Canada for Europe and Global 1940
Aside from the modifications for Canada, I played with few other mods in conjunction. Attacking a strict neutral territory would only make all the others in the region align to the other side, not all the others worldwide. Ex: If Portugal was attacked by the Allies, all the other strict neutral in Europe would re-align themselves, but the ones everywhere else, such as in Africa, the Middle-East, South America and Asia, would remain neutral. Another mod would be making Spain pro-axis if Paris and one of the Russian cities were under Axis control, Sweden would be pro-axis if Moscow, Finland and Norway were under Axis control, and Argentina starts the game as pro-axis. Turkey would become pro-one side if all the adjacent territories to it were under either Axis or Allied control. This was done in an attempt to balance what Canada could do.
What are your thoughts?
Interesting ideas for adding Canada into the mix. I have a few questions/thoughts:
1 > Have you given any thought to the lack of Canada’s income effect on UK London? That puts UK down to 21 IPCs per turn. Seems like Sealion would be even more possible.
2 > Your NOs for Canada seem kind of complicated to me. They are good NOs, just seems like a lot to remember.
3 > Just curious, why did you put Canada between Russia and Japan? Wouldn’t it be better for them to go before or after either the UK or ANZAC?
I like your Neutral mods. We use the regional idea too, we just call them Neutral blocks. (Europe, South America, Africa, Middle-East and Mongolia) I have always thought that Argentina and Spain should be Pro-Axis. Nice touch with the Sweeden conditions. I imagine they stayed neutral for fear of the Soviets but once Moscow fell, why not cozy up to the Germans.
The catch is they have to build ships and planes a turn earlier than they could if they were building them London, and any cheap Canadian land units will require transports (possibly American).
This brings to mind something I’m curious about. Do you guys see a lot of one country’s transports carrying an Ally’s land units? For example: US transports carrying UK/Canadian units over to Europe.
We rarely do that in our games because it seems like such a hassle. US Turn 1: US moves transport to Canada coast. UK turn 1: UK loads units on US transport. US turn 2: US moves transport across Atlantic. UK turn 2: UK unloads units in England or stay on transport.
There is basically four moves between two countries right there. Even more if they go on to Europe.
There are basically two instances where we may see this.
1 > Germany loading a land unit onto an Italian transport to be ferried over to Egypt for that German “Land unit in Egypt” NO. This is usually because there is no German naval presence in the Med.
2 > US or UK transports ferrying some French infantry over to Europe to help keep liberated French territory in Allied hands. This is because France has no transports of their own.
On that second one, there was a game where 2 French infantry got onto a US transport in SZ 110 to land in US held Normandy. Next round, Germany took Normandy back and those French infantry were stuck on the US transport. The round after, Luftwaffe attacked the US ships in the channel and those poor French infantry sank with them.
So, I was just wondering if this sharing of transports happens a lot in your games. If so, do you think it is a better strategy to do this, even with the cumbersome way you have to load, move then unload?
Ben_D last edited by
Thanks for the feedback man, greatly appreciate it. Still familiarizing with how this site works, interaction-wise. I don’t usually go on forums to post…
I’ve discussed the U.K. issue with a good friend of mine, who’s been playing A&A for a long while now. I seem to have a way for specializing in playing the Allies, so by default he ends up on the Axis side 95% of the time lol. Every time he’s attempted to do Sea Lion, at least in G40, I’ve always managed to position Russia in such a way that allowed them to 'knock on Germany’s door and say “hello, we want to play now” ', and have them play more offensively than defensively, which eventually allowed for an Allied victory pretty much every time. Russia was allowed to consolidate and produce offensive units. This was even before Canada was introduced. I’m sure many games in the community have gone in the favor of the Axis when Sea Lion was performed, but, redundantly saying here, on my table the Allies always pulled through ahead of the Axis with that strategy. Sure, the U.K. is more vulnerable now, but with the introduction of Canada, Germany now has to worry about two other Atlantic powers, not just one. Sea Lion seems as viable as it has before, in the short term picture.
This comes into the turn order play now. I do have a few reasons for positioning Canada where I did, so at least it wasn’t an impulsive decision. The first reason would be for minimizing one’s boredom when it’s a full game, say with 6 or 7 players. A player controlling all of the minor Allies in a 7 player game, which would be Canada, ANZAC, China and France, would have at least one turn between each Axis turn, because they do offer limited amount of playability individually. This reason is the least relevant though. In a 6 player game, assuming a player has all of the commonwealth nations, it would allow the U.K. to make interesting plays. Canada could secure certain territories ahead of the rest of the Western Allies, which would allow for safer landings, especially when permitted to land aircraft in the subsequent turns (especially if Sea Lion comes into question). This is counterable, believe me, especially seeing how Germany can push off a substantial amount with all its armor it can guard with. Having Canada moving at the same time as the rest of the commonwealth seems to make it less significant in G40, because its role would almost be solely to reinforce, instead of more offensive as I intended it to be. You don’t really hear of Canada making stellar defenses in the war, except in the battle for Britain and in Hong Kong (I think?..) earlier on in the war. They made attack plans more rather than defensive ones. I’m not admitting I’m absolutely right, I’m just saying that’s just the way it seems at the moment. I’m completely open to debate.
As for Canada’s NO’s, I was just trying to make them go from easily achievable to difficult to achieve, and make them historically accurate and situationally relevant. Of some of the NO’s I’ve read on other threads, I saw one that stated something about having an objective in the eastern Mediterranean. How is anything there, resource wise and maybe even politically, going to affect Canada directly? There’s another about having the U.S. at war, which I can understand, but that’s just way too easy and irrevocable to have, IMO. There’s some others I won’t bother posting here. So that is why I came up with the NO’s I posted, partly.
I figured the modified Neutral rules would appeal to most people. It’s good to hear you share the same view . If there are topics about this on this forum, I was unaware of them at the time of posting. Hope this answers your questions, knp.
Interesting approach you have for Sealion. It sounds like you kind of use it as a baited trap for Germany. “Okay Germany, come and get London. Then you will have US and Russia both pounding on you.”
In most of our games where Germany pulled off a successful Sealion, the Axis does usually win, but not always. I still remember one game where the US and Russia squeezed Germany and Italy between them and Berlin fell with London still in German hands. Although, if I remember right, a big part of that was the loss of the German Navy. With all their transports gone and a bunch of tanks stuck on England, that’s a lot of hardware that did Germany no good on the continent.
Actually, I think Sealion was more of a problem in some of the previous versions of the Global rules (Alpha, Alpha+1, Alpha+2). Once they came out with the final Alpha+3.9, which I believe became the Global 1940 Second edition rules, Sealion seems to be much harder requiring Germany to put too many resources into it. Often it seems the Eastern Front gets neglected and with Russia allowed to attack once London falls, it just seems to me like Germany has a hard time recovering from Russian attacks, even with the London treasury to spend.
Ben_D last edited by
Yeah, that’s pretty much what it is.