Why are there Canadian roundels? A new rule perhaps?

[SAS]

I've heard about the Pacific IPC going to India and Europe IPCs goign to Britian, but i like the idea of all UK roundels IPCs spent at any UK factory, and all Canadian IPC spent at the Canadian factory, seems simpler. The only reason I can see this wasn't done is with this set-up UK can throw down 10 INF on India for defense, when in a solo Pacific game they would be down to 4IPCs and ready to be crushed.

Yeah, now that you point that out, splitting some of UK's income to Canada rather than Pacific/Europe would actually help put more action in the Pacific.  Just change the Major IC at India to a Minor IC since having a Major there doesn't seem accurate anyway, so the UK would have to upgrade before they could drop 10 units there...

I agree with cressman that the only reaon I can see for the Pacific/Europe split is to keep India from producing a ton of units so that the gameplay doesn't change too drastically from straight Pacific to Global.  I mean, I agree that strategy playing one of the "half"-games shouldn't go from India-crush turn 3 in Pacific to UK-takes-over-Asia turn 3 in Global, but it seems that could be solved by giving UK a minor IC instead, since it doesn't look like UK is ever really going to be able to build 10 units in India with the split the way it is.  Or perhaps if that would still be too powerful, split India into two or three territories like Great Britain now will be, and make them worth less than 3 IPCs each so India is limited to minor ICs entirely.

[Razor]

Well, India had a population of 400 millions in 1939, and Canada had only 7 millions, so its only logical that India is the main contributor. I know some canucks here dont like to hear that, but my country Norway contributed a lot more to the allied war effort than Canada, without being recognized for that, so I say stop whining.

[SAS]

ahh razor in ww1 we had 8 million people so i think in ww11 we would have  more.

The difference of 1 million more in Canada to 400 million in India is only 0.5%.  He's saying that Canada had 5% of India's population.  Whether that equates to more impact on the war is debatable, but saying that Canada had slightly more doesn't affect his argument the way it is stated.

[calvinhobbesliker]

ahh razor in ww1 we had 8 million people so i think in ww11 we would have  more.

The difference of 1 million more in Canada to 400 million in India is only 0.5%.  He's saying that Canada had 5% of India's population.  Whether that equates to more impact on the war is debatable, but saying that Canada had slightly more doesn't affect his argument the way it is stated.

okay razor said there were 7 million people in canada during 1940 well i my website like it says there was 11,382,000
big difference and like cminke said around 80% of canada went to fight in ww11 and fought all over the wester front like at dieppe, d-day, opperation torch, sisily, italy, market garden, holland, and germany the fought in the atlantic and in hong kong, also they fought in belgium.
were did india fight?

Dunkirk, East Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Greece India, Burma, Malaya, Hong Kong

By the way, Canada's army was mostly conscripts. India had the largest volunteer army in history: 2.5 million. Canada's army, navy, and air force: 1.1 million.

[calvinhobbesliker]

rour such an a** i rock
and canada did not concript we voluntered.
i dis like your assumption but i forgive u  

Sorry, you're right. Conscription only happened in 1944.

The point still stands that India mobilized more soldiers than Canada

[dustbag1]

Well, India had a population of 400 millions in 1939, and Canada had only 7 millions, so its only logical that India is the main contributor. I know some canucks here dont like to hear that, but my country Norway contributed a lot more to the allied war effort than Canada, without being recognized for that, so I say stop whining.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? I understand the point about India and how it is illogical to allow Canada to become a power in the context of this board game, but i wouldn't compare the contributions to that of Norway.

Its army of 50000 managed to hold the Germans back for roughly 3 months but only with the assistance of over 150000 British and french troops. Then when the government capitulated approximately 50000 citizens joined the Axis armies in a variety of fields from the Luftwaffe to the Kriegsmarine. The majority chose to join the Waffen SS, and ended up fighting the Russians on the eastern front.

Now the last time I checked, if your fighting against somebody, your not helping them. Now i may admit to being bias, as I am a Canuck and its true I cannot find statistics for Canadians joining axis armies, but I have a gut feeling that there will be less than 50000. Also add in the resources, aircraft, troops, ships and other goodies (i.e. maple syrup) that we helped supply

But as stated by Razor earlier the contribution made by the Canadians in the Pacific were far less than the Indians and to further isolate the UK ipcs in the European side will only hurt the game play. 9 nations is already the absolute limit to what this kind of game can handle in a F2F game without somebody getting bored. (unless your a fanatic like me, unfortunately the people I play with are not) If your not happy with the way the game comes out, either:

a) don't buy it (although you really should and I know you will)
b) make up house rules
c) just play it any ways

Readings:
http://www.feldgrau.com/norway.html
 

[WILD BILL]

On the subject of India, I saw a doc on one of the history channels that said one of Hitlers many axis plans was to take India via N Africa (Egypt-Suez) push into The Middle East then into the jewel of the UK. Not sure how true it was, but it went on to say that some of the Indian troops (POW) joined the axis (switched sides) in N Africa. The thought was that India was in turmoil over its independence. It went on to say that their was even a planed coup with Indian Nationalist to take over the government. It also said Hitler wanted this to be a Joint German/Japanese attempt. It was also thought by Japan that the Indian Nationalist would join them after they conquered Burma.

Does anyone (calvinhobbesliker) no more about this? I also read some stuff on Wikipedia that supports parts of this under India WWII.

[calvinhobbesliker]

On the subject of India, I saw a doc on one of the history channels that said one of Hitlers many axis plans was to take India via N Africa (Egypt-Suez) push into The Middle East then into the jewel of the UK. Not sure how true it was, but it went on to say that some of the Indian troops (POW) joined the axis (switched sides) in N Africa. The thought was that India was in turmoil over its independence. It went on to say that their was even a planed coup with Indian Nationalist to take over the government. It also said Hitler wanted this to be a Joint German/Japanese attempt. That Japan actually sent an amphb/naval force, but recalled it (in-fighting between army/navy). It was also thought by Japan that the Indian Nationalist would join them after they conquered Burma.

Does anyone (calvinhobbesliker) no more about this? I also read some stuff on Wikipedia that supports parts of this under India WWII.

Yeah, I've heard of such attempts. For example, there's Bose, who escaped from India to Germany via Afghanistan and the Soviet Union in 1940. He wanted to lead an army of Indian POW's to "liberate" India from Britain. Hitler was actually reluctant to do this as he admired the British Raj. Anyway, after setbacks in the invasion of Russia, this became impossible. Thus, Bose was transfered via subs off Madagascar to Japan, who helped him lead an army of Indians captured at Singapore to invade India. The sad thing is, that those Indians who joined Japan and invaded India are regarded as "freedom-fighters" in India and are given large pensions. Indians who fought on the British side against the Japanese invasion of it are not.

[democratic leader]

All of Canadas operations where just as a minor support to UK/US forces whereas India was the main part of the battle, rather than just a support.

Besides, how does it make the game better if the UK has to produce about 5-8 IPCs on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Brain Damaged]

The answer is that it doesn't make the game better, it would just make all these Canadian A&A players happy to see their country represented in the game, even if it is to the game's detriment.

[democratic leader]

Who cares, they will buy it anywhy.

Besides, they can all get behind a fundrasier to make 'Axis and Allies-Battle of Canada' where they get to chose which battles they help the UK with. LOL

[Brain Damaged]

Who cares, they will buy it anywhy.

Besides, they can all get behind a fundrasier to make 'Axis and Allies-Battle of Canada' where they get to chose which battles they help the UK with. LOL

They should be happy they even got the roundels.

[democratic leader]

Its time we start arguing that the Channel Islands had a considerable ecomany, produce many 10s of infantry and acted independantly of the UK, so its clear they should not be streotyeped as part of th UK, and should be their own power; including their own income, units and combat.

[WILD BILL]

Yeah, I've heard of such attempts. For example, there's Bose, who escaped from India to Germany via Afghanistan and the Soviet Union in 1940. He wanted to lead an army of Indian POW's to "liberate" India from Britain. Hitler was actually reluctant to do this as he admired the British Raj. Anyway, after setbacks in the invasion of Russia, this became impossible. Thus, Bose was transfered via subs off Madagascar to Japan, who helped him lead an army of Indians captured at Singapore to invade India. The sad thing is, that those Indians who joined Japan and invaded India are regarded as "freedom-fighters" in India and are given large pensions. Indians who fought on the British side against the Japanese invasion of it are not.

Yea I've heard similar stories of Indian troops (freedom fighters)  fighting on the axis side. That's a bummer about the pensions. That must have come about after Aug 1947 when India gained  its independence. Its also when Pakistan (Muslim ) was split off and was recognized.

[democratic leader]

I'm under 14