Why are there Canadian roundels? A new rule perhaps?

If they put all those Canadian territories in the game, I demand all 50 states be seperate territories with their own IPC value!

I don’t agree with ANZAC being a separate power.  Militarily Aus & NZ were entirely subordinate to the UK, then from 1942 to the USA.  South Africa was, if anything, more independent - it was after all a Republic.

The problem of India has always been that it has a much larger income base than has ever been represented in A&A; the worry being that India with a factory in effect becomes another Allied power and unbalances the game.

However, as I’ve always argued, factories should not be allowed in non-industrial areas; further, that income from overseas colonies must be transported via convoys - hence the big concern over losing the Suez canal. To accurately model the UK in WWII you have to show how the home country was entirely dependent on shipping getting through from the colonies and across the Atlantic.  By all means allow the UK to fight on from Canada, but not with Indian and African money!

@Omega:

Me and my friends actually believe that all of the provinces will be shown

Why bother with British Colombia and Yukon if its not to show all of the provinces and territories? In the old games, it was Western Canada (just like its WUSA, CUSA, EUSA)

So, if Canada gets all its provinces, and assuming no major mistakes, the East (Ontario and Quebec) are probably going to be 2-3 (or maybe more, but I doubt) ipc territory

So
British Colombia = 1ipc
Alberta = 1 ipc (sorry folks, no oil yet :)
Saskatchewan = 1 ipc
Manitoba = 1 ipc
Ontaria = 3 ipc (its probably the richest Canadian province at that time)
Quebec = 2 ipc (really not sure about this one. I’m pretty sure Quebec gets its economy boom after the war)
New Brunswick =1 ipc
Prince Edward = 0-1 ipc
New Scotland = 1 ipc
New Foundland = 1ipc
Northern territories/Nunavut = 0 ipc (If its worth anything, its 1)

No harm intended against my fellow Canadian friends. I’m just speaking gameplay and not about the general value of each province.

There will likely be some naval port and air port in the East coast. Where? I don’t know enough about WWII and Canadian history to speak.

Again, these are just estimations. I don’t have extensive knowledge of Canadian economy during WWII to know if its correct or not. Maybe someone else can complete the work?

Canada could easily fetch in the 12-15 ipc. That should be enough for Canada to be an Allied power right? Anzac has 10. So if Canada can get more. Plus, if they have 1-2 NO, that should be decent enough.

It will obviously weaken UK (if Canada is indeed separated). But that being said, I still see UK being in the 40, maybe even 50 ipc at the start of the game (don’t forget that he will lose alot of money against Japan in the Pacific (Borneo, Kwantung are easily taken.)

no I think Canada will be divided into less territories
the maritimes well be a territory, Ottawa, Quebec, the prairies, north west territories, and B.C.
By the way it’s Nova scotia not New Scotland

@Gwlachmai
The thing is : if they put all States, you will never be able to fly Aircraft one side to another! Just imagine the time lost in transporting troops for coast to coast. Of course, some people would be happy, because it will ‘split’ the US income.

@Flashman:

I don’t agree with ANZAC being a separate power.  Militarily Aus & NZ were entirely subordinate to the UK, then from 1942 to the USA.  South Africa was, if anything, more independent - it was after all a Republic.

Flash, for game play having the Anz as a separate power supports the fact that the US had control of the Pacific Theater. It forces the UK to spend $ there, that it might not do if there was no Anz (like past games). The Anz/US will work well together. In the global game w/Anz going before the US, it will be very dangerous for Jap . The US will definitely run the show, and its little brother will be very helpful. I think they will have the same level of cooperation in the global game as Italy/Germany did in AA50.

But that’s one reason to be wary of adding lots of small powers - the can opener effect.

Anzac should move same time as UK, or same as USA.  Maybe the benefit of transferring it to US control is that the allies can now afford to build units in Australia.

In history this was agreed so the UK could concentrate on India/Burma while the Americans coordinated Pacific strategy.

Each Alliance should have a maximum of 3 movement/combat turns.

I really the can only work in the European theather, and likely, only on ground.

Its very unreasonable to think that 1 destroyer can block an entire fleet from moving. Thus, giving the opportunity to Anzac to clear WEAK defense is acceptable

We could use the same logic for Europe. But since the map is supposed to be BIGGER, I blame the Allies for letting the Axis gather a huge army of mech inf + tank near Russia’s capital to exploit a possible can opener

What would be the need for all the Canadian provinces on the map when they are not even going to be represented in the game?

I agree with you, Flashman, that it would make more sense to put some kind of limit on where you can place ICs, that India should be more valuable that it already is, and that income for the UK should be dependent upon open sea routes, which would put more value on the Suez and on clearing the Atlantic of Axis ships, but that would up the complexity level in a huge way, and with all the additional complexity already being added, I can see why Larry would be hesitant to add even more.  I think we just have to be content with the income system as it is with the addition of convoys.  :|

@Flashman:

By all means allow the UK to fight on from Canada, but not with Indian and African money!

If I’m correct about Canada, if London falls Canada would only continue with the income from the territories with a Canadian roundel, so the UK/Canada combined power would not be able to collect any income from India or Africa until London is liberated.  In fact, I think that the UK split income means that income from Canadian territories will only ever be able to be spent at a Canadian IC in the first place.

I have to admit I’m terribly curious as to the meaning of the Canadian insignia. Euro40 can’t come out fast enough.

@Gwlachmai:

I have to admit I’m terribly curious as to the meaning of the Canadian insignia. Euro40 can’t come out fast enough.

Are you also curious about the Dutch insignia?

@Brain:

@Gwlachmai:

I have to admit I’m terribly curious as to the meaning of the Canadian insignia. Euro40 can’t come out fast enough.

Are you also curious about the Dutch insignia?

There are already special rules for the Dutch roundel BD. You should play AA40P sometime, it’s fun.

As for Canada: I really like SAS’s breakdown of how this could work. I think it is an ideal situation and is the likely result.
Larry has already stated that all Canadian provinces will be represented; however, a breakdown like omega’s is unlikely. I could see them giving 1 IPC for each Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, lumping the Maritimes (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and together for 1 or even including them with Québec or Ontario (which should be 1 and 2 IPCs respectively.) The territories will be worthless. And Newfoundland (being a British colony at this point) might just be tossed in with Canada for simplicity.

The only tricky thing will be giving Canada access to the sea. Ontario should, in theory, be the logical location for an IC. But unless you count the St. Laurence seaway there is no access to the Atlantic. This means either giving the IC to Québec or lumping the Maritimes in with Ontario. If they choose the later then Ontario should be worth 3 and could be upgraded to a major IC (an important caveat if the roaming capital theory is true, and not so far fetched either, remember Kwangtung is worth 3 IPCs)

In any case, my arithmetic puts Canada at 8-9 IPCs (4 for BC and the three Prairie provinces, 1 for the Maritimes, 2-3 for Ontario and 2 for Québec. This would make western Canada look a little like Siberia and would make Canada nearly self-sufficient without the help of the UK. Given that Canada’s economy has always been about 1/10 the size of the US’s this brings Canada up to consistency with its neighbor to the south (assuming the US will get approximately 100IPCs globally.

P.S.
(For a more in-depth discussion of Canada’s relative contribution to the war see “Canadian output” in the AAP40 board. IL participates in a heated statistical debate! ;-)

@Canuck12:

There are already special rules for the Dutch roundel BD. You should play AA40P sometime, it’s fun.

I was referring as to why they are not a separate power as everyone would like Canada to be.

The difference is the Dutch start out as a neutral, while Canada was a belligerent from the beginning.  Given that however, Canada, while the government trumpeted independence, was fully integrated militarily within the British forces.  So were the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and Indians in North Africa.  It wasn’t until Japan attacked beyond China that the situation changed for the Pacific Commonwealth Nations.  Other than the First Special Services Brigade (Devil’s Brigade), no Canadian units ever operated outside of the British command structure.  Therefore, it would be ahistorical for Canada to be a separate power.  I say this reluctantly, as a Canadian patriot, who got hooked on wargaming while serving in the Canadian military in the 1970s.  It would be far more realistic to have the split income idea, than a separate player.  As for the roundels, Canadian and Dutch and others, I think they are just there for historical colour and have no real impact on the game.  Note: I always designate units as “Canadian”, by using a different colour or marking them, just because I can. Also, I use Canadian spellings like honour and colour just because I can. Ps. As this is my first post, I hope I figured out the quote thingy.

I obviously didn’t figure out the “quote thingy”.  My post was a reply to BD’s comment. Now, I’ve doubled my number of posts!

@mike55:

I obviously didn’t figure out the “quote thingy”.  My post was a reply to BD’s comment. Now, I’ve doubled my number of posts!

Click on the word qoute at the upper right of the post that you want to quote.

And you can’t give karma until the 100th post, oh never mind, bad joke :-D

I agree however with your ideas about Canada.

Welcome to the site mike. I too agree that the roundels will have no impact on the game and will just add “colour”.

@Brain:

@mike55:

I obviously didn’t figure out the “quote thingy”.  My post was a reply to BD’s comment. Now, I’ve doubled my number of posts!

Click on the word qoute at the upper right of the post that you want to quote.

And you can’t give karma until the 100th post, oh never mind, bad joke :-D

I agree however with your ideas about Canada.

Well, I’m well past 100 posts and I can’t do anything with karma yet…  So it must be higher.

@Brain:

@Gwlachmai:

I have to admit I’m terribly curious as to the meaning of the Canadian insignia. Euro40 can’t come out fast enough.

Are you also curious about the Dutch insignia?

The Dutch roundels on those territories are for the purpose of those territories not counting toward either the Axis’ or Allies’ income initially and they have to actually occupy those territories.  I imagine this is because the Dutch were at war with the Axis, but had been conquered in May 1940, which seems to be before the approximate start date of 1940 (which kinda looks like somewhere around June 1940 just before Paris was captured), so they couldn’t be specifically neutral (at least as far as we understand neutrals at this point) as I assume whatever other rules that apply to neutrals that we will learn when Europe 1940 comes out would be applied to them.  They are treated sort of like territories that are left over after a power’s capital has been captured, though if the Netherlands are liberated they don’t become another Allied power like France will, and because of this any other Allied power can take control of them also.

I don’t see Canada being treated the same way (completely empty until someone walks in), so they should (in my mind at least, I may very well be wrong :|) serve some purpose other than simply being fancy decoration to make Canadians feel better. :-P