Your points are well taken, Canada’s action early would be limited to mopping up the Atlantic of German subs (if they don’t lose what would become their sub and transport the first turn). They’d need a basic autonomy NO to pump their income and maybe they could get a reduced version of the UK’s no German subs bonus.

While they couldn’t do much once they land in UK or northern Africa they could open a few new angles going after Italy (would combine the turn with ANZAC’s). But I fear Canada’s best use would simply be to pump air units to UK/Russia from Quebec.

@barnee There’d be no need for Lincoln to send the navy to shell New York harbor as the Irish community at Five Points would have no issue getting paid to shoot Redcoats.

Coming off the Crimean War, I don’t think Britain and France had the resolve for another expeditionary conflict, so their support would be very limited.

@superbattleshipyamato123

This is a great thread that outlines every territory on the map:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26161/global-1940-2nd-edition-map-analysis?_=1633612846426

I could be mistaken but doing the starting IPC math shouldn’t Burma have always been part of UK Pacific? Maybe Oz meant to have Chinese units there but that violates UK-Pac’s neutrality. As you said could just move the fighter and trade the infantry or also keep it Chinese and move it.

@vodot Need to make a North American map that can be used for the French & Indian War (or Seven Years’ War), American Revolution and War of 1812 that features Mackinac Island controlling the strait linking Lake Michigan with Lake Huron. For the 1812 scenario Britain will already be set up to take the fort on the first turn.

Letting the UK dump 40+ IPCs on London the first turn virtually removes Sea Lion off the table and a second turn dump in Calcutta also puts a major crimp in Japan’s plans. The one compromise I’d make is to have the Calcultta IC be a minor so the UK has to pay to upgrade or build a second IC in order to fortify India.

Or as an alternative if you peel Canada from the UK then having a combined economy is more justifiable.

@Charles-de-Gaulle

This is a great idea, and there’s nothing drastic here. I recently thought about naval and air bases and their status as niche builds (AB in Hainan/Gibraltar, NB in Midway) and if they should cost 12 to have consistency among the small facilities. What do you think?

@barnee said in British and French aid the Confederate States:

@General-Veers said in British and French aid the Confederate States:

@barnee There’d be no need for Lincoln to send the navy to shell New York harbor…

Not sure why he would do that. New York was on his side : )

I must be missing your point : )

That was not entirely the case, since the city’s economy had deep ties with Southern states. So much so that the city was home to many “Copperheads” opposed to the war and the mayor even teased secession:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Wood

While the first ever use of national conscription was never going to be met with universal acceptance, the strongest resistance came from NYC. Freshly naturalized immigrants were not thrilled with the prospect of being told to take arms in a conflict they had no interest in. Sadly these also played along racial lines as there was simmering tension beforehand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

I love the idea of adding Canada to 1939. One little thing is Newfoundland was a separate Dominon at the time, so it should be part of UK Europe (and can stay at $0).

Regarding the NOs I’d give the UK Europe $5 Canadian territory NO to Canada, but remove the US at war qualifier and restrict the sub-free zone to sz116-123. I’d prefer to just keep the IPC values on the map as is ($7), perhaps there could be another NO that pumps up their income to $15-16. Perhaps they could get an extra $3 once the US is at war. I don’t think BC needs to be $2, Canada will need to be doing pretty well to build an IC there and ANZAC can take care of the Pacific.

For UK Europe would add a $3 NO for no subs in sz 101-109 on top of their $5 NO for critical territories.

@superbattleshipyamato from an American standpoint it has to be the Enterprise, CV-6. A shame efforts to turn it into a museum fell apart.

@all-encompassing-goose

A 1-3 split for Borneo would be interesting since it gives Japan a spot to build an IC on. But I think this is one reason they simply combined the territories, in addition to scaling separate territories.

Corsica bugs me a little since it’s so easy to correct. But I wonder if that was also done for gameplay purposes since it opens up a UK attack on SZ 95 with a landing spot.

@superbattleshipyamato123

This is a great thread that outlines every territory on the map:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26161/global-1940-2nd-edition-map-analysis?_=1633612846426

@marshmallowofwar I agree a consolidated Pacific economy could be dangerous; one nerf would be to downgrade the Calcutta factory to force the player to spend in Australia, build an IC in West India or upgrade the Calcutta one but at a hefty cost.

@Patchman123
Flipping Iraq to a Pro-Allied neutral could tilt the OOB balance a little bit for the Allies without impacting opening moves for the Axis. The value of the three infantry and extra income for UK or USSR will add up over time, and to balance it’s one less territory for the USSR to use for it’s Spread of Communism National Objective. Most likely the UK player would active this the first turn using a transport from Egypt or India.

Could use the 1914 map and integrate Universal’s monsters in a turn of the century setting:

Paris: Phantom of the Opera
Romania: Dracula
Switzerland: Frankenstein
Cairo: The Mummy
London: The Invisible Man, Werewolf of London, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (not Universal but nod to Hammer)
Brazil: Creature from the Black Lagoon

Monsters can both attack territories but also be captured.

I love the idea of adding Canada to 1939. One little thing is Newfoundland was a separate Dominon at the time, so it should be part of UK Europe (and can stay at $0).

Regarding the NOs I’d give the UK Europe $5 Canadian territory NO to Canada, but remove the US at war qualifier and restrict the sub-free zone to sz116-123. I’d prefer to just keep the IPC values on the map as is ($7), perhaps there could be another NO that pumps up their income to $15-16. Perhaps they could get an extra $3 once the US is at war. I don’t think BC needs to be $2, Canada will need to be doing pretty well to build an IC there and ANZAC can take care of the Pacific.

For UK Europe would add a $3 NO for no subs in sz 101-109 on top of their $5 NO for critical territories.

@Charles-de-Gaulle

This is a great idea, and there’s nothing drastic here. I recently thought about naval and air bases and their status as niche builds (AB in Hainan/Gibraltar, NB in Midway) and if they should cost 12 to have consistency among the small facilities. What do you think?

I could be mistaken but doing the starting IPC math shouldn’t Burma have always been part of UK Pacific? Maybe Oz meant to have Chinese units there but that violates UK-Pac’s neutrality. As you said could just move the fighter and trade the infantry or also keep it Chinese and move it.

Your points are well taken, Canada’s action early would be limited to mopping up the Atlantic of German subs (if they don’t lose what would become their sub and transport the first turn). They’d need a basic autonomy NO to pump their income and maybe they could get a reduced version of the UK’s no German subs bonus.

While they couldn’t do much once they land in UK or northern Africa they could open a few new angles going after Italy (would combine the turn with ANZAC’s). But I fear Canada’s best use would simply be to pump air units to UK/Russia from Quebec.