I concur with Wildcat6305 that it would be clearer for YG’s Victory Objectives to distinguish between the Allied and Axis objectives pertaining to the Burma Road, because they’re different objectives. The Allied objective is to control the Burma Road, by holding all of it; the Axis objective is to cut off (or block or interdict or shut down) the Burma Road, by holding one or more of the territories it traverses.
The Allies are the only ones who get any economic benefit from controlling the Burma Road, and in order to do so they need to control all of it. As the OOB rules say, “When all of the territories this road passes through are controlled by the Allies during China’s Collect Income phase, China receives a bonus income of 6 IPCs per turn” and “Allied powers must control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan for this to occur.”
It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China. Saying that the Axis needs to “Axis control all territories connecting the Burma Road” contradicts what the OOB rules say. Moreover, the Axis gains no income from the Burma Road even if it “controls” all of it, so from this perspective too it’s potentially misleading to give the Axis a goal of “controlling” the Burma Road.
@SS:
YGÂ what is the starting Axis total income ? 66 ? and how did you arrive to 142 icp total for axis to get a token. To get this token axis pretty much control 2/3 territories ?
Hey SS,
Starting Axis income is 30 (Germany) + 26 (Japan) + 10 (Italy) = 66 IPCs
How I came to the 142 mark is by adding up all the IPC values of every territory that has an IPC value, and half of that is 142. Therefore, if the Axis controls half of all available territory values… than they get a token.
@CWO:
It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.
Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.
@Young:
@CWO:
It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.
Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.
I think the main difference is YG’s requirement is for a Victory Objective, not a National Objective. So there needs to be a higher bar. A NO would merely be close the road, but the VO needs to be control all the territories. That keeps the intergrity in the system, because in the European theater it is being slugged out for N. Africa, so you need an equally challenging VO in the Pacific. (Not the those are the only two VOs in the system, just easy examples)
AXIS “ASIA” TOKEN HAS BEEN MODIFIED!
Asia
-The Axis control Hong Kong, Shanghai, Malaya, and Calcutta
(FOW) *Japan
In our group, we are testing a modification to the ANZAC national objective to require Cairo AND Malaya while at war with Germany and Italy to get 5 IPCs. This way if Japan wants to declare war early, they have the option to deny two bonuses by taking Malaya, but they also have to take philippines to deny the american bonus. So they have to choose. They can’t do everything: money islands, philippines, malaya, yunnan etc. If they don’t declare war early, then Anzac will be able to build up better for the inevitable declaration later on.
In the tournament we consistently had over 40 IPCs with anzac with not enough complexes to build units. I find if America gets an extra 5 and they bring everything they have against Japan PLUS anzac consistently gets over 30 in income, it might be too much for the allies.
@Genghis:
In our group, we are testing a modification to the ANZAC national objective to require Cairo AND Malaya while at war with Germany and Italy to get 5 IPCs. This way if Japan wants to declare war early, they have the option to deny two bonuses by taking Malaya, but they also have to take philippines to deny the american bonus. So they have to choose. They can’t do everything: money islands, philippines, malaya, yunnan etc. If they don’t declare war early, then Anzac will be able to build up better for the inevitable declaration later on.
In the tournament we consistently had over 40 IPCs with anzac with not enough complexes to build units. I find if America gets an extra 5 and they bring everything they have against Japan PLUS anzac consistently gets over 30 in income, it might be too much for the allies.
Couldn’t you just buy a minor IC for Queensland?
yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.
@Genghis:
yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.
Sounds like good options… maybe a good problem to have for ANZAC.
@Genghis:
yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.
You can’t upgrade Sydney, New South Wales is only 2 IPCs.
I added the new turn sequence method….
Stage Cards: New Turn Sequence Method
Each player must use the designated Stage Cards during their turn sequence in order to declare which phase they are conducting at any given time. Players entering a turn sequence must first place their Stage #1 card in front of them, they will than place the Mobilization Card to the right of their Stage #1 card.
Once a player has conducted their chosen steps in Stage #1 (including the purchasing of new units which must be placed on the mobilization card), that player will then flip the Stage #1 card and enter Stage #2. Once the Stage #2 card has been revealed, any actions or decisions required during Stage #1 may not be conducted.
New units from the mobilization card are placed on the board as per the last step of Stage #2, at which point the mobilization card is flipped and placed over the Stage #2 card revealing that the player has now entered Stage #3. In Stage #3 players must collect income, have convoys disrupted, and roll for any developments gained during this turn.
Yeah ive always found the paratroopers one worthless. I say everybody should have it at the start. It would certainly add more flavor to the game at the very least.
Yeah ive always found the paratroopers one worthless. I say everybody should have it at the start. It would certainly add more flavor to the game at the very least.
I would be interested in play testing that, I would be worried about the new strength of Italy considering that they won’t need transports to get into Africa.
New Europe and Pacific Victory Objectives for the Allies replacing the Philippines and the London liberation. Island hopping is now a thing!
Allied Powers
Europe
-The Soviet Union controls 6 original Axis territories
(FOW) *The Soviet Union
Pacific
-The Allies control 14 of the 16 Pacific Islands originally controlled by America and Japan
(FOW) *The United States
Have you removed the rule that splits the +2 bonus Strategic Bomber damage against facilities? Also, did you remove the Civilian Recruitment Bonus from taking a capital?
Have you removed the rule that splits the +2 bonus Strategic Bomber damage against facilities? Also, did you remove the Civilian Recruitment Bonus from taking a capital?
Yes, I’ve removed all those minor addition rules in favor of a tighter more streamlined rule set for G40 tournaments (or house games). However, I’m sure my group will continue to use our SBR rule.
So the all the focus now is on the victory tokens, the fortunes of war, and the additional national objectives.
YG,
do you have a specific historical-theme for each NO?
Otherwise, one NO seems more for game balance than anything else:
UK Pacific (in addition to all original NOs)
- 3 IPC’s if the United Kingdom has at least one land unit on any originally controlled Chinese territory
Hey YG,
great tourney again. since you’re thinking of victory tokens, my suggestion would be a super or trump token. given that the axis are the aggressors, they must reach a specific economic objective in order for any of the other tokens to count. alternatively, you could award the allies a token to the allies for their stopping the axis from achieving the objective.
happy reformation day! be ever reforming.
Crockett36
randy
Hello YG,
We had a game round last weekend and played with your victory objectives.
After the game the Japanese player stated, that there is no real objective for doing the island hoping. So we decided to implement the victory objective called “Island Hoping” which is the same for Axis and Allies to take control of all of the following 11 islands/island groups:
Iwo Jima, Marianas, Paulau Islands, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands, Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, Line Islands
We decided to take out the Philippines as those have their own VO and the Aleutian Islands, as well as the Chinese coast islands because those had a minor strategically value during WW2.
The VOs we wanted to replace are: London/Sydney Liberation for the Allies and Supremacy for the Axis.
This is not yet play tested, but we are planning to have a new game round soon.
Now we wanted to hear your thoughts about it and found out you came up with a similar idea. :lol:
@Young:
Pacific
-The Allies control 13 of the 16 Pacific Islands originally controlled by America and Japan
(FOW) *The United States
I think you should make a new deck of cards to represent these new ideas with your others…
