@domanmacgee What they called “draft dodgers” was pretty much everyone making the Canadian contribution largely a naval affair.
Western Canada?
-
there is quite a distinct GAME reason why this was “unsplit”.
When there is just 1 territory up there,
If Japan takes Alaska, tanks from the US can cross direct to attack.
If the US has units in West Canada, it can make Japan’s invasion position insecure.When there is only 1 west Canada;
Japan cant block the southern one and hide in the upper square and Alaska or land its planes up there in force (10+).When there are 2 squares of Western Canada, it can make the Japanese position very difficult to dislodge, because on the second turn of their invasion, they can put forces both on Alaska and in that upper, northern square where they can’t be attacked amphibiously. Also, any tanks on Alaska can drive onto the other mapboard unblockably because it is much harder for the US to block/strike both squares, esp. just after the USA got invaded. At that point, Germany lands on top of the hidden, protected square with its airforce and now they are unstoppable and can occupy all of America’s attention and $$ (Operation Hollywood).
I think this was done to keep America from having such a hard time of pushing Japan out of that area and not giving Japan an unthreatened backfield that they can hide in to prevent an American counterattack.
Most Japan invasions of USA begin by splitting your forces both land and sea to block all those squares that the USA wants to cross through to strike your forces, then flying your airforce over to protect your beachhead. Larry may have seen how abusive it is to give Japan an LZ that the US has such problems hitting.
Excellent breakdown, I can see the logic now. But I do wonder if an independent Canadian economy (around 12+ IPC with a national objective or two) and turn would mitigate this Axis advantage. Granted the Canadians would not be able to repel a large Japanese landing force but they could dent it for the US. This dovetails nicely with the thread in House Rules that integrates Canada.
-
There are many novel ideas
Make UK Pac an Grey ANZAC team and merge PAC+ZAC switching tan units to grey.
remedies the too small economy problem, and the too few factories problem, making ANZAC a real power.
Break Canada (11$? about 7 units?) off of UK Atl and add it to ANZAC, switching tan units to grey.
Same, but now CANZAC can place in Atlantic and taking Brazil for ANZAC is much more functional
Play Both UK’s as one power instead
(this is pretty rough since they can put 10 units on india but its a fun idea, maybe needs some offsetting Vichy rule or something to make it less abusive.)
-
Alberta is right between BC and Saskatchewan where it always was. You can’t miss it. It’s bigger than most of the countries on Earth.
Hahaha. A big fist-bump from across the border, neighbour. :lol:
Frankly, without you telling me that and/or me checking a map, I wouldn’t have been sure at all about Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I knew they were there, but not which one was which. A&A again wasn’t very helpful there, by merging them. So thank you - I guess I learnt a bit about geography myself.
-
there is quite a distinct GAME reason why this was “unsplit”.� �
I tried Operation Hollywood in the 1st edition OOB rules. I spent hours planning the perfect assault - I even had Germany invade Eastern Canada from Gibraltar turn 2. I forget why - probably just to force USA from sending everything West. Edit - I think this was also intended to fake Sea Lion, not as a trick, but to stifle the Allied options.
I captured BC to secure a landing strip for my air, planning to attack California the following turn. USA responded cleverly by pulling everything back to the Midwest. This way the big battle for California would be his counter-attack, meaning my planes are not involved. I couldn’t use my planes to wipe out the Midwest because I didn’t have the range. :(
That was the last OOB game we played. My impression was that Operation Hollywood was a major commitment for the Axis but not effective. I could keep USA busy for a couple turns, but at the cost of the war effort.
This was back when I could invade Canada without declaring war on America! Now that this brings USA into the war, it’s very hard for me to imagine Hollywood to bea game breaking strategy. Do you think this is abusive from a game-winning perspective, or simply a strategy that is considered distasteful and undesirable?
@Herr:
But are you sure the people you talk to, know where Alberta is?
Alberta is Canada’s closest equivalent of Texas. The very idea that not everyone knows about Alberta is borderline offensive. :-D
-
Alberta is Canada’s closest equivalent of Texas. The very idea that not everyone knows about Alberta is borderline offensive.
Quote from the movie Rocketship X-M:
Harry: From this distance it would only appear a mere speck.
Major Corrigan: A mere speck? Texas a mere speck? -
“That was the last OOB game we played. My impression was that Operation Hollywood was a major commitment for the Axis but not effective. I could keep USA busy for a couple turns, but at the cost of the war effort.”
Bingo, agree.
I call these 4 turn all-in plans “gambits” or “stratagems”. My partner dave usually comes up with them, I come up with the silly names.
Axis;
Operation Hollywood (failed but fun J3)
Operation Dopple Seelowe (Double Sealion, only works when they don’t taranto)
Operation Nenestia Shuttle (hail mary Sea Lion play option audible –-shifts to russia)
Operation Chief Wampum’s Pass at Peace J3 (to ceylon, depends on whether they screen you or not)
Operation Chief Wampum’s Pass at Peace J4 (Kill America First)
Operation Everything (I forget how this one goes but maphead dave always beats me with it)
Operation Crussia (obvious)
Operation Dark Skies (stolen)Allies;
Operation Northlock/Southlock (secret!)
Operation Five Spicy Allied Powers (depends on turn Japan attacks)
Operation Allied Dark Skies (hehe)
Operation Taranto Lite (working on it)I love telling everyone that the name of my new stratagem is Operation Crussia. There is an actual Operation Crussia, but I don’t tell them that when I use it. I only tell them its Operation Crussia when my plan involves ignoring Russia completely…if you name the strategy “Crussia” and even get some printed papers made up and folders and leave these lying around while you go to the bathroom, your opponents may not understand why you are invading the US…
-
@Herr:
Alberta is right between BC and Saskatchewan where it always was. You can’t miss it. It’s bigger than most of the countries on Earth.
Hahaha. A big fist-bump from across the border, neighbour. :lol:
Frankly, without you telling me that and/or me checking a map, I wouldn’t have been sure at all about Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I knew they were there, but not which one was which. A&A again wasn’t very helpful there, by merging them. So thank you - I guess I learnt a bit about geography myself.
No worries. It’s always great to learn more geography, and don’t feel bad if you don’t know much about Alberta: Even though it’s larger than France it only has four million people, i.e. a smaller population than Toronto.
In my travels, one other thing I’ve noticed about people from The Netherlands is that they speak better English than 90% of Canadians and Americans. I’m not sure why that is.
-
there is quite a distinct GAME reason why this was “unsplit”.
When there is just 1 territory up there,
If Japan takes Alaska, tanks from the US can cross direct to attack.
If the US has units in West Canada, it can make Japan’s invasion position insecure.When there is only 1 west Canada;
Japan cant block the southern one and hide in the upper square and Alaska or land its planes up there in force (10+).When there are 2 squares of Western Canada, it can make the Japanese position very difficult to dislodge, because on the second turn of their invasion, they can put forces both on Alaska and in that upper, northern square where they can’t be attacked amphibiously. Also, any tanks on Alaska can drive onto the other mapboard unblockably because it is much harder for the US to block/strike both squares, esp. just after the USA got invaded. At that point, Germany lands on top of the hidden, protected square with its airforce and now they are unstoppable and can occupy all of America’s attention and $$ (Operation Hollywood).
I think this was done to keep America from having such a hard time of pushing Japan out of that area and not giving Japan an unthreatened backfield that they can hide in to prevent an American counterattack.
Most Japan invasions of USA begin by splitting your forces both land and sea to block all those squares that the USA wants to cross through to strike your forces, then flying your airforce over to protect your beachhead. Larry may have seen how abusive it is to give Japan an LZ that the US has such problems hitting.
Excellent breakdown, I can see the logic now. But I do wonder if an independent Canadian economy (around 12+ IPC with a national objective or two) and turn would mitigate this Axis advantage. Granted the Canadians would not be able to repel a large Japanese landing force but they could dent it for the US. This dovetails nicely with the thread in House Rules that integrates Canada.
I don’t know, if Larry was truly persuaded to make this map change on the basis of Operation Hollywood, I’d really have to question “Why that?” and not any of the other map areas that are clearly more problematic for Axis game busting strategies?
:-DJust looking at the Pacific map alone, I can’t imagine how Yukon would make any real difference for the solo game. When joined with the Europe map, I guess Yukon gives you another route into Northwest Territories. But isn’t that just a road to nowhere? I mean, I guess if you’re trying for the grand prize of Edmonton, and the only plan is for your Japanese soldiers to die in the most annoying way possible, short of actually reaching the lower 48… well OK. But seems like that is just putting yourself completely out of position to be any real threat to US production. Even Alaska itself seems like a pointless sideshow, since you can reach sz 1 directly from sz 6 and land in BC full force. Why bother with the detour in sz 2 or stacking Alaska, just giving the US another round to see exactly what you’re up to and respond with purchasing? Avoiding a blocker in sz8 Aleutians? I’m trying to imagine how it works, where the US player gets screwed out of the Western US or Central US, and then says “if only we could get rid of the Yukon, this would have never happened!” heheh
Not to make light of it overmuch, since I can see what you’re saying about the Yukon being protected from an amphibious counter, or the landing pad, but still…
Seems like a lot of effort with a questionable pay off. If BC was separated from Alaska by Yukon originally, then I could see it making more of difference. Or if Yukon touched sz 2. But even then, really? Of all the spots that could have got a redrafting, Western Canada tops the list?
:-D -
While we’re on the subject of Canadian territories, and Alberta in particular, it’s surprising such an oil and mineral rich combination of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan is only worth 1 IPC. Plus a cheeky German player could land troops there through the Northwest Territories and what is now Nunavut (Baffin Island it looks like) from Greenland and then roll right down to Chicago the next turn. I would cut ASM down to size and make the NWT impassable.
-
I am well familiar with many parts of those territories, having climbed the three territories’ highpoints a couple years ago. The views from Mt. Columbia and the nearby, yet often mislabeled Triple Divide point are truly spectacular. People in the United States are trying to keep a good relationship with our northern friends. You never know what might happen in the next four years, eh?! I do agree that the English of people in the Netherlands is better than a vast majority of people in North America.
The combined population of Manitoba + Saskatchewan + Alberta was about 2.5 million people. The United States was about 130 million people at the time of World War 2. The ratio of 1:52 closely matches the IPC values of 1:45. There is no way that Germany or Japan would be getting that much benefit from capturing central Canada during the war! Trying to keep the shipping channels open during the war would be rather infeasible.
-
Fair enough, but I was figuring the UK (and possibly Canada) could extract an additional IPC out of the region. Would be easy enough to give Canada a national sovereignty bonus to represent the value they get out of there.
-
I am sure that it would feel good if Canada would have equal IPC value as the United Kingdom + Scotland. Perhaps you can have a house rule where A.S.M. is worth 2 IPCs and the United Kingdom is worth only 5 IPCs. That shouldn’t have any practical affect on the game play…
-
Funny thing about those Canadian roundels, I just found this
Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, 2nd Edition, FAQ
November 24, 2014
Errata
The Map: Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It is originally controlled by the United Kingdom.As far as I can tell the Canadian Emblem is rules-wise equivalent to the UK emblem. I guess the errata is also a nod to Canadian patriotism? I’ll take it. :-)
Regarding our Prairie Provinces, I thought they were relatively undeveloped back in the 30s and 40s. I could be wrong.
@Arthur:
Perhaps you can have a house rule where A.S.M. is worth 2 IPCs and the United Kingdom is worth only 5 IPCs. That shouldn’t have any practical affect on the game play…
I think I’m going to have a house rule where I play on my 1st edition board. Hopefully I can pull of Operation Hollywood sometime and it will have a practical effect on game play. :evil:
-
Funny thing about those Canadian roundels, I just found this
Axis & Allies Pacific 1940, 2nd Edition, FAQ
November 24, 2014
Errata
The Map: Western Canada should have a Canadian emblem. It is originally controlled by the United Kingdom.As far as I can tell the Canadian Emblem is rules-wise equivalent to the UK emblem. I guess the errata is also a nod to Canadian patriotism? I’ll take it. :-)
**Regarding our Prairie Provinces, I thought they were relatively undeveloped back in the 30s and 40s. I could be wrong. **
@Arthur:
Perhaps you can have a house rule where A.S.M. is worth 2 IPCs and the United Kingdom is worth only 5 IPCs. That shouldn’t have any practical affect on the game play…
I think I’m going to have a house rule where I play on my 1st edition board. Hopefully I can pull of Operation Hollywood sometime and it will have a practical effect on game play. :evil:
You are right:
Commercial production of oil from the Athabasca oil sands began in 1967, with the opening of the Great Canadian Oil Sands (GCOS) plant in Fort McMurray. It was the first operational oil sands project in the world, owned and operated by the American parent company, Sun Oil Company. When the $US240 million-dollar plant officially opened with a capacity of 45,000 bpd, it marked the beginning of commercial development of the Athabasca oil sands. In 2013 McKenzie-Brown listed industrialist J. Howard Pew as one of the six visionaries who built the Athabasca oil sands.[34] By the time of his death in 1971, the Pew family were ranked by Forbes magazine as one of the half-dozen wealthiest families in America.[35] The Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited (then a subsidiary of Sun Oil Company but now incorporated into an independent company known as Suncor Energy Inc.) produced 30,000 barrels per day (4,800 m3/d) of synthetic crude oil.[36[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sandsI also learned that they almost use nuke to get oil from the sand: :roll:
Project Oilsand, also known as Project Oilsands, and originally known as Project Cauldron, was a 1958 proposal to exploit the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta via the underground detonation of up to 100 nuclear explosives;[1] hypothetically, the heat and pressure created by an underground detonation would boil the bitumen deposits, reducing their viscosity to the point that standard oilfield techniques could be used.
Project Cauldron was suggested by L.M. Natland, a geologist working for Richfield Oil, in response to American efforts to find peaceful uses for atomic energy. An investigative committee was formed with the support of Alberta’s Social Credit government. One of the committee’s early recommendations was that, in order to minimize public fears, a “less effervescent name”[2] should be used; Project Cauldron was subsequently renamed Project Oilsand.
In April 1959, the Federal Mines Department approved Project Oilsand; Pony Creek, Alberta (103 kilometres [64 miles] from Fort McMurray) was selected as a test site.[3] Before the project could continue beyond these preliminary steps, however, the Canadian government’s stance on the use of nuclear weapons shifted towards one of non-proliferation; out of concerns that it would increase the risk of Soviet espionage, Project Oilsand was put on hiatus.[3] In April 1962, Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs Howard Charles Green said “Canada is opposed to nuclear tests, period”;[4] Project Oilsand was subsequently canceled.
-
@Baron:
I also learned that they almost use nuke to get oil from the sand: :roll:
Project Oilsand, also known as Project Oilsands, and originally known as Project Cauldron, was a 1958 proposal to exploit the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta via the underground detonation of up to 100 nuclear explosives;[1] hypothetically, the heat and pressure created by an underground detonation would boil the bitumen deposits, reducing their viscosity to the point that standard oilfield techniques could be used.
Project Cauldron was suggested by L.M. Natland, a geologist working for Richfield Oil, in response to American efforts to find peaceful uses for atomic energy. An investigative committee was formed with the support of Alberta’s Social Credit government. One of the committee’s early recommendations was that, in order to minimize public fears, a “less effervescent name”[2] should be used; Project Cauldron was subsequently renamed Project Oilsand.
In April 1959, the Federal Mines Department approved Project Oilsand; Pony Creek, Alberta (103 kilometres [64 miles] from Fort McMurray) was selected as a test site.[3] Before the project could continue beyond these preliminary steps, however, the Canadian government’s stance on the use of nuclear weapons shifted towards one of non-proliferation; out of concerns that it would increase the risk of Soviet espionage, Project Oilsand was put on hiatus.[3] In April 1962, Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs Howard Charles Green said “Canada is opposed to nuclear tests, period”;[4] Project Oilsand was subsequently canceled.
Ha ha ! reminds me of the Alaskans wanting to nuke that glacier over by Yakutat when it corked off the river.
Used to say “Entering A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone” when you hit The Yukon. Don’t know why it changed. -
I don’t know, if Larry was truly persuaded to make this map change on the basis of Operation Hollywood, I’d really have to question “Why that?” and not any of the other map areas that are clearly more problematic for Axis game busting strategies?
:-DThe thing is, this is is the only play-based motivation that’s plausible.
I’m I to have a hard time believing LH and crew were bothered by Operation Hollywood, but readily accept that they were bothered by the aesthetics of the the Canadian Pacific coast?
We already know 2nd edition intentionally cracked down on Kill America First - why else change the rule to let USA enter the war when the Axis attack Canada. Makes more sense to me if Yukon/BC was part of the same discussion.
Edit - I forgot about your theory that it was accidental. That is actually consistent with them accidentally omitting the Canadian emblem (as per the FAQ). Probably I’m reading too much into this.
-
Had no idea the prairies were only recently developed for oil extraction, 1967 is only 50 years ago. Looks like their rise coincided with Stephen Harper’s ascendancy (he wisely moved west from Toronto, akin to northeasterners moving to Texas). Certainly justifies the IPC value now.
-
Alberta became the boon province around the late 1990s. I know because I’m from the East, and there has usually been a city where us maritimers migrate to for better employment. In the 80s it was Toronto. Early nineties, Vancouver. Late 90s till recently, Calgary.
Harper ramped things up for oil production via the loosening of environmental policies and the expansion of corporate welfare (tax breaks). But he failed to negotiate (not his strong point) a pipeline deal, and also put too many of our country’s eggs in that sector - causing bad times when the price of oil tanked. These two failures probably cost him reelection.
-
The game designers were quite engaged by a discussion last year that concerned whether Sierra Leone was properly allocated to the correct historical side, in order to honor those Sierra Leonians who fought the Nazi’s boldly (if any).
So, what they consider an important thing to change may be different than what you or I think is a priority.
-
So, what they consider an important thing to change may be different than what you or I think is a priority.
True that!
Suggested Topics
