Western Canada?

I’ve met a lot of people over the years from The Netherlands, and when asked where they’re from they invariably say “Holland”.  I’m guessing it’s because all the Netherlanders I’ve met are from the Holland part, but still, it’s interesting that they always say “Holland” and not “The Netherlands”.

Then again, when asked, I always say I’m from “Alberta”, but that’s just because I don’t feel like it makes sense to say “Canada” when the country is larger than some continents.  It doesn’t really narrow it down much.

As a Southerner from the US, I just say “I’m from 'merica”… and when asked about foreigners, we always say “they took er jobs!”

Wait, is it still April Fools?

I have to post this video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-csGDoSSZyc

@StuckTojo:

I’ve met a lot of people over the years from The Netherlands, and when asked where they’re from they invariably say “Holland”.  I’m guessing it’s because all the Netherlanders I’ve met are from the Holland part, but still, it’s interesting that they always say “Holland” and not “The Netherlands”.

I have to admit that we’re making things complicated. I live in Holland myself, but I know of people in other provinces who balk at being called “Hollanders”. To add to the confusion, the Netherlanders are mostly called the “Dutch” in English, a word that is etymologically related to “Deutsch”, which means “German” in German. So it all gets completely mixed up - for example, the “Pennsylvania Dutch”, were originally from Germany.

@StuckTojo:

Then again, when asked, I always say I’m from “Alberta”, but that’s just because I don’t feel like it makes sense to say “Canada” when the country is larger than some continents.  It doesn’t really narrow it down much.

But are you sure the people you talk to, know where Alberta is?

@General:

I have to post this video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-csGDoSSZyc

:-D

And also…. sorry for completely derailing this topic.

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.

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.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

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:

@taamvan:

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.)

@StuckTojo:

@GeneralHandGrenade:

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.

@zooooma:

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:

@StuckTojo:

@GeneralHandGrenade:

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.

@General:

@taamvan:

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?
:-D

Just 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…