Yea I remember the bet between US and Canada during the Olympic hockey game. The US lost so we got stuck with him.
Give Canada Some Attention (And other minors.)
- Thread starter Mobsterman120
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yea I remember the bet between US and Canada during the Olympic hockey game. The US lost so we got stuck with him.
He is like a boomerang, we keep throwing him but he keeps coming back!
One thing about cooperation between faction members. If done correctly nations like Canada would have little initiative, instead they would support their Allies operations. This doesnt lead for a fun game typically. Also not much can be done to make a nation like Norway playable, not in a strategic level game.
One thing about cooperation between faction members. If done correctly nations like Canada would have little initiative, instead they would support their Allies operations. This doesnt lead for a fun game typically. Also not much can be done to make a nation like Norway playable, not in a strategic level game.
Irony of ironies.
You realize that the USA in Europe was also a minor force right? It's chief role in Europe was an economic and industrial one. Of course we're talking matters of degrees here, but I find it a little amusing that you are talking about Canada's primary role in WW2 as a supporting industrial power, when that is also exactly what the USA's primary role in WW2 in Europe was.
Collectively, the USA, UK, Canada and the rest of the commonwealth did a fairly minor % of the fighting versus the Germans and the Axis powers in Europe.
The problem with HOI3 is that Canada simply doesn't present the IC levels and manpower levels that it SHOULD present which is what you are talking about. Canada was without question a "net-giver" of Lend-lease. It's industrial output far exceeded its own materiel needs. Ya, they made other peoples "stuff" but they made a lot of it, far more than they could use themselves. The Canadian role in both Great Wars is actually pretty impressive when you consider the size of the country and that goes beyond building stuff for other people.
I urge you to read about Canada in the first world war, and actually crack a book about Canada in the second as well. Canada earned a reputation internationally as some pretty badass, hardnosed, get it done no matter what soldiers.
Im all for giving Canada some love but lets not compare them with the USA, its a ridiculous argument. From the time the USA entered the war, they were the Leader of the ALLies not a support nation. They took charge and conducted umpteen operations around the world, and initiated and took part in massive battles and undertakings, the like that Canada hasnt seen in their history. Saying its a matter of degrees is essentially being naive or uniformed. Canada had no where near the military impact in WW2 that the USA did, and they should be represented that way.
The problem is any additional buffing of Canada will lead to players making major invasions and conquering/annexing nations which simply isnt historical or accurate and belongs in sandbox discussions. A truly played Canada would supply a few divisions here and there to existing Allied campaigns, while distributing lendlease to the soviets and using their small naval vessels in support of allied operations. So perhaps we up Canada's IC without increasing the MP alot, allowing for more production and distribution without necessarily increasing ground forces.
As it stands now they can be an uber nation, as i have stated i have routinely gone from 13 IC or whatever they had to over 100 IC with lendlease, which in of itself is ridiculous that they would be given that much as opposed to contributing.
IMO Canada can be played well and effectively in HOI3, well see what happens in HOI4.
The problem is any additional buffing of Canada will lead to players making major invasions and conquering/annexing nations which simply isnt historical or accurate and belongs in sandbox discussions. A truly played Canada would supply a few divisions here and there to existing Allied campaigns, while distributing lendlease to the soviets and using their small naval vessels in support of allied operations. So perhaps we up Canada's IC without increasing the MP alot, allowing for more production and distribution without necessarily increasing ground forces.
As it stands now they can be an uber nation, as i have stated i have routinely gone from 13 IC or whatever they had to over 100 IC with lendlease, which in of itself is ridiculous that they would be given that much as opposed to contributing.
IMO Canada can be played well and effectively in HOI3, well see what happens in HOI4.
If IC required manpower, it would solve the problem. A country like Canada could EITHER use its manpower to produce a LOT weapons and other equipment for the Allies, OR build its own fairly substantial military, but wouldn't have the manpower to do both in quantity.
To simultaneously support and contradict what the previous two posters said, the US entered the war mainly in a supporting role, but increasingly moved toward center stage as the war continued. In Europe, it eventually took charge of the Western Allies for roughly the final year of the war, but never reached the level of importance in the conflict that the SU held. Once Germany fell, the US was almost entirely in command of operations in the Pacific.
To simultaneously support and contradict what the previous two posters said, the US entered the war mainly in a supporting role, but increasingly moved toward center stage as the war continued. In Europe, it eventually took charge of the Western Allies for roughly the final year of the war, but never reached the level of importance in the conflict that the SU held. Once Germany fell, the US was almost entirely in command of operations in the Pacific.
While the US did focus on industrial production, I would hardly call the 70 American divisions in western Europe a "minor force" (these being full strength unlike the understrength divisions of the east). And while twice as many soldiers were in the east as the west, that's ignoring the equipment differences. German AFV deployments and losses were about evenly split between west and east. Surely the Soviet gains of 1944 benefited from this. In terms of air combat the east was a sideshow compared to the west, the soviets had air superiority in the east because of the 80% of German losses and deployments that occurred in the west.
The human cost in the east was far higher then the west but in terms of material ability to wage war the western front was hardly a shideshow. While the Americans weren't the only ones fighting in the west their force was the largest of the western allies.
Sure. Also use the Maple Leaf flag and make sure to have the Canadian dollar weaker than the US one and we'll be full-on anachronistic.
I think you underestimate how many troops the Americans had in Europe by the end. If the war had lasted longer than it did, the ratio of Americans/Allies in the European theater would have continued to increase, more so if Japan had surrendered first.
It was just probably a casual reference but i think the comparison of Canada and the USA is a poor one. Just one look at any footage of hundreds of US heavy bombers in the sky and it makes Canada's contributions seem trivial. The USA clearly not only was a Major but by the end of the war was one of the two Superpowers (along with the Soviets). Italy was a Major and still is not even worthy of discussion in comparison with other majors, especially the USA.
Canada was a solid supporting minor, and they contributed in a major way. Their strategic location and closeness to two Allied Superpowers didnt hurt either. I would like to see Canada continue in supportive role.
Canada was a solid supporting minor, and they contributed in a major way. Their strategic location and closeness to two Allied Superpowers didnt hurt either. I would like to see Canada continue in supportive role.
I know like 10 Canadian HOI3 players that are going to ring your doorbell and leave flaming bags of poop on your doorstep.
But seriously, its like saying that US lend lease was irrelevant. It wasn't. Neither was Canada's contribution. Go read the wiki page about Canada in WW2; they provided valuable support to the UK and all allied forces in the war.
It's worth pointing out that when playing Canada in HOI3, the air force seemed to be particularly underrepresented... at peak strength, the RCAF had 215,000 personnel, including 35 overseas squadrons and 43 operational squadrons within Canada. This is the equivalent of about 12 HOI3 wings overseas and 14 wings in Canada, with four of the deployed wings being heavy bombers in 6 Group RCAF. Good luck deploying this force in-game.
http://www.canadianwings.com/history/waryears.php
All air forces are way under represented in HOI3. Only mods like Black Ice had numbers of planes that were more historical. But it because micromanagement hell with so many units and the mechanics on how air worked in HOI3.
Canada is a very unique nation. They were a major contributor in WW2 albeit in a supportive role. I just dont really know how best they should be represented any better. I feel any buffing of them up and we'll be seeing large formations of Canadian armor units conquering nations. This is not something we want. Numbers also can be deceiving, as was already pointed out the huge numbers of naval vessels they produced, many are too small to even be represented properly or accurately in HOI3.
A mechanic similar to the lend-lease slider from HOI3 would be effective for members of the Commonwealth IMHO. Canada contributed in multiple areas, so it would be interesting if it could contribute a portion of its IC, manpower, leadership to the Allied leader(s). If you break it down into the nitty-gritty components (air training, escorts, etc.) it becomes a micro-management issue, but a few sliders on an "allies" page would be effective in my mind. Of course, all those mechanics will probably be gone in HOI4 so I'm just spit-balling.
The problem is in HOI3 Canada gets a ton of lendlease as oppose to giving it. This allows it to build quite substantial forces. The problem is this is a strategic level game,as i mentioned about their naval construction, much of it was smaller vessels. We all know that know matter what any buffing of Canada is going to lead players on a sandboxy course, which is fine if thats what they want. Me? I try and play them as a support nation.
All but 1 of US 90 formed divisions were deployed, all by 2 of 90 saw combat. US did NOT have more troops immediately to spare, during V-E day.
Only because every spare unit that wasn't needed in Europe was being sent to the Pacific.
Umm...no. The americans stopped building new formations in 1943.
So no...there wasn't going to be any increasing ratio of americans to allies..unless the allies were dying off faster then the americans in combat.
So no...there wasn't going to be any increasing ratio of americans to allies..unless the allies were dying off faster then the americans in combat.
Last edited:
None of this has to do anything really with Canada (and other minors). Its a silly comparison the Canada vs the USA. If players want to buff up Canada's MP fine, but there also should be some mechanism whereby they distribute lend lease as opposed to receiving it so we dont have Canadian armies conquering Europe. PI has obviously given little love to the minors, i too would like to see some changes, but i also know if done they would clearly be exploited regularly so for that there should be sandbox mode IMO. You cant always look at just the numbers produced without delving deeper. For example if you did you would see the US Army had more naval vessels then the US Navy, but they were mostly barges...
I dont have all the answers for Canada as i stated they are a difficult nation to represent well, they were a huge support nation. That means most of what they produce and deploy should be to assist the US/UK & Soviet Union, not to conduct independent operations, not on any large scale anyway.
I dont have all the answers for Canada as i stated they are a difficult nation to represent well, they were a huge support nation. That means most of what they produce and deploy should be to assist the US/UK & Soviet Union, not to conduct independent operations, not on any large scale anyway.