Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
edfactor
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:05 am

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by edfactor » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:08 pm

I can only think of one thing right off that i want changed, and that is that if London falls - Canada and South Africa should still be allowed to collect income and produce. they are part of the comonwealth but still their own countries.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:55 pm

edfactor wrote:I can only think of one thing right off that i want changed, and that is that if London falls - Canada and South Africa should still be allowed to collect income and produce. they are part of the comonwealth but still their own countries.
Hmm, on one hand that makes sense, but on the other, they wouldn't really be a relevant part of the war effort without coordination from London.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

aaron91
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by aaron91 » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:28 pm

That is why Canada should only generate 7 IPCs and South Africa should generate 4. Without the coordination of London resources from other parts of the empire would not reach their factories but it makes no sense that they wouldnt still generate the income they produce locally. Would this make the rules slightly more complex? Would this make the game slightly longer? The answer to both is this but when the rules are set up in a way that literally makes no sense in a historical context then things should change.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:45 pm

aaron91 wrote:That is why Canada should only generate 7 IPCs and South Africa should generate 4. Without the coordination of London resources from other parts of the empire would not reach their factories but it makes no sense that they wouldnt still generate the income they produce locally. Would this make the rules slightly more complex? Would this make the game slightly longer? The answer to both is this but when the rules are set up in a way that literally makes no sense in a historical context then things should change.
If London had fallen, would South Africa and Canada still fought, or would they sue for peace?
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

aaron91
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by aaron91 » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:17 pm

The commonwealth was very clear in its allegiance to Britain. Perhaps the scattered nations of the empire would not fight on but the specific nations of the Commonwealth. These specific nations (Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) had a special title with the empire. Their title was a "Dominion" and as dominions they had the right to enforce their own foreign policy. All of them declared war on Germany immediately. The South African Prime Minister at the time did not want to fight and his legislative branch was so against his decision that his coalition government collapsed as a result. The United Kingdom had active plans to set up a government-in-exile in Canada if Sealion was successful. So in short and again, would some of the Commonwealth surrender? Perhaps, its maybe even likely that some would. Would the Dominion nations surrender? Not a chance in hell.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:02 am

aaron91 wrote:The commonwealth was very clear in its allegiance to Britain. Perhaps the scattered nations of the empire would not fight on but the specific nations of the Commonwealth. These specific nations (Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) had a special title with the empire. Their title was a "Dominion" and as dominions they had the right to enforce their own foreign policy. All of them declared war on Germany immediately. The South African Prime Minister at the time did not want to fight and his legislative branch was so against his decision that his coalition government collapsed as a result. The United Kingdom had active plans to set up a government-in-exile in Canada if Sealion was successful. So in short and again, would some of the Commonwealth surrender? Perhaps, its maybe even likely that some would. Would the Dominion nations surrender? Not a chance in hell.
Where's the proof? I'm not saying you're wrong, but making the game more complex for historical reasons should only be done if those reasons are actually historical.

Maybe instead of giving them income you could make it gel better with the game's capital rules by allowing the UK player to place 2 infantry or 1 transport in or next to SA or Canada at the end of the UK player's turn.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

molinar13
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 6:19 pm
Location: 29° 58' N 95° 21' W

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by molinar13 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:02 am

I wish for Argentina to be pro-Axis. It would be a great way to get that lower part of the map involved in the game, not to mention the outcome that could occur.

aaron91
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by aaron91 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:40 am

mantlefan wrote:
aaron91 wrote:The commonwealth was very clear in its allegiance to Britain. Perhaps the scattered nations of the empire would not fight on but the specific nations of the Commonwealth. These specific nations (Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) had a special title with the empire. Their title was a "Dominion" and as dominions they had the right to enforce their own foreign policy. All of them declared war on Germany immediately. The South African Prime Minister at the time did not want to fight and his legislative branch was so against his decision that his coalition government collapsed as a result. The United Kingdom had active plans to set up a government-in-exile in Canada if Sealion was successful. So in short and again, would some of the Commonwealth surrender? Perhaps, its maybe even likely that some would. Would the Dominion nations surrender? Not a chance in hell.
Where's the proof? I'm not saying you're wrong, but making the game more complex for historical reasons should only be done if those reasons are actually historical.

Maybe instead of giving them income you could make it gel better with the game's capital rules by allowing the UK player to place 2 infantry or 1 transport in or next to SA or Canada at the end of the UK player's turn.
Obviously there isn't any direct proof since London was never captured. However, it is not unreasonable for someone who looks at the political situation of the time and the motives of those nations that in the event that London fell they would continue fighting. The plans laid out by these nations on how to continue fighting are not a secret and their existence if not the very documents themselves are a part of the public record. It is a known fact that Canada would be the new capital of the UK government were to fall. It is a known fact that the majority of those in control of South Africa were fiercely pro-war. These nations have multiple treaties with the United Kingdom and made their close connections very public. It is not simply a random statement that lacks proof to say they would fight on however it IS a random statement that lacks proof to say they wouldn't.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests