National Objectives

[Alfalfa29]

I know many of you on these boards wish to simplify the NO system fro Global 40, but I love them and would actually like even more of them in play. As some strategic objectives have rewards dangling over them, it makes sense that the rest are. Some might be worth only a few IPC’s, but would be cool to include. Examples:

+3 Germany for Romania (ploesti)
+1 IPC Japan AND US for every two pacific islands (not DEI) held
+5 Japan for controlling all of China
+3 IPC France for each black (orig german) territory held
+3 UK for all Africa under allied control
+3 USSR for Timguska and Novgorod (Ore deposits/industrial)
+1 IPC ALL AXIS Powers for each South American territory (unexploited resources/propoganda)
+5 IPC Germany for England

These could also include supply lines, mostly between Allies to US (if power or ally control all territories, –-> denotes traceable path of friendly territory):

+2 ANZAC: NZ, Fiji, Hawaii, WUS
+2 USSR: Persia -----> Stalingrad
+2 USSR: Karelia OR Archangel, Nenetsia, Iceland, New Brunswick/NFL
+2 USSR: Alaska, Aleutians, SFE ------> Moscow
+2 UK: FWA, South A, Madagascar, Italian Somaliland
+2 UK: New Bruns/NFL, Scotland, Ireland, Gibraltar, Malta
+3 China for current Burma Road territories (replacing 6 IPC)
+2 China: Shensi -----> Moscow OR Stalingrad
+2 China: Philippines, Kwangtung OR Kiangsu -----> Yunnan
+2 Japan (replacing current DEI bonus): Java, Celebes, Philippines, Guam(?)
+2 Japan: Sumatra, Borneo, Formosa, Okinawa
+2 Japan (4/5): Malaya, Siam, Hainan, Carolines, Iwo Jima
+2 US: Central America, CUS, Brazil, Morocco, Sicily OR Tunisia, Solomon Islands

Any other ideas welcome!

[CWO Marc]

I guess what concerns me about this concept is that it might create a lack of focus in the game.  The point of having national objectives is that they help a player decide where to concentrate his attention and resources (and, conversely, to decide where he should not deploy unnecessary forces).  If too many national objectives are created, however, players run the risk of chasing too many hares in too many different directions.  The bonuses you’re proposing seem to be aimed at increasing the rewards that players get for pretty much any territorial conquest they carry out, so players may find it hard to prioritize their actions if they’re given too many options for gaining bonuses.  A related point is that some of these bonuses (like 1 IPC all Axis Powers for each South American territory) are improbable from a historical point of view.  It would be better in my opinion for bonuses to encourage players focus on a limited number of objectives that would have been feasible (and strategically profitable) for specific countries to pursue in WWII.

[knp7765]

Alfalfa29,
You have some interesting ideas. I have also thought of making up new NOs to either replace some existing ones or simply to add on. Here is what I came up with for England:
Remove the $5 for controlling all original UK territories on the Europe map. Add the following:
+$5 for no German subs in the Atlantic or Med with the exception of sea zones 113, 114, 115 and 100.
+$3 for UK control of all Canadian territories
+$3 for UK control of Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and Trans-Jordan.
+$3 for Allied control of Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland and no Axis units in any African territory south of Egypt and the Sahara.
+$3 for Allied control of Persia, E Persia, NW Persia and Iraq.

I just think these give the UK a little better opportunity to earn a little extra cash without being overbalanced in the Allies favor.

Your first set of extra NOs looks very interesting. Your supply line NOs, while interesting and in some cases fairly historical, seem like an awful lot to keep track of. I think it would be too much for all the players to keep watching out for and like CWO Marc said, might make them expend too many resources going after the wrong things.
Still, it’s always cool to see new ideas coming around. Keep thinking.

One question about your supply lines idea. Some of them have empty sea zones in the middle. Like the one from Archangel to New Brunswick for USSR. So if Germany put a sub in a sea zone in between the territories, would that ruin that NO?

[Narvik]

In case you want my humble opinion, (otherwise just ignore it) I agree with CWO Marc, too much is too much. Very few people want a game in the game. No nation should get more than 3 NO,s each, or else it will be what we in Norway call putting fat on a pork. Yes, it sounds better in my language. I really dislike when an attacker receive more money out of a bombed, burned and plundered territory, than the owner can do in peacetime. Its just not that way it work in real wars. Its oil and steel that keep an army floating, not the vigor and morale booster the population get from watching propaganda movies of killed enemy children. So I love the idea of supply line NO,s

Germany should get iron ore NO from Sweden, oil NO from Romania and while at peace the Trade NO with Russia. They don’t need a carrot NO for Moscow or any other victory city, since they will attack it anyway if they want to win the game.

Russia should get 3 Lend Lease NO,s when at war. A pipeline from UK to Archangelsk, another from Persia to Stalingrad, and possible one from Alaska to Sovjet Far East, since this is the historical correct Lend Lease routes from the real war. Its just silly that Russia can get NO,s from poor Eastern Europe states, and even twice as much as the original owner. And the 10 IPC one time NO for Berlin is just derogatory bedlam.

UK should get convoy route NO. Its two ways, one for keeping the Atlantic free of subs, and another for the Med. The other way is to give UK a NO for holding a pipeline from Canada to UK, and identify a set number of seazones that have to be free of subs. I like the pipeline model better than the all Atlantic model. Then a pipeline from India to Gibraltar, or from Africa. Need some thinking. Anyway the OOB maintenance of the empire NO is silly and must go.

etc etc you get my point.

[Alfalfa29]

Thanks everyone, I think you were accurate in your analysis. I probably got a little carried away by suggesting bonuses for such a plethora of territories, but keep in mind that I was intending this to be for the minority of players (like me) who want more a more detailed set of objectives that include even the seemingly insignificant aspects, such as American supply lines to Malta and the Soviet Far East and strategic perimeters in the Pacific and colonial areas being established.

As far as South America, I think it would have been huge for the Axis to establish bastions in the Western Hemisphere - South America being the easiest target. This would be a major, tangible accomplishment that proves their growing power and projection. And as you said, Narvik, these territories are not ravaged by war, and still hold many resources that could strengthen and fuel the industrial machine. Also, I see no reason to continue with the pattern of including NO’s that reflect the historiacal accomplishments. Although these are crucial, there are other objectives that could have been just as beneficial if the power in question had chosen that route, or gotten that far.

And although I acknowledge the concern about too many options, I feel that this comes down to lack of player focus. Real wars have many options, but it is up to the participants to pick one and stick to it.

From what I am hearing, all of these have merit, I just went about it in the wrong way. I could easily trim down the supply routes to the most crucial. The objectives then should be resource-rich territories and outstanding strategic goals, rather than victory cities and empire maintenance.

To knp7765, I intended this to include the territories and the adjacent sea zones, but not others, so your example sea zones 106, 123, and 127 need be clear but no others. This may not be ideal, however. Thanks for clarifying.

[knp7765]

Hey Alfalfa29,
It’s just my opinion, but if a supply line NO involves a line of territories and sea zones, I think that all of them should have to be cleared of enemy vessels. I know in some cases that may seem a bit tough, so perhaps you could make the longer NOs worth a little more to compensate.
Imagine a supply convoy, they are leaving Iceland and everything is good. Then they enter sea zone 124 or 125 and Uh-Oh, a German U-Boat Wolf Pack. That convoy isn’t getting through.

By the way, concerning South America. There has been some ideas in other threads that Argentina should be a Pro-Axis neutral. Don’t know how much benefit that would actually be to the Axis (long ways away) but it would be a good addition to your NOs involving South America.

[Alfalfa29]

knp7765,
I see what you mean about the convoys, but what do you consider as blocked? Say that same convoy - before it even reached Iceland, in SZ 117 - runs into a wolf pack. Should it be able to simply ‘go around’ and take a different route - maybe through SZ’s 116 and 122 - and require a solid strip of hostile sea zones to prevent its passage, or does that one sea zone count to sink the convoy. This only works well in such choke points as the Norwegian or Barents Sea’s. I figure the convoy  has a varying route on the open ocean, but must have the waters around its origin, check-in points, and destination clear.

Also, thanks for the point about Argentina. This is not strictly historically accurate, but, by my own logic, could have occurred. Maybe it, like Spain, could say to become pro-Axis if certain conditions are met - essentially bandwagoning, like most of South America did historically for the Allies. Its true the axis would not face complete opposition in South America; look at the little picnic the Graf Spee had in Uruguay. In looking for a more dynamic game, that rewards players not just for doing what their historical counterparts did, I would support an aligned Argentina.

[knp7765]

Oh yeah, Spain probably should have been Pro-Axis as well. Especially when you consider Franco won with tons of German and Italian help.
Anyway, I don’t remember if it was just a proposed house rule for 1940 or it might be an actual rule for HBG’s 1939 variant. The way it goes is if Germany and Italy both achieve 2 of their national objectives, then Spain will become Pro-Axis. Also, Spain has more than just 6 infantry. I think it has a Minor IC, 1 fighter, 1 tank, 1 artillery and a number of infantry.
There are other such conditions for some of the other neutrals as well. Some will turn Pro-Allied if certain conditions are met, others Pro-Axis. I think there were one or two that could turn Pro-Axis OR Pro-Allied, depending on which conditions were met.
Some of the conditions were really hard. I think one of the conditions for Turkey to become Pro-Axis was that Moscow was under Axis control. Now, I know if Moscow falls, it isn’t necessarily game over for the Allies, but it is usually close.

[1Bean432]

Why should NO’s only give IPCs? Or only be required to control a certain territory?

-Germany:
Immediately gain 1 submarine to mobilize if 2 Submarines have already been purchased this turn.

Spain will become a Pro-Axis neutral if Germany controls London.

Etc.

[Alfalfa29]

1Bean432-

That is a really interesting idea!

The Soviet Union could possibly upgrade an infantry to a tank if they win a battle and destroyed a german tank. Then again thats more like a national advantage.

The problem is that military vehicles, divisions, and ships dont magically appear just because some goal was met. IPC’s can be said to represent the resource, propoganda, manpower, or logistical advantages that were acheived.

This, like my earlier ideas, have potential if used properly. Thanks for the input!

[knp7765]

That idea for the submarines has some merit. Something like mass-producing submarines makes them a little cheaper to produce.
Still, I think that would be too powerful for Germany. As Germany, I would LOVE a rule like this because I usually try to put a couple of subs in the water every round to convoy raid England and/or keep the US fleet at bay. If I could get a 3rd sub every time I put 2 down, that would be great!
So, I think there should be some other condition that has to be met in addition to Germany purchasing 2 subs. Like perhaps no Allied ships in the Baltic Sea and all sea zones bordering Europe and Scandanavia. This would be the following Sea Zones: 105, 110, 112, 125, 126, 113, 114 and 115.
So, in order for Germany to get this bonus of an extra sub, or cheaper subs if you prefer, Germany has to destroy the Soviet naval presence and keep the Baltic clear AND keep any and all Allied ships shooed away from the European coast.
This seems like a good idea to me. I think I will house rule this.

By the way, the idea of Spain becoming Pro-Axis if London falls is not only a good idea, it is very realistic. It is very possible that Franco would have thrown in with the Axis if London was taken out. I think the main reason Spain stayed neutral was fear of British reprisals if Germany didn’t win the war.

[toblerone77]

Anybody ever consider making Spain part of Italy? Alternately HBG’s yellow sculpts could fill in nicely for a minor player.

[CWO Marc]

@toblerone77:

Anybody ever consider making Spain part of Italy?

Mussolini would probably have found this an attractive idea, but I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this.  Can you elaborate?

[toblerone77]

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

Anybody ever consider making Spain part of Italy?

Mussolini would probably have found this an attractive idea, but I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this.  Can you elaborate?

Yes. I was wondering if anyone had considered adding Spain to Italy the same way Germany in most editions of the game controls southern Europe/Italy. The difference is Spain would use Italian sculpts and be controlled by the Italian player.

My alternative would be to equip Spain with the yellow Axis minors and matching neutral sculpts to be played by one of the Axis players. An interesting twist would be that as an Axis player Japan might control Spain.

As far as balance goes, Spain would not be an overly powerful nation on the board but would add some flavor. There are a lot of ways to go with this thought however I should elaborate perhaps in another thread. Perhaps I should also wait until I’m not using my smartphone at work LOL.

[CWO Marc]

@toblerone77:

Yes. I was wondering if anyone had considered adding Spain to Italy the same way Germany in most editions of the game controls southern Europe/Italy. The difference is Spain would use Italian sculpts and be controlled by the Italian player.

A house rule to have Italy control Spain is certainly possible (anything is possible in house rules), but I can’t imagine on what historical basis it would be done.  Germany’s control of southern Italy in most games that are set in 1942  is a bit of a historical stretch because it only occupied northern Italy in 1943 after Mussolini was deposed, but its control of the rest of southern Europe had been accomplished by the summer of 1941.  By contrast, Spain was never controlled by Italy or Germany at any point.  I suppose one could imagine some sort of alternate history scenario in which Franco loses the Civil War, and Germany and Spain respond by stepping up their military intervention to the point where they take over the country, and Germany then lets Italy occupy Spain on its own.

[toblerone77]

@CWO:

@toblerone77:

Yes. I was wondering if anyone had considered adding Spain to Italy the same way Germany in most editions of the game controls southern Europe/Italy. The difference is Spain would use Italian sculpts and be controlled by the Italian player.

A house rule to have Italy control Spain is certainly possible (anything is possible in house rules), but I can’t imagine on what historical basis it would be done.  Germany’s control of southern Italy in most games that are set in 1942  is a bit of a historical stretch because it only occupied northern Italy in 1943 after Mussolini was deposed, but its control of the rest of southern Europe had been accomplished by the summer of 1941.  By contrast, Spain was never controlled by Italy or Germany at any point.  I suppose one could imagine some sort of alternate history scenario in which Franco loses the Civil War, and Germany and Spain respond by stepping up their military intervention to the point where they take over the country, and Germany then lets Italy occupy Spain on its own.

You’re hitting the nail right on the head Marc. For game purposes, loosely based on Spain becoming part of the Axis, I thought of Italy although it’s a stretch historically. It would make more sense to have Germany act as the controlling player as far as realism or frankly for Spain to have separate pieces. However for those with only OOB pieces, using Italy or Germany’s sculpts is pretty much it.

I also suggested Italy because again, it’s a stretch, but Germany already has enough territory, income, and arsenal at thier disposal without adding Spain to it. So I chose Italy because it could also potentially give them easier access to the Atlantic.  All of this I conceived almost exclusively for a way to include Spain in the Axis camp for gameplay.

One of the attractions of A&A for me is the “what-if” factor. Personally I am working on building up a sculpt set exclusively for Spain so you could include them as an additional Axis power. Conversely I am also hoping to build a sculpt set for Spain to depict an alternative history scenario where Republican forces won the Spanish Civil War.

Anyway it’s one of those reasons to buy more sculpts LOL.

[oztea]

I reworked the UK NO’s a while back and this made the most sense.

When the United Kingdom Is at War in Europe (awarded to the Europe economy):
• 5 IPCs if there is at least one UK transport in sea zone 117, 118, 107, or 108; and there are no Axis submarines or Surface warships in or adjacent to these sea zones.
Theme: North Atlantic naval shipping security.
• 5 IPCs if Africa and the Middle East are free of axis combat units.
Theme: Colonial superiority and security for the United Kingdom.
• 5 IPCs if no hostile Axis warships are adjacent to India, Egypt, and Gibraltar while all are controlled by the United Kingdom.
Theme: Vital trade with the Far East colonies.

When the United Kingdom Is at War with Japan (awarded to the Pacific economy):
• 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.
• 5 IPCs if no hostile Axis warships are adjacent to Scotland, Egypt, and Gibraltar while all are controlled by the United Kingdom.
Theme: Vital supplies from the Mother Country.

[Alfalfa29]

oztea-

i appreciate the more concise version of my suggested NO’s, and they seem historically sound. But wouldn’t this prove to be a bit overpowered? I mean, the UK as a whole receives 10 IPC’s just for domination of 4 strategic points. I dont think the UK needs that much of an economic boost in comparison to the other nations, do they?

These ideas for Spains involvement are sound, (although im not sure they should be presumed to be part of italy) and can easily be applied to other states as well. Lets see what neutrals there are. . .

Turkey: wouldnt be easily swayed, but if the USSR had fallen and germany had put them under enough pressure, they may have sided with the axis.

Latin America: All declared war just before the end. To make it simple: become pro-allied once paris and moscow both under allied control. Or once allies have 10 europe VC’s

Mongolia: taken care of with border pact

Sweden: loosely supportive of Germany with iron ore exports, but even when surrounded by german territory did not give in , so impractical to include rule.

Saudi Arabia: started out leaning towards axis, but eventually declared war on germany, and other arab states (yemen, oman, UAE) had ties to britain. not sure where theyd go. . .

Correct and add to this as needed, but I dont see the point of putting those countries on the board and not using them.