Canada

[afrika31]

will canada be able to produce their own units? say the UK is conqured will canada be able to build their own tanks ships and since canadas ENTIRE army was volenteers they should be able to produce corps.

[Retributar]

I don't see myself why it couldn't be done...they certainly had all the resources required to do so...and provided modest contributions of many types of aircraft including Lancaster Bombers, Hawker Hurricanes and other types of aircraft to the RAF. I never gave it any thought nor ever studied that idea....will have to research it more indepth!.

-----------

http://www.mapleleafup.org/vehicles/index.html

--SEE Web-Page for more detailed information.

IN WW2, CANADA PRODUCED almost a million vehicles for service with the Commonwealth forces. In addition, the Canadian Army Overseas used a wide variety of miscellaneous British and American hard- and soft-skin vehicles.

The Canadian Armoured Corps

The Canadian Armoured Corps was virtually non-existent in 1939, yet by 1945 was fielding two full armoured divisions (the 4th and 5th), in addition to an independent armoured brigade and numerous smaller units.

The The Canadian Ram Tank was a unique Canadian AFV derived from the chassis of the American M3 medium. Shortsightedness in design requirements ultimately doomed it to early obsolescence, but it fought well in many modified configurations in addition to being a MODEL for the successful U.S. Sherman Tank.

-----------------

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/canada/index.htm

Canada sent 5 divisions and 2 brigades overseas. The first, second and third divisions were infantry divisions, the fourth and fifth were armoured divisions and the two brigades were Armoured brigades. The first infantry division with the fifth armoured division and the first armoured brigade made-up the first Canadian corps. The second and third infantry divisions with the fourth armoured division and the second Armoured division formed the second Canadian corps. The two Canadian corps formed the first Canadian army. In 1943 the First infantry division with the first Armoured brigade were sent to Sicily and later to Italy.

This combination of one armoured brigade per infantry division was much more powerful then the usual US combination of one tank battalion per infantry division.

----------------

The Canadian War Economy:

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/canadawar/munitions_e.html

By 1945 Canada's war production was fourth among the Allied nations, less only than that of the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. Only some 30% of this was needed for Canada's armed forces: the remainder went overseas (see aircraft production and shipping and shipbuilding). Another of the most important was the mass production of 815,729 military vehicles, including 45,710 armoured vehicles. Canadian-made vehicles were crucial in equipping the British Eighth Army in North Africa and Italy. Canada also produced rifles, submachine guns, light machine guns, antitank guns and antiaircraft guns, as well as the multipurpose 25-pounder artillery piece.

Aircraft Production:

Canada delivered 16,418 aircraft to fill Allied orders, chiefly from Britain and the United States, but also for use by the RCAF and BCATP.

http://www.467463raafsquadrons.com/Pages/TheLancaster.htm

THE LANCASTER:

The first production Lancaster came from Canada's Avro's factory, powered by four 1480 hp Merlin XX and was test flown at Woodford on 31st October 1941.

So started the existence of the most successful heavy bomber of WW 2. The Lancaster owed it's existence to the failure of it's predecessor, The Manchester.

Total production, including 430 in Canada by Victory Aircraft, was 7,377 Lancaster Bomber's. Over 156,000 sorties carried out by Lancasters against the Axis during the next three years. It's Service Ceiling was 24,500ft(7,470m) and the Bomber had a Range of 1,660 miles (2,670km).

De Haviilland Mosquito:

http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/mosquito.html

Total production of the Mosquito was 7781, including 1034 built in Canada and 212 built in Australia.

Hawker Hurricane:

http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/hurricane/hurricane.asp

Altogether, Hawker built 9,900 Hurricanes; Gloster, 2,749; Austin, 300; Canadian Car, 1,606 and Avions Fairey (in Belgium), two. The last Hurricane built, a Mark IIC, was delivered by Hawker in September 1944.

Ship Production:

Canada in 1940 had just started to build patrol vessels for the protection of its own coasts, but Britain soon placed orders for 26 ten-thousand-tonne cargo ships and soon after orders for naval escorts and minesweepers. This was just the beginning, as Britain made clear it needed Canada to build as many naval and merchant ships as it possibly could. The practically non-existent Canadian interwar shipbuilding industry - three shipyards employing fewer than 4,000 men - expanded to 90 plants on the East and West Coasts, the Great Lakes and even inland. More than 126,000 men and women were employed. In all, the shipyards built 4,047 naval vessels, most of them landing craft but including over 300 anti-submarine warships, among them 4 Tribal class destroyers, and 410 cargo ships. At its wartime peak in September 1943, the industry was able to deliver the ten-thousand-tonne SS Fort Romaine in a stunning 58 days from the start of construction.

The government also formed Park Steamship Company, a Crown company, to control the operation of its new, standardized cargo vessels. The Park fleet of 176 vessels made 936 wartime voyages carrying munitions and supplies all over the world.

[ July 07, 2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[afrika31]

thank you very much for your input

very very informative

[Shaka of Carthage]

Its a design decision, to not have the minors produce.

It can be solved by changing the code, so that if a minors "parent" nation is gone, is acquires another one.

Hence, if the UK falls, Canada would get a new "parent", the US.

But now you have a new problem... cause if you do something like the above, than all minor nations should be treated the same.

And what have you gained by doing it?

[afrika31]

canada is hardly a "minor" nation. they took place in ever invasion of europe. dieppe was mainly canadian, scicily, italy, and finally granted their own beach d-day.

[Retributar]

My thought's exactly afrika31 ...Canada's army was made up of volunteer's...had they fully mobilized...they could have multiplied their armies by several times over...and at that time only 30% of Canada's war Production was going for its armed forces!.

[afrika31]

thank you Retributar.

[Blashy]

All Minors will be independent, no?

That's what I understood from everthing I've read.

There should be no "parent" country.

Allied countries or Axis should only surrender if they are defeated. Except for the winning the game part, where USA, UK and USSR are defeated then Axis wins, same for Allies, Italy and Germany fall, game over, even if some other allies are still around.

[Canuck_para]

Very informative. I would also like Canada to be able to produce an HQ.

[With Clusters]

The problem with having every minor country be "independent" is that their MPPs must be regarded as "independent" also (as opposed to SC1 and most other strategic games, where a minor's resources join the economic "pool" of their major power "patron"). While that would certainly be more realistic, it might just be too complicated (to be most realistic, perhaps the minor's should not just be "independent" in terms of economics, but in terms of play also - let the minors not only control their money, but also purchasing and deployment also - but how irritating would that be?). I do like the idea of assigning a new "patron", if their previous major power "patron" is eliminated, but that would probably depend on the circumstances of each individual minor when such even takes place...

[Edwin P.]

Simple - Create an event that says if UK surrenders Canada becomes a US Minor Ally. Then the US has access to Canadian Production and can produce Canadian Units.

[Retributar]

Edwin P That is exactly what would have happened anyway...if Britain was lost...the U.S. and Canada would have continued the Fight!...as well as Australia and the other Alliance Partner's.

[With Clusters]

The trick is other minors, especially Axis ones. What happens to a German allied Spain or Turkey if Berlin falls? Do they "join" with Italy? I guess at that point, the game is pretty much over anyway, but especially with the multi-player option (especially if there are going to be variable "victory conditions"), I suspect the Italian player would want them to 'stick around'. Just something to consider with all the changes in store with SC2...

[Retributar]

Well...If Either the U.S. or Germany is taken out...the rest don't hardly matter...taking out one of these two major players decides the issue...Without the U.S., Russia couldnt make it alone.

[With Clusters]

Which is entirely true in a 2 player game. But in a multi-player game, the remaining players may wish to stick it out (especially if there are time related "victory conditions" for each major power, for example). But if the whole diplomatic structure of the game is being changed, than there are a lot more potential minors to be considered than either Commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.) and "major" minor countries such as Spain or Turkey. Lots of new variables to consider here, what with many neutrals being able to join either side in the conflict...

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Well...If Either the U.S. or Germany is taken out...the rest don't hardly matter...taking out one of these two major players decides the issue...Without the U.S., Russia couldnt make it alone.

This is not quite accurate. The U.S. was fighting two wars (Japan and Germany). Russian presence in the European conflict was much bigger than the U.S. in any aspect but strategic bombing.

Some statistics are worth noting:

Germany kept anywhere between 60% and 84% of its troops in the Eastern Front from 1941 until the end of the war.

As of 1942, Germany had 65% of its planes assigned to the eastern front.

As of 1941 Germany assigned 3.3 million men to the eastern front. As of 1944, despite huge losses, Germany still had 3.1 million men in the eastern front.

In 1944, Germany had 117 divisions in Russia. 39 divisions in Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Balkans. 76 Divisions in between Itally, France, and, Benelux.

As of 1944, UK had 13,200 planes, US had 11,800 planes, Russia had 14,700 planes. The US supplied some planes to Russia (many more to the UK). Nevertheless, the majority of the planes used by the Russians were made by Russians.

At any point in time, The Russians had anywhere between 5 and 6.8 million men fighting in Europe. The combined US, UK and Candian Armies fighting in Europe did not add to half that many men.

The Russians lost 12 million soldiers and 17 million civilians in Europe. The US lost 407,000 men.

There is no doubt that the US had the largest GDP of all the warring parties. But, a big chunk of that GDP went towards the war with Japan. Furthermore, there is more to war effort than GDP. The U.S. could not have landed in France but for the fact that Germany kept most of its troops fighting in Russia. Germany lost 3.25 million men during the War. Most of those losses were in the eastern front (Germany only assiged 700,000 to the defense of western europe.) Close to three million German soldiers died in the eastern front. If 10% of the German soldiers who died in Russia would have been available to defend France, Normandy would have looked very different.

Although the US was the major player in the global war, when you look solely at the European conflict, the Russian war contribution to the allied effort probably matched or exceeded that of the US.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by With Clusters:

The trick is other minors, especially Axis ones. What happens to a German allied Spain or Turkey if Berlin falls? Do they "join" with Italy?

It Spain or Turkey was allied with the Germany they would sue for a negotiated peace and not join with Italy, a nation whose leadership and skill at warmaking (aka Greece) was seriusly impaired.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The comments about Canada not being a "minor" are taking my words too literally. The reference was within the context of SC.

As others have pointed out, if the minor nations in SC were to become independent or get a new parent nation, you would literally be creating a situation where you would have to conquer every enemy nation to be able to win.

Its also wrong in that Russia couldn't survive without US support. It would have survived, it just would have made it harder on its own population, probably resulting in more civilian deaths so the military could get what it needed.

And let me summarize what ev is trying to statiscally prove to you... Russia defeated Germany, not the Western Allies.

[With Clusters]

The trick is how all this is handled in a multi-player game. An Italian player might not enjoy everyone packing up and going home once Berlin is captured, if he still has something to play for (an unusual situation to be sure realistically, but perhaps not so unusual if the more experienced player was given Italy to balance out a more novice player who would be given Germany). Or what about where the Russian player goes down, and the UK and/or US player wants to fight on (and say support partisans, or any USSR minor allied nation, if such has occured), or on the flip side, the Russians fighting on if the UK has gone down (more likely to be sure), with maybe the Russians stepping in to prop up a formerly Allied Spain or Turkey (Communist/Socialist/Republican party comming into power there or something, one might imagine, perhaps?)?

[Blashy]

Well I hope HC reads this and makes my request of having the ability for every country to produce their own MPPs and units (all types) at least optional.

Heck you could even add an option that makes say 1/3 of their MPP go to the Germans or their Ally.

I would REALLY be disapointed if countries could not have the option to create all their own units with their MPP.

Shaka what you are saying is that if USA and UK had not joined the war Russia would have won? Impossible.

1) That means all their eastern troops would have been in Russia

2) The bombing raids did massive damages to german resources, take that away and Russia is dead.

Stalin had a reason to bitch for the USA and UK to put the pressure on, he knew without them he was doomed.

[afrika31]

well my point is, canada should not be a minor country, canadian's were in volved in pretty much every aspect of the war, canada now has 3 cities according to the new screens, and in my opinion i think canada should have 5 cities(like italy, axis major). just add toronto and montreal. this would be a futre game of course(i want SC2 soon ).

[afrika31]

and to shaka, russia if i am correct lost a total of 20 million people during the war. 20 million, lets say any other country lost 20 million, they would have surrenderd without thought but not the ruskies, they probably would have kept going until they lost staligrad. and to blashy the americans big pressure was diepp(mostly canadians). the reason and the only reason hitler lost his war in the east was because he was an over confident idiot, and thought his army was invincible. The americans had little to do with the war in europe until 1943. it was mostly the british and canadians saving the russians, first creating the illusion that d-day was coming in 1942 and then when the british gave help to the greeks. thats why the russians were saved not because of the americans.

[ July 09, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: afrika31 ]

[Blashy]

Arika31, USA's part after 43 was instrumental in helping Russia, one with armament (it was USA, not UK he supplied the Russians) and second they did all the night bombings.

So USA and UK bombing raids did a lot.

As for Hitler, everyone knows he was a buffoon military strategist.

[Moonslayer]

I, too, would like to see minor units being able to be produced. One way to accomplish this in-game would be to include an extra menu when recruiting units for Germany or the UK (not the other powers). This menu will allow the player to select the parent country for that unit (from amoungst its current allied minors). The default setting should be the parent nation but with a single click minor countries would be able to produce units.

Of course the potential build locations for these units should be limited to the minor country concerned. ie Canadian units could only be built in Canada.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Blashy: Well I hope HC reads this and makes my request of having the ability for every country to produce their own MPPs and units (all types) at least optional.

I would settle for adding three more major nations to the existing limit of 6.

This would allow Spain, Turkey and Canada to produces units - and prevent them from sharing their MPP with other allied nations, except perhaps for Canada via merchant ship convoys from Canada to the UK. Thus Spain might join the Axis but its MPPs could only be used to produce Spanish units and would not directly increase German production.

It would also allow one to create a global game with France, UK, US, Russia, China, Germany, Italy, Japan and Swaziland