Canada

Re: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/37319/canada-s-distinct-ownership-icons

We did create Canada as a distinct power and the extra ally does create imbalance- we took the money from UK so they are slow to do much. But my son was geeked up to order some UK troops and paint them cherry red.
We haven’t quite found a counter balance for the axis. Maybe we shall try Vichy France.
I lose more than win but my kid knows his ww2 history and world geography pretty well, so…

We talked about it with other players and Canada’s NO is going to small but concentrated to its role which is why the three I said were most likely going to be it.

NO for units in France
NO for no Axis subs in the SZ’s between UK and Canada
NO for a surface warship off UK Asian territories

This next one seems dumb but it works for history

NO for having at least one infantry in Aleutian Islands.

@ABWorsham4 I’ve almost abandon G40 for HBG 1936 and they made Canada it’s own power in an expansion so I am fine.

You might find useful some of the information in the British section of my G40 map analysis:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

Egypt, for example, was technically an independent country during WWII, though there was a lot of British influence.  It was also somewhat unstable; some members of King Farouk’s inner circle were a little too pro-Nazi for London’s taste, and in 1942 the British Army actually staged a mini-coup to get rid of them.

I agree that if the UK itself had been occupied the rest of the British Commonwealth’s self-governing Dominions, who in 1939 had declared war in their own names (rather than being automatically dragged in by Britian, as was the case in 1914), would have continued the fight on their own.  The British colonial territories are a more complicated case, with no clear answer.  India is particularly problematic to speculate about; if Britain’s homme territory had come under Nazi occupation, the independence movement in India would probably have been given quite a boost.  Even if India had, however, declared itself independent from the UK, this would hardly have translated into India surrendering to Japan, since that would have undercut the whole point of being independent in the first place.

Hi all,

Been a long time reader on the boards, but this is my first time posting! Been an avid AA player and history buff for a long time. Sorry to post here at such a later date, but I wanted to get an opinion.

My take on adding Canada to the game without too much drastic effects on the playability involved a couple of moving parts.

Give Canada the 7 ipc income of the Canadian territories to spend each turn, but that same ipc value still counts towards the UK as well, with the UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Do the same thing for South Africa, giving them both South Africa territories and Rhodesia for a 4 ipc total. Again, UK still controls the money as well, with UK also able to build from IC’s there.

Both Commonwealths still play as part of the UK, buy, move, combat, etc. Essentially just adding 11 ipc income.

To counter this so it’s not unfair to the Axis, do the same thing with Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Slovakia-Hungary on the map of course). Those four powers would have a total of 9 ipc value between them. I figured the extra two ipc’s would have minimal effect.

Essentially all I did was add ipc’s and therefore troop numbers to the game, just forcing them to be used at their respective locales.

My only thought with this was would the immediacy of the minor Axis powers being on the front lines basically effect gameplay on the Eastern Front more so than the added Commonwealth powers would in Africa and Europe? I don’t want to hurt the USSR unfairly.

Any feedback would be great! Glad to finally post and be a part of the community!

Sounds a mad game.

@i:

:D canada HEADS UP IT IS

Why is Uk 23 and also Can I use this rule for Canada on 1940 2nd?