Do you want canada as a power

@robbie358:

Fighters are gonna be SO valuable for UK in this game.  The ability to sortie out of Britain to protect your new naval builds is gonna put alot of pressure on the German aircraft.  Or if theres a complex in Canada, UK can just build its navy there I guess and bring it over when it has enough planes.

So UK is gonna have to worry about protecting its Atlantic Navy with fighters while securing it’s convoys, building units in India to protect against Japan, and sending forces to Africa to fend of Italy.

I think they’re gonna be the most fun country to play in this game.

Yea, I agree that they should be… But will they? If Scotland is to be a territory, then Britain will no longer be an island, so will fighters on Britain still be able to scramble to protect their fleets? I think they should, b/c what’s the difference between england and Japan? But I don’t know what the rules will be. And sign me up for play-testing any day, free of charge.

Ha ha ha… then the info wouldn’t be a secret. remember its not that they dont WANT to tell us information…its that larry and kreig CANT tell us information. They aren’t allowed to.

@idk_iam_swiss:

Ha ha ha… then the info wouldn’t be a secret. remember its not that they dont WANT to tell us information…its that larry and kreig CANT tell us information. They aren’t allowed to.

They can neither confirm or deny this statement.

@The:

@robbie358:

Fighters are gonna be SO valuable for UK in this game.  The ability to sortie out of Britain to protect your new naval builds is gonna put alot of pressure on the German aircraft.  Or if theres a complex in Canada, UK can just build its navy there I guess and bring it over when it has enough planes.

So UK is gonna have to worry about protecting its Atlantic Navy with fighters while securing it’s convoys, building units in India to protect against Japan, and sending forces to Africa to fend of Italy.

I think they’re gonna be the most fun country to play in this game.

Yea, I agree that they should be… But will they? If Scotland is to be a territory, then Britain will no longer be an island, so will fighters on Britain still be able to scramble to protect their fleets? I think they should, b/c what’s the difference between england and Japan? But I don’t know what the rules will be. And sign me up for play-testing any day, free of charge.

If England is going to be two territories and therefore can’t scramble, it will be so annoying!  What is the point of making England two territories anyway when Japan is one and the entire eastern seaboard of the US is one?  I could understand if they do that so that UK can’t scramble its planes in 5 different sea zones from a single territory, that makes sense (Scotland can scramble to 2 & 3, maybe 6; England can scramble to 6, 7, & 8’), but otherwise I’ll be very upset if Great Britain isn’t an exception to the “only islands can scramble, and islands are a single territory surrounded by sea zones” rule.  :x

@SilverAngelSurfer:

@The:

@robbie358:

Fighters are gonna be SO valuable for UK in this game.  The ability to sortie out of Britain to protect your new naval builds is gonna put alot of pressure on the German aircraft.  Or if theres a complex in Canada, UK can just build its navy there I guess and bring it over when it has enough planes.

So UK is gonna have to worry about protecting its Atlantic Navy with fighters while securing it’s convoys, building units in India to protect against Japan, and sending forces to Africa to fend of Italy.

I think they’re gonna be the most fun country to play in this game.

Yea, I agree that they should be… But will they? If Scotland is to be a territory, then Britain will no longer be an island, so will fighters on Britain still be able to scramble to protect their fleets? I think they should, b/c what’s the difference between england and Japan? But I don’t know what the rules will be. And sign me up for play-testing any day, free of charge.

If England is going to be two territories and therefore can’t scramble, it will be so annoying!  What is the point of making England two territories anyway when Japan is one and the entire eastern seaboard of the US is one?  I could understand if they do that so that UK can’t scramble its planes in 5 different sea zones from a single territory, that makes sense (Scotland can scramble to 2 & 3, maybe 6; England can scramble to 6, 7, & 8’), but otherwise I’ll be very upset if Great Britain isn’t an exception to the “only islands can scramble, and islands are a single territory surrounded by sea zones” rule.  :x

So much for the Battle of Britain.

Yeah that would suck.

@Canuck12:

@Brain:

If you take money away from UK by giving it to others (Canada), then that will be the cause of UK’s impending failure.

Crap BD, you better tell Larry quick before they release the game and it’s totally unwinnable for the allies!

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to you guys that I like the idea of a forced build in Canada for the UK (or “split income” as Larry has stated).

This idea is novel, historically accurate and strategically important. Perhaps too small to be its own power (and Canada followed UK policy in the war anyway) There should be some way to represent the fact that so much of British wartime production came from Canada and had to cross the Atlantic before it was of any use. My guess is that, armed with an airbase, Canada will be the main centre for production of aircraft for the UK. (as was the case in the war.) If you can build 3 planes in Canada and use your 10 build in the UK for land/naval units it seems Canada would become an asset for production freeing space to pump out loaded landing craft in the British isles.

I think split income is a wonderful idea that I support greatly.
I think Canada as a whole separate power is a bit much. Canada is actually stronger as part of the UK than as an independent power. An independent Canada can’t attack with the UK.

I think Canada as a whole separate power is a bit much. Canada is actually stronger as part of the UK than as an independent power. An independent Canada can’t attack with the UK.

Unless you made a rule that stated that commonwealth provinces could attack with the U.K.

@molinar13:

Historians are still debating whether it was or not

Which ones?  Definitely not a Major Power like the United Kingdom, USA, USSR, Japan, Germany, France or Italy.  However, if Canada did not aide the UK during WW2, (with food, munitions, tanks, heavy guns, airplanes, ships, etc) from 1939 to the entry of the USA in Dec 1941, there is a possibility that the UK might of had a much more difficult time than they did?
GOJEONGUMDO

@The:

I think Canada as a whole separate power is a bit much. Canada is actually stronger as part of the UK than as an independent power. An independent Canada can’t attack with the UK.

Unless you made a rule that stated that commonwealth provinces could attack with the U.K.

So the net effect of this would be that they would have a different color?
Actually, they also wouldn’t share technology either unless there was a rule for that. Split income would basically be the same thing except simpler.

I think I like the idea of Canada as a power
In normal aa games Canada is fust extra uk income if Canada had to ship there units over the atlantic that would enforce german submarines and make a battle for the atlantic

@Tralis:

@The:

I think Canada as a whole separate power is a bit much. Canada is actually stronger as part of the UK than as an independent power. An independent Canada can’t attack with the UK.

Unless you made a rule that stated that commonwealth provinces could attack with the U.K.

So the net effect of this would be that they would have a different color?
Actually, they also wouldn’t share technology either unless there was a rule for that. Split income would basically be the same thing except simpler.

yea. It would basically mean different pieces (which is always cool), split incomes (which is more realistic), and also  different capturing ownership (like in combined attacks and also just if Canada or Anzac takes something on it’s own.) So really it’s simple, more cool, and more realistic.

Well if they just make canada worth a decent number of ipcs (which I assume they will have too seeing as anything they make in the pacific will be used there) and give it a couple of minor complexes ( one in the center and another on the atlantic coast), then it will be used, and it will force the germans to put some effort into the atlantic to really hurt the convoy zones.

splitting the power will make the battle of Atlantic very interesting. With extra sea zones too!

I’m very excited about Europe. Hopefully, it can live up with our expectations!

Robert

@The:

yea. It would basically mean different pieces (which is always cool), split incomes (which is more realistic), and also  different capturing ownership (like in combined attacks and also just if Canada or Anzac takes something on it’s own.) So really it’s simple, more cool, and more realistic.

Different pieces is cool, but we probably aren’t going to see that. Use the mint-green UK pieces from revised if Canada as a different color really matters to you.

My argument, though, is that a split-income, shared-pieces rule set like the original AA:P with India/Australia makes Canada stronger than having them as a whole separate power. It still forces UK to have forces cross the Atlantic (sweet), still gives Canada a bit of independence (also sweet), but allows for shared attacks and shared tech without many special rules (also good).  Its actually in the end simpler to have split-income, shared-pieces. Having them as a separate power with shared movement would require a bunch of rule exceptions that would be hard to remember.

France was at least supposed to be a major power, until they got majorly stomped on by the Germans.  Italy is a little different, but as far as I know they only became more subservient to Germany only after the war began.  Though Italy never really was a major power on par with the others that we think of during the 20th century, the three major Axis powers—Germany, Japan, and Italy—were part of a military alliance on the signing of the Tripartite Pact in September 1940, which officially founded the Axis powers.

France and England have pretty much been the major powers of Europe for centuries, with Germany and Italy having more historic influence that was declining as they went into the 20th century, which was part of why they were looking to reestablish themselves in the first place.  It was a big surprise when France fell so quickly.  Canada doesn’t have any kind of historic claim to empires like Germany or Italy had, nor does it have any modern claim like UK and France have (they’re still 2 of the 5 permanent Security Council nations with veto power in the UN).

If you’ll notice, the current Allied countries that will be playable in the new version (with the exception of ANZAC) are the 5 permanent Security Council nations: US, UK, France, Russia, and China (though China was in the midst of civil war in WWII).

@allboxcars:

@WITZANEY:

Which ones?  Definitely not a Major Power like the United Kingdom, USA, USSR, Japan, Germany, France or Italy.

Shto?
France and Italy were Major Powers?
For which side?

#535

I believe it was French for the axis and Italy for the allies.

Canada unaided will not have an impact with the few IPC’s they would get. They are better served being a part of the UK empire.

@allboxcars:

Well, historic importance and having a claim to an empire really don’t signify into whether or not a country is a major power in WW2 or in A&A. Neither Spain nor Portugal will be major powers and I’ll leave it up to you to posture that America has an Empire.

In terms of contributions to the Allied effort, Canada far outstrips France and in terms of game play, well if Paris Ontario falls before Paris France then there’s a serious problem.

heavily edited from original post for simplicity and clarity’s sake

Empires have nothing to do with it, I was merely stating what historically made a nation considered “great” or a “major player” as far as European thinking went.  And as far as Spain and Portugal, they were “neutral” (completely different than any of the other nations being discussed) and since A&A doesn’t include any other neutral countries as separate countries, that’s a moot point altogether regardless of their level of historic influence or affluence in Europe.

Most ideas for Axis and Allies come from a historical perspective and are then usually adopted or shot down only after they are considered from a gameplay perspective.  This idea is the same thing.  You can’t argue that Canada has better merit than France from a gameplay perspective with a historic argument like “Canada contributed more than France”.  If you were lookng merely from a gameplay standpoint, it’d make more sense to add another power to Africa or the Pacific than adding Canada, but that would ruin the historical basis of Axis and Allies.

So, since we have to consider both the historical and gameplay points, let’s look at the countries in question again… (using my own arbitrary scoring system that whoever wants to can argue, but it’s for effect)

France:
Napoleonic Empire, considered to have the “best” military in the world at the time, plus a major political and economic power in Europe (which is still true today, but beside the point)
Historic “individuality” points - 3
Gives Germany something to do before USSR or US join in the war, and gives the Allies another country when liberated
Gameplay “individuality” points - 1

Italy:
Ancient Roman Empire, also a big economic and political player in Europe(though not as much as France, UK, or Germany): enough to be considered one of the “big 3” Axis nations
Historic “individuality” points - 2
Gives the “Axis team” another player opportunity, opens up the Africa battle a little more by having Italy more focused on Africa leaving Germany more focused on Europe
Gameplay “individuality” points - 2

China:
Large focus of Japan’s “expansion” was focused on China, non-colony sovereign nation under “influence” of several competing nations (USSR, US, UK, and Japan)
Historic “individuality” points – 2
Gives Allies an anti-Japan/Pacific-focused nation, plus “speed-bump” to keep Japan from getting to Moscow as fast, while not allowing for silly American ICs in China
Gameplay “individuality” points – 2

ANZAC:
Former colony of UK and part of Commonwealth (major influence by UK), but coordinated more with the US against Japan in the Pacific where they could be more directly influential on the war as opposed to Europe
Historic “individuality” points – 1.5
Gives the Allies a second anti-Japan/ Pacific-focused nation (an area of the war most people agree needs more development in A&A)
Gameplay “individuality” points – 2

Canada:
Former colony of UK and part of Commonwealth (major influence by UK), coordinated mostly with UK’s “Europe first” strategy, but still contributed greatly to war effort
Historic “individuality” points – 1.25
Gives the Allies another Europe-focused nation with limited influence on Pacific theater
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.5

Now let me throw in some other nations that could be added to the game also, but never will be…

Hungary:
Offshoot of Austro-Hungarian Empire from WWI, but no longer a major player in Europe and followed Germany’s lead
Historic “individuality” points – 1
Gives the Axis another playable country since there will be twice as many Allied countries in 1940 in comparison to the Axis
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.75

Romania:
Not much influence on Europe, followed Germany’s lead
Historic “individuality” points – 0.75
Gives the Axis another playable country since there will be twice as many Allied countries in 1940 in comparison to the Axis
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.75

Philippines:
Protectorate of US attacked by Japan
Historic “individuality” points - 0.10
Gives Allies a third anti-Japan/Pacific-focused country, though easily taken by Japan
Gameplay “individuality” points – 0.75

Final Score:
France – 4 points
Italy – 4 points
China – 4 points
ANZAC – 3.5 points
Canada – 1.75 points
Hungary - 1.75 points
Romanaia – 1.5 points
Philippines - 0.85 points  :wink:

Having Canada as a separate power at some point in the future or as a house rule would be cool and most certainly viable (and it looks like we might still get some kind of exclusive Canada rule of some kind with the specific Canadian roundels), but my point was that to compare Canada to France or Italy and suggest that Canada should be an individual power before France or Italy doesn’t make much sense, either gameplay-wise or historically.

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

Re-balancing the game with Canada added would take a lot of play-testing.

I’M SORRY BD
WHAT WAS THAT?!?!
WOTC WOULD NEED A LOT OF PLAY-TESTING?? ??
MAN, YOU’LL HAVE TO TYPE LOUDER I CAN’T HEAR OVER EVERYONE YELLING “OH OH PICK ME! PICK ME!”
:-D

LIKE YOUR USE OF CAPS!  I HAD A POST SAYING IT WAS BAD FORM-VERY AMUSING ISN’T IT?

#516