Commonwealth forces

[Clyde85]

I was thinking about this the other day and I wanted to bounce this idea off you guys.

So just spitballing here, but what do you guys of taking the Canadian IC and adding that to the ANZAC and calling them the “Commonwealth forces” instead? The turn order would remain the same, but now you would have a single power with 17IC instead of the ANZAC just having 10IC. I know that the loss in IC to GB wouldn’t be ideal so to compensate I was thinking of combining their income with that of India’s. The loss roughly balances out as I think the two Canadian tt on the pacific usually go to India anyway (the only problem is HK throws and extra 3 into GB’s income but I don’t know if that’s enough to break the game).

Just tossing this out there, wanted to see what you guys think.

[BJCard]

I like what you are thinking, but I would rather it be more like the original pacific.  It may be a bit complicated, but the UK should have several money pools to reflect its different production centers.

London
Canada
South Africa
India
Australia

(Or to simplify, London, India, and Australia)

Then the NO money can go to any production center- like the convoy money in the original pacific.

Lastly, ALL UK units move and fight together.

[ghr2]

I did have a very similar Idea to that clyde, just I also suggested the income to be split just like uk/india, but add in a few new NO’s for the allies.

[gamerman01]

I think the official rules on UK and ANZAC leave something to be desired, yes

[gliven]

What I usually do is have Canada’s income split from UK but take its turn at the same time. A 3 way split Can/uk/india. Give Canada a NO where they gain 3 IPC when USA is at war. Also add 2 Canadian infantry in London at set up for the loss of the Canadian IPC to help with sea lion.

I use green painted British units to represent Canada

[CWO Marc]

@Gliven:

I use green painted British units to represent Canada

When the 2nd edition of Pacific 1940 came out, with its butternut-grey new-design ANZAC sculpts, I designated those sculpts ANZAC ones and I redesignated as Canadian pieces the butternut-grey British-design ANZAC sculpts from the 1st edition of Pacific 1940.  So in effect, this creates a Commonwealth set with a unified colour but in two sections: one Canadian and one Australian / New Zealander.  I did have to transfer some 2nd edition AA guns to Canada, however, because the 1st edition didn’t have those units.

[toblerone77]

@CWO:

@Gliven:

I use green painted British units to represent Canada

When the 2nd edition of Pacific 1940 came out, with its butternut-grey new-design ANZAC sculpts, I designated those sculpts ANZAC ones and I redesignated as Canadian pieces the butternut-grey British-design ANZAC sculpts from the 1st edition of Pacific 1940.  So in effect, this creates a Commonwealth set with a unified colour but in two sections: one Canadian and one Australian / New Zealander.  I did have to transfer some 2nd edition AA guns to Canada, however, because the 1st edition didn’t have those units.

I’m trying to do the same thing, however Im also using HBG pieces which are the same color. I’m thinking of a way to join Canada and ANZAC without de-balancing the game too much for UK. Yes though Marc, using old AAP40 ANZAC is a great soulution for Canadian units!

[CWO Marc]

@toblerone77:

I’m trying to do the same thing, however Im also using HBG pieces which are the same color. I’m thinking of a way to join Canada and ANZAC without de-balancing the game too much for UK. Yes though Marc, using old AAP40 ANZAC is a great soulution for Canadian units!

One additional idea to consider might be to have HBG’s ANZAC-grey pieces represent South Africa, which was also a Commonwealth Dominion at the time.  As I recall, it mainly contributed troops rather than planes or ships to the war effort.  (The two other Dominions, Newfoundland and Ireland, wouldn’t need separate representation.  Newfoundland contributed quite a few men to the war effort, but as I recall they operated as members of Canadian or British units.  Ireland remained neutral.)

[Clyde85]

For those of you who have done this how does it affect the game? Does it unbalance things, give the allies to much of an advantage? I could see this messing up the precarious balance of power in the pacific with Japan having to deal with a 25+IPC beast ANZAC player if the allies focus their income there (and since Canada is relatively safe from direct Axis invasion, why wouldn’t you?). I could see having the ability to spend the Commonwealth 17IPC income in Europe early on, until the US gets into the war, (or in the event of London falling the liberation of the home islands), being a boon to the allies, but after that I could see most players just focusing on the pacific and that might be unfair to Japan.

Just some musings on the idea, I still like it and would really like to test it out.

[toblerone77]

@Clyde85:

For those of you who have done this how does it affect the game? Does it unbalance things, give the allies to much of an advantage? I could see this messing up the precarious balance of power in the pacific with Japan having to deal with a 25+IPC beast ANZAC player if the allies focus their income there (and since Canada is relatively safe from direct Axis invasion, why wouldn’t you?). I could see having the ability to spend the Commonwealth 17IPC income in Europe early on, until the US gets into the war, (or in the event of London falling the liberation of the home islands), being a boon to the allies, but after that I could see most players just focusing on the pacific and that might be unfair to Japan.

Just some musings on the idea, I still like it and would really like to test it out.

Yeah I like this idea a lot Clyde. Canada and ANZAC as one force seems very attractive to me.

[Craig Yope]

Long ago I lobbied for this change:

_India as a separate power-

To clear up any confusion concerning territorial claims, just treat UK India as a separate power. They would still move and attack at the same time as UK Europe, but they would be able to take back UK Europe territories from the Axis on the European map and use the IPCs if London has fallen. ANZAC can, why not UK India?

Also, it would clear up all other rule cross over questions, like the use of money for tech rolls and tech usage. The only exception to the base game rules at that point would be that the two UK powers would be moving and attacking at the same time. That is a lot easier to remember than the current rules exceptions.

While a separate color for UK India would be nice, it isn’t absolutely necessary. A set of control markers specific to UK India (Union Jack CM) would be all that is necessary. If a map redo is in order, then the UK India control could be incorporated into the initial map set up.

Here is the break down that would be necessary:

UK India- (17 IPCs)
West India
India
Ceylon
Burma
Shan State
Malaya
Kwangtung
Borneo

ANZAC- (10 IPCs)
Western Australia
Northern Territory
South Australia
New Guinea
Queensland
New South Wales
Victoria
New Britain
Solomon Islands
New Zealand
Gilbert Islands
Fiji
Samoa

UK Europe- (28 IPCs)
Yukon Territory
British Columbia
Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba
Ontario
Quebec
New Brunswick/Nova Scotia
British Guiana
Iceland
Gibraltar
Scotland
United Kingdom
Gold Coast
Nigeria
Malta
South West Africa
Belgian Congo
Alexandria
Rhodesia
Union of South Africa
Egypt
Anglo-Egyptian Sudan
Cyprus
Trans-Jordan
Kenya
Tanganyika Territory
British Somaliland_

Also, my group tried to play with different combos of India and ANZAC producing and/or moving together, but the shifting of the IPCs was too powerful against the Japanese.  The separate purchasing is a needed mechanic to simulate the spread out priorities of defending the Commonwealth

While I still think that the moving/attacking at the same time (of UK forces) is a good thing it may take powering down the UK India and ANZAC forces early on to make it viable.

[oztea]

I suggested this a bazillion years ago.
You might be able to find some of my rules if you search, I can’t look for them right now.

[toblerone77]

@oztea:

I suggested this a bazillion years ago.
You might be able to find some of my rules if you search, I can’t look for them right now.

TY Oz, I think I’ll do that. I’m a bit partial to ANZAC and Canada my “mum” was born in Canada and my Grandpa too young to fight WWII worked in a factory building Mosquitos for the war effort.

[Quintus Fabius Maximus]

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20629.0

Here are some rules thought up a couple years ago.

[knp7765]

While these changes would add some extra flavor to the game, I still think splitting off Canada from the UK London income would weaken London too much.
If you linked Canada and ANZAC together though, that would bring an extra 20 IPCs to the European theater when ANZAC is at war and collecting NOs, plus whatever NOs you gave to Canada to boost their income, if you spent everything in Canada. So instead of an extra 7 IPCs going into the Atlantic, you might end up with upwards of 30 IPCs. That might be too much for Germany to handle. If you spent both incomes for ANZAC, it would surely be too much for Japan.
Still think it would end up making Sealion somewhat easier for Germany to pull off, but they might have a harder time keeping London if Canada could make so much to put up against them.
Of course, the other side of this would be if you spent too much in one side, it might allow the Axis power on the other side too much freedom. Sort of like the USA’s problem when they get in the war.

[Flashman]

Am I the only one who doesn’t care for this continual subdivision of the powers?

I’d prefer the opposite - distill all nations into 4 power groups:

The (European) Axis
The (Western Allies) Allies & China
The Commies (USSR & CCP)
The Empire of Japan

American, French and British Empire incomes would be separate, but they would all move together. By all means allow infantry placement in India, but nothing else. Canada and Australia can have limited placement including other units.

[CWO Marc]

@Flashman:

The Commies (USSR & CCP)

Speaking of Commies, Mongolia (a neutral in the game) also fits the bill.  The Mongolian People’s Republic was established in 1924 with the help of the Soviet Union, with which it remained a close ally (or of which it remained a client state, depending on how you look at it) in the following decades.  I think it fought alongside the Russians during the USSR’s border conflicts with Japan in 1938 and 1939, and it participated in the Russian invasion of Manchuria in August 1945.

[knp7765]

@Flashman:

Am I the only one who doesn’t care for this continual subdivision of the powers?

I’d prefer the opposite - distill all nations into 4 power groups:

The (European) Axis
The (Western Allies) Allies & China
The Commies (USSR & CCP)
The Empire of Japan

American, French and British Empire incomes would be separate, but they would all move together. By all means allow infantry placement in India, but nothing else. Canada and Australia can have limited placement including other units.

When you say move together, does that also include combat moves and attacks? That would create a real possibility of a D-Day invasion. I’ve always thought that Allies should be able to move each other’s units if they begin the turn in the same territory. Like if the US had units in England and enough transports, or even British transports in the same sea zone as American naval units, they could take some British units with them in an invasion. Or they could even wait for the UK turn and the UK could move US units with them.
Of course, that would also apply to German and Italian units in the same territory.
As for taking control of the attacked territory, I would say it would go to whomever’s turn it was. Like if Germany attacked and brought along some Italian units and won the battle, the new territory would be controlled by Germany. Perhaps an exclusion to this would be if there were no more of the moving country’s units left but just it’s ally’s units. For example: Italy has a bunch of infantry in Slovakia/Hungary along with a bunch of German tanks. They attack Eastern Poland with Italian infantry and German tanks. They end up taking losses on the cheap infantry and saving the more expensive tanks so they end up with all German units in E. Poland. So, even though it was Italy’s battle, Germany gets that territory. However, if there is at least 1 Italian unit left, then it belongs to Italy with Germany supporting them.

[Derek]

I too would rather see countries grouped together rather than more subdivision

Keep the incomes seperate like UK does now but all the moves are made as a single power

[Flashman]

Yes, each of the 4 Blocks moves and attacks with all units at once. As for control of tt, perhaps in future WWII versions will borrow the rule from 1914 that you always have to have one infantry to make an attack, and leave one as a last unit after all other units types have been eliminated.

Alliances between blocks should be strictly limited, for example the “Soviet Block” would not permit Western Allied units on its territory or vice versa; the Axis and Japan would be similarly restricted. There have to be some benefits to being allies however, such as sharing sea zones, and being permitted to fly over an ally’s tt - but not land there.

Moreover, some scenarios would not begin with historical alliances in place, for example a pre-1941 scenario would not have the Axis and the USSR at war.

Include an “open” scenario allowing each of the 4 players to make alliances as they see fit; certainly the Reds and Japanese would have a pact - each cannot attack the other until their respective main enemy has been defeated.

It would make sense for each block’s pieces to all be similar in colour, so dark green for US & light green for British Empire, maybe a green-brown for France, turquoise for Chinese?

Germany in dark grey, Italy in light grey.