Do you want canada as a power

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

Philippines? Come on, dutchs or Spain would have more chances of being a power!  :-D Well, I’d love seeing Spain as a neutral “playable” power, one that could join any side in some rare cases. Maybe with split income with the power they join, as Canada/UK. Wet dreams, of course

Why not Confederacy (as axis power would shine!)? Gibraltar? Carthago?  :mrgreen:

@allboxcars:

Thanks for your detailed response. However I must contest your historic ratings:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

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

Contrary to that hype, crashed and burned into a non-entity faster than most child actors.
Historic “individuality” points - 1

@SilverAngelSurfer:

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

At the operational level never met an enemy that they couldn’t surrender fast enough to, another non-entity.
Historic “individuality” points - 1

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Canada:
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 – 0.75

The vital Mid-Atlantic convoy routes fell under the command of a Canadian Admiral and the RCN proved very effective at ASW. In addition, Canada ran the Commonwealth Air Training Program and had sufficient manpower and influence to have their own beach on D-Day.
Historic “individuality” points - 1.5

Now, I’m not suggesting for gameplay purposes that Canada should be a separate player but in terms of history of WW2, I don’t think you can claim France and Italy were Major Powers and Canada was not… unless you’re working from Hollywood’s Big Book of American Miracles, in which case America won the war singlehandedly and despite British Snobbery & Blundering… Canada Who?

My “historic points” have to do with reasons they should be individual powers, not anything to do with their overall strength, but I grant that Canada probably deserves more historic points.  :mrgreen:  As stated in the post, my points system is arbitrary, and flawed besides; I should give ANZAC more gameplay points for one because the inclusion of ANZAC has EVERYTHING to do with adding more playability to the Pacific.

I’m not saying Canada had nothing to do with the war or even very little.  I know Canada made major contributions, and long before the US got off its collective rear end.  This isn’t a US vs. Canada post.  The US probably watched most of the world go to pot before they did anything if Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl and ticked everyone off.  :roll:

*Edit:  I adjusted my points system slightly in the previous post if anyone really cares…  :-P *

@Funcioneta:

Philippines? Come on, dutchs or Spain would have more chances of being a power!  :-D Well, I’d love seeing Spain as a neutral “playable” power, one that could join any side in some rare cases. Maybe with split income with the power they join, as Canada/UK. Wet dreams, of course

Why not Confederacy (as axis power would shine!)? Gibraltar? Carthago?  :mrgreen:

Or why not Poland?  :-P  Take the scenario back a year more and Germany has even more to do before the other powers enter the war…  :wink:

I think everyone here might like this idea that just struck me…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17683.msg584488#msg584488

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Or why not Poland?   :-P  Take the scenario back a year more and Germany has even more to do before the other powers enter the war…  :wink:

We talked about that in an earlier post. It would be nice to have a '39 version so we could have some Polish cavalry units.

@Brain:

@SilverAngelSurfer:

Or why not Poland?   :-P  Take the scenario back a year more and Germany has even more to do before the other powers enter the war…  :wink:

We talked about that in an earlier post. It would be nice to have a '39 version so we could have some Polish cavalry units.

In my opinion, A and A is developing more and more over the years, and I think it should keep developing until perfection. i.e. a global game about the size of this one, with completely correct rulebooks and maps and pieces and everything, maybe slightly more advanced rules (a bomb, Canada (if not already included) and possibly more powers b/c the more the merrier I say along with special colonial rules ie Egypt and South Africa and India) and 4 different playable and tested scenarios at 39, 40, 41, and 42 (kind of like aa50 only the ultimate game). This might take like 30 years or so but that’s my dream world or a and a.  :-D

@allboxcars:

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.
#538

Considering this is where I live…all too funny… :wink:

The only way I could see Canada as a power is if they were sort of China-esque in their production limitations. Maybe just ground units and transports? Or maybe just basic units of all varieties (no flagships or bombers)? I know this isn’t historically accurate but it might help with some balance, variety, and play time issues.

Also I’m not sure if this idea has been breached already in the forum, but what about implementing the rule used when Allies left units in Russia from the original A&A Europe: If Canada (and maybe even ANZAC?) leaves a unit in the UK, the UK can take control of it (switch it out for an equivalent of one of their pieces) during their turn?

Not a fan of the idea.  Bottom line, Canada as an independent power will make the UK less interesting to play.  There is already a profusion of new powers to keep the Allies schizophrenic, an indy Canada doesn’t bring anything new to the table.

@Praetorian:

Not a fan of the idea.  Bottom line, Canada as an independent power will make the UK less interesting to play.  There is already a profusion of new powers to keep the Allies schizophrenic, an indy Canada doesn’t bring anything new to the table.

I’d have to disagree the UK already have to send troops to France enforce Egypt and Maybe Greece and then protect Britain after France falls. Before Barborossa and before american troops get to Europe the UK is fighting the Allies war. Besides since Canada is probably under UK control I think this would make the UK more interesting.

Go ahead and make canada its own power. try it in pacific. See how far that gets you

@idk_iam_swiss:

Go ahead and make canada its own power. try it in pacific. See how far that gets you

I agree… Making Canada its own power wouldn’t work in my opinion:

It would have all the disadvantages of the US transport problem without the advantages of enormous production, pre-existing forces, and supported factions elsewhere (IE Hawaii/Philippines/etc). While yes, this is a defensive advantage to a degree, it wouldn’t be a “fun” turn (some people that I introduce to A&A say that the US is a boring task force) and would seem more of an “ok let’s get Canada’s turn over with” part of the game. While historically they may have played a big role in the war and probably deserve being added, it isn’t very fitting of the game play and might muddle up the turn base. It would also take away from the UK’s already dwindling productivity, and they need it much more being in the brunt of the battle (that’s why France and Italy fit - immediate involvement).

Having Canada as its own force would be more of a house-rule or something more geared for AAA or the War Game: WWII. I think it’d be more of a novelty than an actual functional and progressive addition to the mid-level simplicity of the 1940’s game versions.

I don’t think Canada will be a separate power for the reasons previously stated, but I do think that Canada will be represented in Europe 1940 and the global game as the other half of the UK’s split income we’ve been told about.  My post in the other Canada-related thread explains in detail.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=17683.msg584488#msg584488

One of the things that Larry seems to have been doing with the game recently is expanding from the initial simplified setup of combining the whole English commonwealth into the UK, lumping China in with the US, and packaging Italy into Germany that we had with all the versions so far except AA50.  Now we know we already have a separate Italy, China, ANZAC, and all the neutral countries actually being represented on the board; so the other obvious sovereign nation that should receive separate representation is Canada (hence the “do you want canada as a power?” thread)/  India and South Africa were still more or less colonies of the UK at the time, but Australia, New Zealand, and Canada were independent nations, so it makes some sense that colonies would still provide income to the Mother Country, but independent nations wouldn’t provide income directly, even with trade and such (which isn’t represented in A&A anyway).  Separating Australia/New Zealand from the UK as ANZAC works for gameplay by putting more into the Pacific theater, but separating Canada from the UK wouldn’t serve much purpose historically or gameplay-wise as they worked so closely together and there are already enough European-focused Allied countries.

If you combine this “expansion” idea with the information we know about Canada having different roundels on its territories and the hint about UK (presumably) having a split income, I think I’ve come up with another scenario that Larry could be doing with Europe and the Global game: UK/Canada as a combo “power”!  Canada has its own separate income from its own territories that it spends at its own IC (indicative of an independent country), but Canada and the UK fight together with conglomerate troops (indicative of their military cooperation).  No messy “joint-strike” rules.  The UK/Canada team can build its navy in Canada safely away from any German planes and could defend Canada better in case of a KAF attack by the Japanese.  There won’t be any cardboard roundels for Canada because any new territories captured would go to the UK, as is more accurate historically.  This would be waaay less messy than trying to figure out whether a captured territories’ income goes to India or Great Britain and would fit with a power’s income not being forced to go specifically to one theater or the other.

I don’t think Larry is ready to go to the level of complexity necessary to account for transportation of income across oceans, I think he’s leaving it the same it has always been except for adding convoys, and this explanation accounts for Canada being the other “semi-major” power of the UK commonwealth along with ANZAC, the Canadian roundels, and the split income hint: everything!