Will Canada be playable at 6-8 IPCs

If I am the Axis player, I would be more than happy to see you spend your money in Canada where it is not needed.

My thought is that just about any country is playable at 10+ IC.  At 10 IC a lot of purchase options are open.  If Canada can make it to 10 IC either through printed values on the map or through a NO bump, then they could be ally to the US and UK.

With 10 IC I could, as Canada I could be building transports each turn and using my starting forces to shuttle over to the UK.  I could build a fighter and send it over to the UK or N. Africa.  I could build a couple subs over a couple of turns to help sway the battle in the Atlantic.

Basically, with 10 IC Canada has the ability to compliment the Allies plans or reinforce deficencies.  So, yeah, get to 10 IC and Canada is viable IMO.

If Canada has a 10 IPC income ratiowise that would give the US a starting income of about 100 IPC as the US econonmy has historically been about 10 times that of the Canadian as measured in GDP.  The vast majority of heavy industry was located in Ontario as was/is about 1/3 of the countries population, you could argue half the IPC value of Canada should be located in ontario.  However, much of the food (wheat/grains, livestock) for export was grown in the western provinces.  I wonder how they would weigh that in IPCs, was the food England relied on more important than say the 800,000 trucks produced in Ontario?  Much of the sentiment in Quebec was against war participation, dispite some heroic actions by French-Canadian units as a whole that province was not as blindly obedient as Canada was as a whole.  Blind obedience leads to fiascos like Dieppe….

I’m not sure how the ‘allies’ function will work, but if Canada as a playable power has to escort her own ships to send its goods to europe that would be tricky.  If her moves occured at the same time as the brits and/or americans then that would be interesting.

I think it should be more of a split income or at least have Canada move on the same turn.
P.S. this should be in house rules.

@Brain:

If I am the Axis player, I would be more than happy to see you spend your money in Canada where it is not needed.

I agree here. If the Allies really want to hurt themselves more by seperating the UK’s income further, then let them. I will not debate whether or not it would be historically accurate to have Canada as an independent power, but having them as a seperate power for anything but the novelty of doing so seems unwise. Not that novelty is a good reason, but making Canada seperate won’t help you win the game. It is better for Britain to be able to spend the money wherever in the world she wishes than to have Canada spend it in Canada.

As for WILL they be playable… technically: yes, but I’d still say it wouldn’t work well in practice. At only 6-8 IPCs, I would hate my life, or my job of playing Canada at least. Anything built in Canada would have to get overseas somehow. Say on turn one you buy a transport. It is going to take 1 or 2 more turns for that transport to ship its cargo to Britain and then get back to where it can get more. Or it might just want to stay there to be able to ferry units to Europe. It becomes a rather wretched cycle for Canada. Unless they buy subs, or maybe a plane or other ships every 2 turns… but where is the fun or usefulness in that?

NOs would surely help the cause, but does Canada deserve any? I don’t mean to diminish Canada, but I don’t think Canada, even ANZAC, maybe even the French should have NOs. I typically play with NOs, but they just seem moderately farcical as free money.

@Brain:

If I am the Axis player, I would be more than happy to see you spend your money in Canada where it is not needed.

While I agree I think that’s unfortunate. An anticipated flaw in the E40 game.
Ideally, the UK would be producing a portion of their inventory thru the Dominions and not having it magically appear on their tiny island, but then the control of the skies and channel plus the logistics of amphibious invasion should keep Sealion at bay and permit slowly increasing UK offensive ops.

@LHoffman:

NOs …does Canada deserve any?

Hmmm I would say yes… IMTO NOs serve to promote historical objectives over gaming expediencies (e.g., Tokyo tank express) so I think some NOs to encourage the Cdns to lean towards KGF, keep on cranking out fighters and keep the North Atlantic clear would be bona fide tools.
And also the bonus money might reflect the exponential growth of the Cdn war effort which, unlike territory-based IPCs, cannot be captured by the enemy.

So is Canada playable? 
IMTO I imagine you’d need some tinkering with house rules to keep the UK from being hobbled.

#587

I am not that familiar with NOs but am with convoy lanes as it was in the original Pacific version.  If Canada deserved a NO (then there would be about 20-30 for proportionalities which makes me doubt if it deserves one) it should be something along the lines of convoy duty in the North Atlantic.  Canada took a beating due to equipment shortages and poor training to the point it had to pull out of the Atlantic at the end of 42 to requip and regroup.  However, within a few months the revamped RCN came back and eventually was solely responsible for north atlantic covoy duties including routing, scheduling and guarding freeing the US navy to concentrate in the pacific.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I am not that familiar with NOs but am with convoy lanes as it was in the original Pacific version.  If Canada deserved a NO (then there would be about 20-30 for proportionalities which makes me doubt if it deserves one) it should be something along the lines of convoy duty in the North Atlantic.  Canada took a beating due to equipment shortages and poor training to the point it had to pull out of the Atlantic at the end of 42 to requip and regroup.  However, within a few months the revamped RCN came back and eventually was solely responsible for north atlantic covoy duties including routing, scheduling and guarding freeing the US navy to concentrate in the pacific.

Mind you the other half of the North Atlantic “issue” is that you need to encourage U-boat patrolling as well otherwise no NO would be enough to encourage the Cdn player to ptl empty sea zones.
I don’t know if the ocean’s big enough and the control of it is vital enough to make a real Battle of the Atlantic.

#591

To respond to a slightly off topic point…

I believe NOs are good for promoting objectives that really existed in the war, and they are good motivation for a player accomplishing those. But some of them I find kind of freebee-ish. A Canada NO, like the one proposed, is sort of freebee-ish. Germany will almost never take any part of Canada, and it is more than likely that Germany won’t have the resources to keep subs or ships stationed off the North American coast or in the North Atlantic. So Canada won’t have to station fighters or ships near North America preparing for opposition that will never come in the vast majority of games played.

And by ‘freebee’ NOs, I don’t just mean Canada. The US NO for having East, Central and Western states is a freebee too, and I don’t agree with it. The US is going to be getting astronomical IPCs in the Global game… do they really need 5 more a turn for no good reason?

Oh yeah… what is IMTO?

For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.

#594

@allboxcars:

For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.

#594

Okay, gotcha.

But what is IMTO?

If I’m playing UK then no I don’t want to be forced to spend $ in Canada then transport or fly it over. UK will need its units that round, not placed in Quebec then be available next round (especially navy). As a separate power I think Canada would just be an air plane factory. That would be the safest way to get units over. I like the fact that Quebec has an IC, if UK chooses to use it. Say it’s not safe to drop ships in the sz around UK, so build in the Hudson, as the UK I like having options, not being force fed by some house rule. Then there’s give Canada an NO. Ok, but would you not have to also give the axis an NO too, or do you feel that splitting Canada from UK is hardship enough to warrant just an ally NO.

After playing the game several times we might toy with a house rule allowing Canada to be its own power, but I can’t see it being used more then a few times in our group. Canada becoming a minor power to continue the fight after UK falls is very intriguing to me though. That’s why I checked the maybe box.

@LHoffman:

@allboxcars:

For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.

#594

Okay, gotcha.

But what is IMTO?

In My Temporary Opinion.
My Posts are like Swayze.
Read fast.

#596

@allboxcars:

@LHoffman:

@allboxcars:

For clarity, in terms of fighter production I meant just that. Not keeping them in Canada but if a NO was phrased so that it simulates the BCATP then I could live with the idea, game balance pending.

#594

Okay, gotcha.

But what is IMTO?

In My Temporary Opinion.
My Posts are like Swayze.
Read fast.

#596

Hmm… IMTO … I like it.

Well IMTO the Commonwealth should permit the UK player to remain in the game post-Sealion and should disperse production.

Now that’s a pretty normative statement ranking up there with I shouldn’t pay so much in tax and my fries should never be cold, so the harsh realities of game balance arise to make me think that’s a pipe dream.

Now aside from that I’m thinking patriotism might be the only reason that someone would actually volunteer to play Canada.

#597

@allboxcars:

Now aside from that I’m thinking patriotism might be the only reason that someone would actually volunteer to play Canada.

Entirely.

In terms of giving Canada a role based on its historical contribution, to make matters worse (of course) using it as a fighter factory and then having a huge RCAF wouldn’t be historically correct either.

The T in BCATP stands for Training after all. So maybe half of the air units being “produced” in Canada should actually be UK units.

Couldn’t use the maple syrup-flavoured Cdn pieces at all.  Pity.

#598

Yes, please put in an independent Canadian power that will take 10-15 IPCs away from the UK when it really needs them the most at the start of the game during US/USSR neutrality.  This will ensure German Sealion attempts to be 100% successful all of the time.

Thank you.

OK, I’ll bite: how do you get 10-15 IPCs?

#600