Posts made by CanucKev

CC, I agree with you on the hope that the lockout will kill so much interest in the South that those teams will no longer be able to survive.

And jamitjames, unfortunately I am disputing your claim of being the only one happy about the lockout ;) The League is SO incredibly screwed up - it’s truly beyond repair, apparently - that a lockout is the only thing possible to get the NHL even remotely back on track. You and I share the same greatest fear - that a crappy deadline deal, worse than the original, would be signed for the sole purpose of salvaging some of the season. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened yet (knock on wood).

Yanny, doubtless American markets can pull in more money because a) the USA has 10x the population of Canada, b) there is much more business in the USA and c) the american dollar is much stronger than the loonie. But I’ve seen Devils games on TV - and the arena looks half-empty (even after a Stanley Cup campaign). Florida’s arena is even worse. Atlanta’s is pretty bad, too. Same with Washington, Buffalo, Chicago, Boston, Nashville, Phoenix, Anaheim … etc. A couple of years ago, the average Islanders attendance was hovering around 6,000!

Sadly, the money is in the States, meaning the true fans - whom aren’t in the South, unless they’ve migrated for the winter (and if that’s the case, they’re weak ;)) - get shafted.

About 10 million people watched Canada beat the USA in the 2002 Olympic Men’s Gold Medal game. I’m 99.9% sure that that number is higher than the American equivalent. If there are “more” fans in the States, why are the ratings and attendances continually lower?

Last night, more than 14,000 people watched the Calgary Hitmen beat the Kamloops Blazers. Back in 1999, a sold-out Saddledome watched the Hitmen beat the Blazers, this time for the WHL Championship (I am proud to say I sat in the front row for that game!). The Islander’s attendance used to hover around 7,000 … our junior team pulls at least that every night!

Perhaps the money is there, but the interest is NOT. Most Americans would not miss the NHL - or even notice if it was gone.

I’ll agree that a successful New York team helps the League - but that doesn’t apply to the NHL only. If the Rangers were to become successful, a little bit of the NE USA would be interested … and the rest of the country couldn’t give a flying … anything.

I just don’t see Nashville becoming a “hockey hotbed”. I maintain that they do have a better chance than most other teams down there, but I still don’t see it happening.

Any attempt by Canada to pull out of an NHL will pretty much result in Canada’s new hockey league being the CFL all over again, with the real players going to the USA.

Ah, Yanny, you have found one of my buttons. The CFL-NFL debate.

If a new professional Canadian hockey league was to exist - with the Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Senators, Oilers, Flames and Canucks - and if this new League played for the Stanley Cup (which it damned well SHOULD, since it’s the only country with any legitimate claim to the Cup!), the League would be incredibly successful in Canada. Player salaries would be higher than CFL salaries, for sure, but compared to NFL/NBA/MLB salaries, they’d be relatively low.

If a new league were to attempt to start up in the States … I’m sorry, I don’t see it working. With no interest, no Stanley Cup, and the difficulty of starting new leagues in low-demand markets, I can’t imagine it being more successful - at least to the extent where a Canadian league would be destroyed.

You see, most of the players who move from the CFL to the NFL have grown up dreaming of playing in the NFL - because they’re American. Yet every hockey fan in Canada has dreamt of winning the Stanley Cup, and has likely enacted it at least once. Countless kids have dreamt of playing for the Leafs, Habs, etc. If the money was decent - ie, on par with Euro leagues - I would bet you that the big-name players would play in Canada (since they are mostly Canadian … etc).

hockey is indeed a major sport in the United States, and that the NHL belongs there more than in Canada.

Once again, I respectfully disagree. “Major” is relative. Compared to the NFL, NBA, MLB, NASCAR, PGA, NCAA, and the Pro Bowling Tour, the NHL is NOT major in the USA.

The four “major” sports in Canada are the NHL, CFL, NFL (sadly), NBA and MLB. The last two are present only in Toronto; I don’t consider them to be as major as the CFL, NFL and NHL. With that said, the NFL is not quite as popular among people as is the CFL, and neither of them even come CLOSE to the popularity of the NHL. You can ALWAYS start a conversation about hockey with nearly ANYONE. Hell, it’s the only thing we talk about half the time!

The NHL belongs in Canada a lot more than it does in the States, because Canadians as a whole deserve it a lot more than Americans as a whole. Not to mention that the NHL started in Canada - in 1917, with the Canadiens, Toronto Arenas (later became Leafs), Ottawa Senators and Montreal Wanderers (who withdrew after 6 games because their arena burnt down). From 1893 to 1916, only Canadian teams won the Stanley Cup. From 1918 to 1927, only Canadian teams won the Stanley Cup. Before 1994, the longest stretch of the Cup staying in the States was 6 years ('36-'41 - Detroit twice, Boston twice, Rangers and Hawks once each). From 1944 to 1969, the Cup left Canada 5 times - 4 of which were with the Red Wings. There was a team from Alberta in the Cup final from 1983 to 1990. Perhaps most telling, out of the 110 years the Cup has been awarded, only 38 of those years has it been awarded to an American team. The Cup itself has actually been awarded 145 times (there were 15 years with multiple challenges) - still, only 38 times to American teams.

Sorry to go off for so long - but the NHL absolutely belongs in Canada more than it does in the States.

Lizardbaby - I’m curious; where are you from?

A respectable poll company recently found that 49% of all American sports fans would not care if there was no NHL season. I’d be interested to see what that number becomes if there’s no NHL next year, either … (as it’s looking).

The thing is, the NHL is not even close to popular in the USA, if TV and attendance numbers are any indication (and they are). I’m surprised that there aren’t more “who cares?” responses - but then again, silence DOES speak volumes!

As for how well-off teams in the deep south are, that’s open to interpretation. Financially, perhaps they are doing alright - since they have richer owners and lower taxes to pay (not to mention the American dollar) than Canadian owners. But in terms of fan support, they can’t hold a candle to Canadian teams/northern US teams (ie, Minnesota, the Rangers and Detroit). Sadly, Boston has a hard time drawing crowds, and games in Chicago attract a LOT of people dressed like seats. I’ll admit Dallas is a success - but I wonder how well they’d be doing if they weren’t a consistently strong team?

Did you know that the highest attendance in Tampa Bay for a playoff game this past season was for Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals? What I’m trying to say is that the Lightning did not fill the building a single playoff game before then - and I’m not even sure if Game 7 constituted a sellout, either. Each of Vancouver’s 4 home games drew 18,630; Each of Montreal’s 5 home games drew 21,273; Each of Ottawa’s 3 home games drew 18,500; All of Toronto’s games (7) drew between 19,549 and 19,646; and every game in Calgary drew 19,289. Had the Saddledome been bigger, every game would have drawn at least 50,000. People camped out and fought in the line - meaning all tickets had to be sold on the internet from then on.

Atlanta, Florida, Carolina and Phoenix all have a very difficult time drawing crowds. So did Tampa - lucky for them, they became very good VERY FAST. Anaheim maybe drew a few decent crowds last year - thanks in no small part to their 2003 run - but it won’t last. Nashville is better off than most southern teams, but they still have difficulty drawing fans.

Tampa Bay’s parade attracted 20,000; their rally attracted 13,000. Calgary’s rally (in a losing cause) attracted nearly 30,000. When Calgary won the Cup in '89, our parade attracted 50,000, and our rally attracted 20,000 - when the population of the city was 500,000 (half of what it is today). And of course, there’s the Red Mile - 40,000 to 60,000 people on 17th Avenue after EVERY Flames playoff game, win or lose.

All I’m trying to say is that in the deep South, they just don’t care about hockey, whereas up North, we do. Therefore, the deep South doesn’t deserve hockey teams nearly as much as the North does.

I was thinking that could be a tech to research - replacing “Jet Power” with “Radar” (actually, I have to credit Jen for this idea). Fighters defend at 5; bombers defend at 2; and that “first-strike” deal from airplanes is lost … (also, you can intercept SBRs).

Note I said the NHL - NOT hockey. People everywhere can’t seem to separate the two and it’s one of my biggest pet peeves! Just because there’s no NHL DOES NOT mean there’s no hockey! If the NHL dies, it DOES NOT mean that hockey dies!

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I’m really curious how much you care - or don’t - that the NHL season will likely be cancelled, becoming the first major sports league in North America to lose an entire season. The Stanley Cup likely won’t be handed out for the first time since 1919 (Spanish flu stopped it then).

What about if (in the VERY slim chance) the NHL does return, only to play a 36-game season (and hand out the Cup in, who knows, July)?

Personally, I don’t like the idea of a quasi-season; I think it’s stupid and too short (too much of a crapshoot). The Devils won the Cup after a 48-game season in '95, and missed the playoffs the next year (by losing to Ottawa, the worst team in the league. That’s generally seen as pathetic).

I also hate the NHL (and have for a while), except for the fact that there are 6 Canadian teams. The League is SO screwed up beyond repair that I would rather they take a season off, or more, to PROPERLY fix it than make some crappy deadline deal that just makes things worse. Frankly, I wouldn’t be at all disappointed if the NHL collapsed and a new pro hockey league, based in the NORTHERN U.S. and Canada (where it BELONGS), sprung up. Actually, I’m hoping for it!

The only thing I miss is being able to find a hockey game on TV most of the time (I also miss Hockey Night in Canada). However, I’m assuming that this isn’t the case for most Americans - it seems to me that there is not that much hockey on (national) TV.

And, of course …

GO FLAMES GO!

(we should have the Cup; Gelinas scored late in Game 6.)

Oh yeah - AA guns. They’d fire in between Steps 2 and 3. Any planes they hit would get to fire once more (in Step 3) before being removed. (Although, I was thinking if the territory has 2 AA guns, the plane would be removed as soon as it was hit.)

I think that airplanes should get a “first-strike” advantage - like subs - but only ONCE per battle (as oppose to once per every ROUND of battle). Usually, if something’s being attacked by a plane, they don’t get much chance to return fire!

But I don’t think I’d give them this privilege in naval combat - ships can hold up pretty well vs. planes.

So the land combat sequence would then look like this:

1. Attacking planes fire (defender chooses casualties)
2. Casualties are removed
3. Attacker fires all units (including planes)
4. Defender fires all units (including casualties)
5. Casualties are removed.
6. Any number of attacking planes may retreat to any legal territory.
7. Repeat steps 2-6 until battle is won/lost, or attacker retreats ground forces.

So the Revised game gives DEFENDING subs a “sneak attack”, as well as attacking subs … so even in defence, a sub can knock off an attacker without risk of it returning fire. Do you like this better than the “old” game, where only attacking subs had this privilege?

Does it help out defence even MORE in what is already a defence-dominated game? Or does it make subs more valuable, since they’re usually floating shields anyway?

I love Pacific, but unfortunately I’ve only had the opportunity to play it face-to-face twice. D-Day is also a lot of fun, but I haven’t played it in a while - but it’s great because it’s smaller-scale, intense, and relatively quick. As for the World version, I keep trying to get people to play with me ;) Currently I’m working on an idea that would have all the Axis go simultaneously, followed by all the Allies going simultaneously …

<groan>it looks as though when I changed the title of the topic, it started messing around with my poll. (It went from 1 yes and 1 no, to no poll at all, to 2 yes and 2 no, to no poll (again), to 3 yes and 3 no). I can’t seem to get it back to 1 yes and 1 no. So just pick anything ;)</groan>

Actually, I was thinking of just using thin strips of electrical tape to make more sea zones. Especially down around the tip of South America, and New Zealand … the blow-up boxes cover up some of the seazones, and it doesn’t make sense for a ship to be able to cover that distance in hardly any moves!

I got this idea from looking at the Revised board … I noticed that the USA is further from France and England (ie, it’s now 3 spaces away, so it’ll take the USA 2 turns to get to Europe).

So I started wondering, is it a good idea to keep the USA out of action for even longer?

Meaning, (and this is the real question), should the distance from the USA to Europe be longer? Should it take them longer to get there? (Should the Atlantic Ocean be wider?)

Awesome! Just throw 3x extra chips on the bottom of each unit? Sweet … It would take longer, just from sheer numbers, but it’d be bloodier, and that’d be fun :)

One reason I’ve always thought that the Axis is disadvantaged is because historically, the start of the game represents the best they’d ever do … And of course the game doesn’t have to follow the pattern, but its setup mimics Allied expansion and the approximate time when the Axis will have to worry about falling back.
Oh, that and it’s 3 versus 2 ;)

I remember reading an opinion that battleships are not worth the high price … even if they take two hits. So I was thinking, for the non-revised A&A edition (which doesn’t have DDs), what if they were given some of the destroyer’s abilities? …

ie:

a sub would lose its first strike ability if attacking a BB

subs wouldn’t be able to “blitz underneath” a navy if a BB was present. (Yes I know the rules in the 2nd ed don’t allow subs to blitz underneath anyway, but I was thinking of making that a house rule as well.)

or, maybe the presence of a BB would disallow subs from submerging or withdrawing?

I’m unsure about the rule that requires a friendly DD (or BB in this case) for an aerial attack on a sub. But, I also don’t know about the basis in reality, or which is better for playability (DD required vs not necessary) …

Let me know what you think - help me flesh out this house rule.

Nope … I guess I’ll just use Stalingrad. I think you’re right - getting an IC AND a victory city would be too big a prize.

YOU DON’T HAVE HOCKEY!!! :evil:

Playing sports (physically, not as a video game) is best, yes, but there are times when video games are fun. It should still be so that you go outside and play a lot more than just staring at a screen …

I like hockey, soccer and football games. I would like my rugby game but it doesn’t work. F1 is kinda fun too. I’d like football more if there was a CFL version ;) But then again, I’m not really big into the video games …

Actually, there are maps out that show how to link the two together. Granted I forget where they are now (I think either aamc.com or axisandallies.net, but I’m not sure), but it’s out there.

I had an idea that was allowing as many rockets as possible to fire (of course, they’d still have to be in range). So if you managed to somehow surround a territory with 3 AA guns, you’d get to roll 3 dice at the IC. Of course, still only one could fire per territory. What do you think? Too strong?

Thanks for the input Kaladesh … I appreciate it, but I don’t understand how there’s been 82 views of this post and only 5 replies (3 of which are my own)! Is this question just blatantly obvious? Because I really couldn’t figure it out on my own … In any case, so far I’ve heard the case for Stalingrad; does anyone have a point for using Leningrad as a victory city?
(At the very least, vote in the poll!)

That’s a good point … Leningrad being the vc doesn’t add much spice to the game - Karelia may be too good of a prize, plain and simple. You don’t think that adds to the Allies’ favour, them already having an inherent advantage and all?