Do you want canada as a power

I thought that it was already stated on an earlier forum that Canada was going to be receiving income, thereby making them a power.  They already have their own flag/symbol in AAP40.

@Kiyoshi:

I thought that it was already stated on an earlier forum that Canada was going to be receiving income, thereby making them a power.  They already have their own flag/symbol in AAP40.

I don’t think so.

@Kiyoshi:

I thought that it was already stated on an earlier forum that Canada was going to be receiving income, thereby making them a power.  They already have their own flag/symbol in AAP40.

i can think of 100 arguments against a canadian power. would there be any benefit at all to adding it? Other than making the UK already more divided and weak. :P

@cyan:

i can think of 100 arguments against a canadian power. would there be any benefit at all to adding it? Other than making the UK already more divided and weak. :P

Well, considering the UK / British Commonwealth of Nations was divided and (like most of the West in 1940) weak it is not necessarily a bad thing to model the dispersed resources of Empire.

IMHO something is needed in the AAE40 to get away from the ahistorical single-IC Commonwealth that magically deposits units on Winston’s doorstep every turn.
An independent Canada may not be the solution but including it shouldn’t be based solely on what’s good for the UK… I don’t imagine Italy was introduced solely to benefit Germany in-game.

@Flashman:

No Indian factory!

No, India needs a IC, or Japan will have a walk in the park

In the Pacific 1940 game, Canadian Territories have a different roundel so doesn’t that hint that they will be a seperate power? 
The main problem with adding in new countries in the global A&A game is that there are way more allied nations than axis and you quickly have 10 on the allied side and only really 4 I can think of on the Axis (Germany and Japan obviously with Italy and the minor allies {Bulgaria, Finland, Romania, Spain})

more players means more mental division. If ther eare only two people…axis will have a cakewalk! just divide and conquer

@Funcioneta:

@Flashman:

No Indian factory!

No, India needs a IC, or Japan will have a walk in the park

Some things are done in the interest of game balance.

@idk_iam_swiss:

more players means more mental division. If ther eare only two people…axis will have a cakewalk! just divide and conquer

I don’t know about that as you’re still likely to face a cap with respect to the number of actual people you play with…

So rather than a multitude of strategies, additional powers then translates into additional turns and can-opener opportunities etc.

I think IMTO that the biggest impact with additional nations would be with the dispersal of unit placements to more remote areas.

Now whether or not this is a “bad thing” is up to the individual… I think generally speaking any country that is a candidate for separate power status most likely was a historical source of units rather than raw material shipped out to the capital of one of The Big 5 (US, UK, Germany, USSR, Japan).
But is that realism too high of a price?

#451

@Brain:

@Funcioneta:

@Flashman:

No Indian factory!

No, India needs a IC, or Japan will have a walk in the park

Some things are done in the interest of game balance.

Read the smallprint: UK can place infantry in India, but not mechanical units - they have to be shipped in from UK/Canada/Australia.  India is a big source of income for the UK (much bigger than is usually shown in A&A; this is the 2nd most populous country on earth and its lucky to be TWO territories), but is vulnerable if transport is disrupted, especially via Suez.

sounds more than fair to me

Canada needs to be a power as bad as Romania does, at what point do you say enough is enough and let it go.  Canada was an important part of the Allied effort but to deny England those forces during their turn is yet another hit on their available manpower and IC’s.  England needs everything it can get to keep up with Germany as it is, so this leaves no justification to have yet another power on the board that can only roll off a few infantry per turn and hope to god that their transports are not destroyed which would then render them impotent.

There should be a factory in Eastern Canada though.

Perhaps a “Raid on Dieppe” game would justify such action?

Just give Canada a factory and a convoy. Hell, give the UK a minor one in England if you want them to spend the money elsewhere.

When I play as Axis, my opponent will be more than welcome to add Canada to their team. I will be more than happy to see them spend their money in Canada rather than UK where it is needed.

LV

@Brain:

When I play as Axis, my opponent will be more than welcome to add Canada to their team. I will be more than happy to see them spend their money in Canada rather than UK where it is needed.

LV

Which is too bad.
If production outside the UK unbalances the game then something is definitely broken.
Let the stack-monkeys game away all they want but historically, Winnie would have been breakdancing in Picadilly if every few months new Commonwealth troops just beamed down right where he needed them.
Battle of the Atlantic would’ve been a non-event.

#488

It would definitely give the Axis and added edge.

@Brain:

It would definitely give the Axis and added edge.

Ummm… Don’t think so. Last time I checked, the Allies won the war. So the allies have a big advantage. Adding Canada as a power could just be one of the ways to tone down that advantage. That’s not saying that I want to have Canada as a power or not (although ideally, I would prefer Canada and ANZAC as separate powers with special rules enabling them to coordinate attacks with the U.K.). So instead of artificially inflating the axis (like the B.S economy that Japan has and the unhistorical advantages that Germany and Italy will undoubtably have, you could just divide up the allies, making coordination harder (which actually does kind of make sense). Adding Canada as a power definitely won’t give the Axis an “added edge” b/c the game makers will realize this disadvantage and adjust the Axis accordingly (or not adjust them if you really think about it).

@Danger:

Perhaps a “Raid on Dieppe” game would justify such action?

Only perhaps?

uh yeah, I’m thinking Dieppe without Canadians would definitely make things too easy for the German player…

#492

@Canuck12:

3 reasons why Canada should be a separate power:

1)   Canada made at least a s large a military contribution to the war as ANZAC and a much larger supply/training contribution. If ANZAC gets its own economy so should Canada.

2)   Canada already has a unique roundel represented on the Pacific map so unless Canadian IPCs must be “claimed” like Dutch IPCs then there is no reason for the distinct roundel other than if Canada is to be its own power. Furthermore, Larry has stated that “All Canadian provinces will be represented” giving Canada more territories than the continental US, Anzac or Italy.

3)    If the UK was ever conquered by the Germans, Canada (as well as ANZAC) would have fought on along side the United States. Considering the heightened possibility of a successful Sealion, it is essential that Canada be a separate power to represent the continued production that would have come out of Canada if the UK fell.

I predict Canada will look and act much like ANZAC with a few infantry, a couple fighters, destroyer, a transport and about 8 IPCs at its own disposal. –It could be a great Sub-hunting power… who knows.

As a Canadian my immediate thought was “finally; agree; 100%.” After reading through this entire thread, I’m starting to think it just may bog down the game. Of course, I’m still curious what the roundels are foreshadowing in AAP40 if not as a separate power…