a replacement capital

I’ve play with it once. And I lost London.

I managed to get a remis due to the fact that “Canada” buildt a IC in persia and pumped tanks into the pacific teatre. That sure was a fun game.

[Makoshark13]

I play with Canada as a temporary capitol, but I don’t let them build outside of Canada.

[Witt]

Thank you Makoshark and ErwinRommel.
Thought there might have been more of you out there who did.
I agree only allow Canada the 7 they have.
Wondered if Egypt should be allowed Africa’s money. Maybe that would be too much power to a defeated UK.

[knp7765]

We do not play with a secondary capital for the UK. It does sound like a good idea, and would probably be historically accurate if London had actually fallen to the Germans. We had discussed it some time back but I think we all decided that, as far as the game itself is concerned, it would be unfair to allow one country to have a secondary capital and no others.

When you think about it though, Russia and the US could both conceivably have secondary capitals. While it may be a stretch to think that Russia would move it’s seat of government to Stalingrad or Leningrad (assuming either of those were still in Russian hands) if Moscow fell, it’s not totally impossible. As for the US, it’s entirely believable that if the East Coast were invaded that the President would move the government out to San Francisco. In fact, I read a book called “Clash Of Eagles” which took place in an alternate reality where Germany had invaded and occupied the American Northeast as far south as Washington DC. The US government did move out west, to Palm Springs.

As for the Axis countries, none of them really have a possible secondary capital. I couldn’t imagine the Germans moving to Warsaw or the Japanese moving to Shanghai if Berlin or Tokyo fell. Italy only has Rome so they would be totally out of luck.

We did play one game where we tried something a bit different. Since there are two UK economies (London and Calcutta) we thought why not let one benefit if the other fell. For London, there wouldn’t be much change if Calcutta fell other than perhaps the 2 IPCs from West India for maybe 1 round because usually when Japan takes Calcutta, they already have all the other UK India possessions. However, if London falls (which they did) Calcutta benefits quite handily. With a Major IC and all of the money coming in from UK’s African and Canadian territories, the war in the Pacific changed drastically and Japan really hurt from it. Actually, it wasn’t very good for Italy either because the South Africa IC kept pumping out units and Italy just couldn’t make any headway.

Also, one big Axis benefit that usually occurs from London falling, at least in our games, is that Italy is finally able to start making gains in Africa and the Middle East and start making decent money. If the UK could keep purchasing units then Italy would probably stagnate and never get ahead. Plus, I think that when any of us play Germany, we just love the idea of crushing England once and for all. So, they just get the one capital like everyone else.

On a similar note, have any of you thought of playing Canada as a separate power? We have tinkered with that idea, but it seems like that would make a very weak Allied power (7 IPCs per turn) and would also weaken UK London too much by cutting their income down to 21 IPCs. 28 IPCs is small enough when you consider Germany is around 40-42 once they take France and the Axis Neutrals. Then you add another 12 or so for Italy and the UK has a lot to face off against, at least until Russia and the US are in the war.
On the other hand, I suppose you could boost both economies with new NOs of some sort. Maybe add 2 or 3 new NOs per country, one each that the Axis simply could not touch and the rest that the Axis could possibly meddle with, depending on the circumstances.

[Makoshark13]

I tried Canada as a separate power once. I was playing a 1942 set up and I used the French pieces. Surprisingly, Canada became fairly powerful and was a major force in North Africa. It was tough for UK in Europe for a while, but it ended up in an allied victory.

[americancyco]

I usually break UK up into UK/ FEC / Canada and Union of South Africa.  Sure it hurts the UKs money but should London fall they have a little back up still in the way of Canada & South Africa.

[CWO Marc]

Ottawa as the new capital of the British Empire has a rather nice ring to it.  It echoes Churchill’s statement that “…if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle…”  For sentimental reasons, the temporary imperial capital could even be set up in the conveniently-named city of London, Ontario, rather than in Ottawa.

[Derek]

I think it would be neat to split UK into the commonwealth.
South Africa, Canada, Britain, India, ANZAC
Incomes are tracked separately, however the commonwealth moves/attacks as one nation
All gains on the Europe board outside of Africa and Canada go to GB
ANZAC and India play as 2 separate powers that share a turn, if they take a territory together and cannot decide who gets it then the Japan player will decide

[Witt]

Thank you all for your thoughts and ideas.
I think it means the Allies and the UK can continue to be in the game and in with a chance to win after a Sealion.
It might mean that the Axis player will ignore Sealion(which I think helps) and concentrates on Russia.
I have never been a Sealion fan, much preferring to take the war to Russia.

Knp: I agree the US would survive too. I would allow them the West coast naturally. Russia without Moscow should be considered a victory. I suppose as Stalin was a dictator, his fall should represent the end of the struggle.
That would be my argument with the Axis too: no substitute and are out if their capitals fall.

[ch0senfktard]

Seems like a great a idea, as long as Canada is only allowed to have its own territory IPCs and any that it captures, Sea-Lion isn’t totally out of the question in this case.

[Flashman]

I prefer that a power can still collect cash and build units provided they still control at least one original factory. Note that I do not allow anyone to build at captured factories which is just too silly (and Cudos to 1914 for eliminating this anomaly).

For the UK it seems reasonable that Canada, Australia and India have minor complexes; if the UK itself has fallen the cash will be limited anyway (though I still don’t like anything other than the odd infantry being “produced” in pre-industrial India).

USSR should have a factory in the Urals region, allowing it to fight on even if the 3 European centres are lost.

As for the Axis, are they ever likely to be in any position to fight on if their capitals have fallen?

Moreover, I don’t really support the standard capture the capital rules; it should be “capture all of a power’s industrial complexes” to eliminate it, otherwise still treat it as an active power.

[knp7765]

@wittmann:

It might mean that the Axis player will ignore Sealion(which I think helps) and concentrates on Russia.
I have never been a Sealion fan, much preferring to take the war to Russia.

Knp: I agree the US would survive too. I would allow them the West coast naturally. Russia without Moscow should be considered a victory. I suppose as Stalin was a dictator, his fall should represent the end of the struggle.
That would be my argument with the Axis too: no substitute and are out if their capitals fall.

Sometimes a successful Barbarossa kind of depends on a successful Sealion. I have seen plenty of games where Germany doesn’t do Sealion but goes straight after Russia and while they may do better with more units there, it can be a real pain in the butt with the UK constantly nibbling at Germany’s rear and pounding poor Italy. It gets really hard to maintain a good offensive in Russia and provide a decent guard force along the European coast and try to help out the Italians in the Med and keep up a decent sub force to either hit Allied fleets or convoy raid the UK.
Yeah, I know, if it were really easy, then the game wouldn’t really be fun. It just can get frustrating at times when you just have so much money to spend and sometimes certain of the above items simply has to go short. Especially if you have a good opponent who sees that and takes advantage right away.  It’s like “Dang it! I KNEW that was going to happen!”

By the way, we have been re-discussing this and think maybe it would be a good idea to use a secondary capital for England if London falls. In fact, we also agree about if Washington DC falls, the US Government would move to San Francisco, assuming it was still in Allied hands. If the Japanese managed to capture San Francisco, well then the US is just out of luck. Same with Ottawa for the UK Government. After all, these are big, powerful democracies that simply handle things differently from the Axis powers. Plus, it wouldn’t be totally unfair to the Axis since they would still get to plunder the treasury and get the IPCs for the capital territory and the displaced government would not be able to purchase anything for a full round.
As for Russia, I agree they are really more like an Axis power anyway and would probably function like one – cut off the head of the snake, the body dies.

[Witt]

Thank you for your time and consideration of my question Knp.
I appreciate it.

[knp7765]

Something came up in a game we are playing. We decided to try out using Ottawa as a secondary capital when London falls. Well, Germany did a Sealion and took London on G4. So, Germany plundered the treasury. Then on the UK4 turn, since they have no money they can’t buy any new units. However, they DO collect on the remaining UK territories which they can spend next round.
Now, here is the problem. The US moved a large fleet over to Gibraltar on US4 with more than enough to liberate London. In fact, seeing this large fleet and invasion force, on G5 Germany cleared out it’s remaining tanks and just left 3 infantry to defend. So, on US5, the US will most likely liberate London.
So, with London back in Allied hands, do you guys think it is okay for the UK (who moves AFTER US) to spend their money in the liberated London IC. Of course it’s a Minor now so they can only place 3 units there, but it just seems weird to me.
I mean, if London were not liberated, the UK would have to spend that money in Canada or South Africa. However, now that London is free again and we are using a house rule for the secondary UK capital anyway, should it be okay for UK to start using the London complex right away?

[Witt]

I see.
According to the rules they can(can’t they), so I suppose you should allow it.
Obvious advantages to the German player is that he stole UK’s income and set them back a turn and obliged the US to go Atlantic.

I think others have said that they only allow the UK player the 7 Canadian income, not all their territories. This makes more sense and the money is now in Canada so UK should be forced to spend it there.
In this instance, I would House Rule that it cannot be spent in the UK or in a SZ off it.

These questions do make for a different and more interesting Global game.
Hope yours is fun.

[knp7765]

Hmmm. I didn’t think of the new UK capital as being only Canada. I let them have the amount for all UK territories on the Europe board. It wasn’t much more than what you get for Canada because Italy has been having a fun time romping around through Africa picking up a lot of unprotected territories.
I think UK got an extra 5 or 6 IPCs outside of Canada. After the US retook London, the UK ended up repairing the Gibraltar Naval Base and London Air Base and put 3 guys in England.
The US paid dearly for liberating London and taking Normandy. Germany sacrificed their entire navy and a good part of their air force and killed the entire US fleet. It was a hell of a battle.
US losses = 2 carriers, 2 battleships, 2 cruisers, 2 destroyers, 4 fighters and 6 transports.
Ger losses = 1 carrier, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 3 fighters and 3 bombers.
At first it looked like they would totally wipe each other out but one crucial combat round the US got some really sucky dice and 3 German bombers ended up surviving the battle.
Germany is having a tough time of it right now but holding on strong. Sealion just took too many resources. The US has landed on Normandy and S France. Russia has taken Scandanavia and will probably have it for a while. Russia also has the 3 German border territories, but Germany has a strong force in Berlin ready to strike out. Plus, Germany took Leningrad but a Russian fighter took out all the unprotected transports. It’s a weird front. There are strong points but several holes on both sides.
Italy is stacking men on their capital because of the US presence. They just had to retake N. Italy from US so now the major IC is a minor. Italy has a small force working north from the Middle East through the Caucasus, but the Russians may be ready for them. Not sure about that yet.
Japan was doing fairly well and had actually took all of China. Then they went after and got India so UK Pacific is plum out of the war. However, thanks to some Russian incursions, China has almost all of their territories. Now Japan has a lot of work ahead trying to retake China and kill all those Russians and Chinese that are popping up. However, Japan has Calcutta and the DEI so they are making decent money and luckily the only thing the US has done in the Pacific is to stack a bunch of guys on Hawaii. Japan has hassled ANZAC some by landing a guy on Dutch New Guinea, ruining ANZAC’s NO, and sending down subs to convoy them.
All in all, a very interesting game. I think it could still go either way.
By the way, besides using the secondary capital rule, we are also trying something else new. Instead of rolling for techs, I have assigned certain techs to different nations on different turns. If it goes all the way to round 10 (we just finished round 6), everyone will have all the techs available. There are a few exceptions for the smaller nations. UK India and ANZAC share some of the techs with UK London, but there are a few that are exclusive to UK London that the others won’t get. Same thing with Germany and Italy. Italy will share some of the techs, but others are exclusively German. It’s kind of fun getting the techs into the game, but a little tiresome having to check every round to see what is available to each country.

Oh yeah, thanks for the answer Wittmann. Appreciate your input.

[Witt]

Sounds a mad game.