Why no dutch as own power if liberated?

@AA_fourlife:

Why no dutch as own power if liberated?

Ask the Canadians. :-P

They didn’t play a large enough role in the war to warrant an entirely seperate power. Also, if they were a power, they would need a factory, a capital, and maybe some kind of liberation rule, like France probably. It wouldn’t work well within the game, I imagine.

We’re going to need a bigger map.

@Seven_Patch:

We’re going to need a bigger map.

Good luck ever finishing that game.

@molinar13:

@Seven_Patch:

We’re going to need a bigger map.

Good luck ever finishing that game.

Finishing is over rated.

Who needs the Dutch? Britain just gets to take their money! A much better deal.  :-D

IMO by putting the France capital next to West Germany major IC, they made France worthless the whole game.

@marechallannes:

@AA_fourlife:

Why no dutch as own power if liberated?

Ask the Canadians. :-P

thanks for asking if the dutch were a power then the following would have to be powers
1canada(we rock im mean canadains)
2romania or hungary or both and maybe bulgaria or all 3
3belgium
4dutch
5poland
6the game would have to satart in 1939

Well the low countries has a German roundel, you can only find the Dutch roundel on the Dutch isles and that place in South America.

I think it’d be really cool to have a Dutch power in the game (I’m Pennsylvania Dutch) but their contribution to the allies wasn’t significant enough. Their only major contributions were their naval actions off of the East Indies and their resistance in the homeland. Niether of these are significant enough to warrant an independant power (as sorry as I am to conceed…)

I’m sorry to say, but I don’t think a Dutch independent power is feasible. It would be taking valuable IPCs away from the Pacific UK in Global (as I’m somewhat doubtful Japan will do a J1 in Global, but I could be wrong) and even if liberated, they wouldn’t have enough power to do much anything, and they wouldn’t be able to build anything in the DEI, as they are all islands.

Some fairly complex rules and a 1939 setup COULD allow for an independent power, but like the French, they would only be there to be run over, and perhaps put up a small resistance in the DEI if you gave them a starting navy there. I honestly think they’d be less fun to play as than either the French or the Chinese, and they’d be far less important too.

@GrizzlyMan:

I think it’d be really cool to have a Dutch power in the game (I’m Pennsylvania Dutch) but their contribution to the allies wasn’t significant enough. Their only major contributions were their naval actions off of the East Indies and their resistance in the homeland. Niether of these are significant enough to warrant an independant power (as sorry as I am to conceed…)

I agree (and I’m Dutch myself).

It’s always the same with those “why isn’t this or that country in the game”-threads: someone lives in a nation not represented, and starts nagging why their country should be in the game. I remember the good old revised days: only 5 countries, each of which had a different playstyle all the while obeying to exactly the same rules of warfare. Having 9+ (!) nations with different rules for each of them isn’t an improvement to me. So although I’m Belgian and my native tongue is Dutch, I oppose adding those to the game. Moreover, the Dutch colonies should have simply been pro-axis neutrals, with 1-2 inf on each of them. Congo is fine as it is. And at least the low countries, the ports of Europe, have got a bigger IPC-count than Spain and Greece now 8-)

@HolKann:

It’s always the same with those “why isn’t this or that country in the game”-threads: someone lives in a nation not represented, and starts nagging why their country should be in the game. I remember the good old revised days: only 5 countries, each of which had a different playstyle all the while obeying to exactly the same rules of warfare. Having 9+ (!) nations with different rules for each of them isn’t an improvement to me. So although I’m Belgian and my native tongue is Dutch, I oppose adding those to the game. Moreover, the Dutch colonies should have simply been pro-axis neutrals, with 1-2 inf on each of them. Congo is fine as it is. And at least the low countries, the ports of Europe, have got a bigger IPC-count than Spain and Greece now 8-)

Pro AXIS neutrals?? The population partly for sure, but not the Dutch army and navy based there, I would presume…

Yes, I do find it odd they don’t have any forces based on the Dutch East Indies. As far as I’m concerned those forces could have been represented by British or French troops, but no forces at all is just a little weird. Especially the navy wasn’t that small and insignificant. Well, based on the errata for Pacific and I suppose also for global the British/ ANZAC can now at least land on those Islands and claim them without provoking a Japanese declaration of war if I get it correctly. This wasn’t the same in the original rules, if I’m not mistaken. Then again, more often than not Japan will just invade them on turn 1…

@HolKann:

It’s always the same with those “why isn’t this or that country in the game”-threads: someone lives in a nation not represented, and starts nagging why their country should be in the game. I remember the good old revised days: only 5 countries, each of which had a different playstyle all the while obeying to exactly the same rules of warfare. Having 9+ (!) nations with different rules for each of them isn’t an improvement to me. So although I’m Belgian and my native tongue is Dutch, I oppose adding those to the game. Moreover, the Dutch colonies should have simply been pro-axis neutrals, with 1-2 inf on each of them. Congo is fine as it is. And at least the low countries, the ports of Europe, have got a bigger IPC-count than Spain and Greece now 8-)

Pro-Axis neutral!?!!  :lol: I guess that would represent how easy it was for the German blitz to take care of the Dutch army

@Seven_Patch:

@HolKann:

It’s always the same with those “why isn’t this or that country in the game”-threads: someone lives in a nation not represented, and starts nagging why their country should be in the game. I remember the good old revised days: only 5 countries, each of which had a different playstyle all the while obeying to exactly the same rules of warfare. Having 9+ (!) nations with different rules for each of them isn’t an improvement to me. So although I’m Belgian and my native tongue is Dutch, I oppose adding those to the game. Moreover, the Dutch colonies should have simply been pro-axis neutrals, with 1-2 inf on each of them. Congo is fine as it is. And at least the low countries, the ports of Europe, have got a bigger IPC-count than Spain and Greece now 8-)

Pro-Axis neutral!?!!   :lol: I guess that would represent how easy it was for the German blitz to take care of the Dutch army

Actually it wasn’t as easy as the Germans had expected. They were actually stopped in many places and the Dutch only surrendered after the bombing of Rotterdam and the German threat to bomb more Dutch cities and towns should they not capitulate (Utrecht would have been next, if I recall correctly).

It is indeed a bit confusing that they have their own symbol, but at the same time really just being a pro ALLIED neutral in Pacific40 (with some special rules) and a GERMAN (already conquered) territory in Europe40.

Pretty much why I’ve always said that the roundels on the territories should all be from 1939, so you can simply place control markers according to the various starting set-ups.

For 1939 Netherlands should have the Dutch roundel as depicted, for a 1940 start it would be the inverted orange triangle symbol adopted to avoid confusion with the British and French red-white-blue colours.