Do you want canada as a power

Maybe they’re 10 Canadian IPCs?  :-D

@valthonis:

Maybe they’re 10 Canadian IPCs?   :-D

Frankly I’d be surprised if there were 5 IPCs on the AAE40 board’s Canadian territories.

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

If Canada wasn’t getting the 10IPC’s then the UK would, so what is your point.

Incorrect.
OOB, the UK will not be getting 10 IPCs for Canada.

OOB, Canada in AAE40 will not be a separate power AND the chances of it having even half of ANZAC IPCs are slim and none. Why should it? It never has before.

“Fixing” this IPC deficiency would be part of any sensible house rule to enhance Canada’s role to the level of a separate power.

That, sir, is my point.

The more IPC’s Canada would get, the less IPC’s UK would get in order to keep the game balanced so your Canadian dream is just an allied nightmare.

@Brain:

The more IPC’s Canada would get, the less IPC’s UK would get in order to keep the game balanced so your Canadian dream is just an allied nightmare.

Well, the presumption that the UK would have to lose IPCs somewhere else to raise Canada’s is not necessarily true since we’re talking about house rules on a game none of us have seen and have no idea how the OOB balance will play out.

And who’s to say an allied nightmare isn’t desirable?  I’m sure Churchill had some sleepless nights waiting for help to come across that North Atlantic.

@allboxcars:

[Well, the presumption that the UK would have to lose IPCs somewhere else to raise Canada’s is not necessarily true since we’re talking about house rules on a game none of us have seen and have no idea how the OOB balance will play out. [/quote]

Well then I am sure since you like giving free money to the Allies you wouldn’t mind giving some free money to the Axis. I am sure we could add Austria as an Axis nation and perhaps others.

@Brain:

Well then I am sure since you like giving free money to the Allies you wouldn’t mind giving some free money to the Axis. I am sure we could add Austria as an Axis nation and perhaps others.

ah then you do see my point: for any nation - Canada, Austria, Andorra, whatever - to be a separate player it would have to have a significant income; merely swapping in different coloured pieces would not suffice to make it playable.

It appears to be a fairly evident extrapolation from the new treatment of Australia in AAP40.

This is, in part, what my Convoy system is driving at. Although the UK has overall control of Canada & Australia it has to decide weather or not to Convoy their incomes to the UK, at the risk of losing the income altogether for that turn, or converting it into units in the Canadian and Australian factories with their limited capacities, and relative distance from the fighting.
In either case there is a natural delay in the money/unit reaching the UK, especially in the case of Australian money.  Of course the UK is particularly vulnerable to being choked of from overseas income, especially if the Axis targets Egypt (which forces a longer route around Africa).
Transfer by convoy should however be faster than units can travel, otherwise there is no incentive to use the convoys where the income can be lost without “firing back”.
It should be noted that this is intended to work with my own rules which forbid the building of new factories, or the use of captured ones. No Indian factory!

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

Well then I am sure since you like giving free money to the Allies you wouldn’t mind giving some free money to the Axis. I am sure we could add Austria as an Axis nation and perhaps others.

ah then you do see my point: for any nation - Canada, Austria, Andorra, whatever - to be a separate player it would have to have a significant income; merely swapping in different coloured pieces would not suffice to make it playable.
It appears to be a fairly evident extrapolation from the new treatment of Australia in AAP40.

Apparently you couldn’t hear the sarcasm in my response.

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