G40 - New UK Pacific Nation

[Black_Elk]

ps. Here is another reason why I think this could work, and another reason to support using the Anzac unit sculpts for this concept…

Right now, in the OOB game, UK and UK Pacific units are not distinguished in the turn order or phase sequence, the only difference is how these units enter play. Once in play however, they are treated exactly the same. In practical terms, this means that UK Europe units can move onto the Pacific side of the board, link up with UK Pacific units, and then proceed to make attacks together at the same time.

The most common example would be launching Mech out of Africa or Persia, to link up with UK Pacific units in India, and then, once joined together in the same place, to make combat movements in unison. Ships are likewise treated the same, the only difference being how they enter play. It doesn’t matter whether a ship was built in S. Africa or Calcutta, once its on the map, all British units are treated the same for the purposes of movement OOB.

Now, unlike the OOB situation, if you take UK Pacific and transform it into a full player Nation (one that includes Anzac) and call it British Empire Pacific, with its own distinct sculpts and its own position in the turn order, I believe that splitting them up by theater to restrict their movement would no longer be necessary to offset the increase in income.

Sure UK Europe could still move units onto the Pacific side of the board to join with the British Empire Pacific, but they wouldn’t be able to attack at the same time now. This is very significant to the gameplay, critical, because although they could still conduct a unified defense, they couldn’t just springboard together into China with joint attacks anymore. They would move their units at different times, albeit still “piggy backing” one another in the turn sequence, but no longer a joint force. In short, they’d have to conduct attacks separately, rather than having their movement restricted by theater.
What do you think?

Finally, again to the Capital question…
If you give the British Empire Pacific a starting income of 27 ipcs plus an additional potential 15 ipcs from National Objectives and then make Calcutta their capital, where do you suppose they will spend all that money? Because, I think they will drop it all into India. Absent some incentive to do otherwise, India is the only choice that makes any strategic since. They have a Major there already, which means if they are able to achieve even one of their NOs, there is a fairly strong chance they can stack 10 infantry a round in Calcutta, or perhaps even 10 mech. The set up situation being what it is, that’s like 30 infantry on India, before Japan can even get in range, which I think will make India very difficult as a target, and at the same time, the only target that matters on the Pacific side of the gameboard.

Now contrast this with a Capital at Sydney. Here the British Empire Pacific player has to strike a balance. If they leave Sydney/Australia too weak, then Japan may well launch the full weight of their forces against it, seize the capital, take the money, and eliminate ability of the British Empire Pacific to produce new units. On the other hand, if they spend too much in the defense of Australia, then they may be leaving India vulnerable. While taking India would not eliminate the ability of the British Empire Pacific to produce units, it would nevertheless be a major strategic blow to the Allies. So I think if you put the capital in Sydney, then you will introduce strategic interest on a part of the board that doesn’t have a whole lot OOB.

USA would have an added incentive to protect Sydney, which could affect Japan’s plans on the DoW, and which might even give the British Empire Pacific and real incentive to make an unprovoked declaration of war against Japan.

[CWO Marc]

In any of the various models which have been proposed above, one point that may need to be considered and/or clarified is whether Canada (if it’s treated as part of the UK) would be subject to a Europe/Pacific split.  In other words, would the Canada-based income and units from the parts of Canada on the Pacific board only be usable on the Pacific side (as is the case with ANZAC), while the Canada-based income and units from the parts of Canada on the Europe board only be usable on the Europe side?  The issue is important because, in Global 1940, most of Canada is part of the the Europe board, so most of that income might in principle be restricted for use on the Europe side.  (Incidentally, keep in mind that Canada is treated differently on the first and second editions of the Pacific map.  The British roundel in Pacific/2 is an error [listed in the official errata] and there is a single Western Canada territory rather than a BC + Yukon split, although the total IPC value is the same.)

[Young Grasshopper]

This are all great contributions, thanks guys…

I can understand the reasoning for making Sydney the Pacific capital, but there is also a good argument for keeping it Calcutta. The biggest one for me is, making Sydney the Pacific UK capital is inconsistent with the way the UK operates on the Europe side. Of course as always, these ideas are available for everyone to mold and play test as they wish, I myself like the Calcutta capital. I’m still debating on wether or not to use the AZAC gray to separate the UK Pacific military from Europe, because in our group the UK is a very undesirable nation to play, but if I keep it all one… players might be more willing to play the UK.

I’m also thinking about modifying our current production unit rules to fit this Pacific British Empire format, like not removing minor factories from the board when captured, and leaving the India IC a 10 producer and a 5 producing Major factory on Sydney. I’m also more drawn to the idea of political exile over Sydney as a capital, this way if London is captured, the UK Europe continues to collect an income with Ottawa as their new capital, and if Calcutta is captured, the UK Pacific continues to collect an income with Sydney as their new capital. This brings in an idea of Commonwealth military support as well as political resolve in the face of an India, or England capitulation.

[knp7765]

I like the idea of keeping Calcutta as the UK Pacific capital and leaving it as a Major IC along with making Sydney a Major Factory able to produce 5 units. Also, using Sydney as a secondary capital, like Ottawa on the Europe board.
I also like Black Elk’s idea of moving UK Pacific to ANZAC’s place in the turn order. Also still like the idea of using ANZAC pieces for UK Pacific. You could still put the 2 ANZAC infantry in Egypt. After all, UK Pacific and ANZAC is still a part of the greater British Commonwealth.

CWO Marc,
Western Canada on the Pacific board is still part of the UK Europe economy. West India on the Europe board is part of the UK Pacific economy. There is no Europe/Pacific split for Canada or India.
The main thing to remember is if UK Pacific units take a territory on the Europe board, the income goes to UK Europe. If UK Europe units take a territory on the Pacific board, the income goes to UK Pacific.

[Young Grasshopper]

So if the UK gray naval ships off India go toward Africa, do they get replaced by UK baige pieces?

[knp7765]

@Young:

So if the UK gray naval ships off India go toward Africa, do they get replaced by UK baige pieces?

No, they stay grey and move on their own turn. This goes with Black Elk’s idea of moving UK Pacific to ANZAC’s place in the turn order. This would make them truly a separate power.
So while UK Pacific units can go to the Europe board, perhaps to back up a UK Europe fleet, they would still not move until their own turn. In this case, you would have the same problems as you do with a combined US/UK fleet. Together on defense they can really back each other up but if they want to move and attack, they have to do so separately.
The main difference here is unlike US/UK, in this case you would have an Axis (Italy) moving in between the UK Europe and UK Pacific turns. So you would have to take that into consideration. What might Italy do if the UK Europe moves it’s ships leaving UK Pacific’s ships momentarily alone.
Of course, in the case of Germany or Japan, it still wouldn’t be a problem.

[Witt]

I love the ideas and agree that capitals should be transferred once London and Calcutta are captured: Ottawa and Sydney.
I believe Pacific UK must follow UK though. Italy cannot be inbetween.

[Black_Elk]

Well with enough HRs or set up changes, anything can be made to work. But for the rule as written above, here is my concern with Calcutta as the capital and the NOs as currently worded…

In the first round the British Empire Pacific starts with 27 ipcs, or I guess 28 if you want to switch W. India and W. Canada around, but its pretty much the same difference.

Lets say just for the sake of interest, that Japan does not DoW in the first round, then on the British Empire’s first turn, the British do the Java play and bring 3 fighters in range from Australia New Zealand, which they can now use on attack the following round, since there is no separate Anzac nation. British take Sumatra. With the NOs as worded, they are way up on income, now approaching 50 IPCs.

Japan cannot let this happen, so you effectively force J1 DoW with these NOs, which is already the likely plan for Japan anyway, but here it becomes even more critical. Now lets assume J1 DoW, with the British Empire losing Kwangtung and probably one of the 4 ipc islands or the New Guinea NO. Now British Empire Pacific is back down to collecting in the Low 30s. If they lose New Guinea and Kwangtung, then all 3 of their NOs are lost. This leaves the British Empire Pacific with little money to spend in Australia, and little reason to do so. I expect they will drop the whole pile in India, and use their extra fighters from Java to start launching attacks out of India, without ever spending a dime on Sydney.

I think if we want to pursue this idea further we may need different NOs for the British Empire Pacific. Right now we have NOs which read “for control of All original territories” and these are just too easy for the enemy to disrupt, and strategically kind of uninteresting since they don’t encourage anything specific to occur. The New Guinea NO is ok, from the standpoint that USA could recover it, but the other two NOs are out as soon as Japan declares war. More specific NOs tied to a single territory (or at most 2 territories together) would be better. For example +5 for control of Malaya, or +5 for control of Queensland, or something similar. This would encourage Japan/British Empire Pacific to fight over specific areas (areas further outside their normal comfort zone), and at least discourage them from abandoning Australia or Singapore to the Japanese indefinitely. You could do the back up capital idea and it would probably work on balance, provided you had stronger NOs to ground the fighting somewhere other than just India itself, which will already be a huge magnet anyway.

One advantage of using UK sculpts is that you have more total units and roundels to work with, but it does seem rather unfortunate to have an entire Anzac unit set that gets no use. I think I still like the idea of making them Gray with a separate turn. Otherwise you have to come up with a set up change for Egypt, since the OOB rules would no longer work there (with the 2 Anzacs becoming British) or perhaps that makes no difference to your balance aims. But the two combined would seem to be rather challenging on Axis, since Cairo and India would both be that much harder to crack.

Go gray, I say, with a separate turn, and you won’t have to make as many set up changes. Or if the idea is to make a lot of set up changes, then tweak away and fix the whole game. No half measures. If you’re going to go for it, go all the way. I feel like Halifax was set aside prematurely, because it didn’t go far enough in the set up changes. Having already made a bunch of set up alterations, it didn’t carry them through to the logical next step of a complete redesign of the whole board haha. ;) The best Mod is either very few changes to keep it as close to OOB as possible, or just open pandoras box already, and lets make a full scenario that really does balance well for both sides, while still being fun to play for each individual power.  :-D

Right now, Italy is the power that no one wants to play in all my games even moreso than UK, since they just get raided and raided and raided. Which is why I thought it might be nice to give them a break, and have British Empire Pacific move on Anzac’s turn in the sequence. Italy gets hosed all the time now. Alas, OOB convoy rules, they just don’t do a whole lot for me hehehe. On the whole I like this idea a lot. I feel that the British Empire Pacific would make more sense, than a lone Anzac and separate UK Pacific, which feel weirdly out of place in Global 1940.2, even if they might be interesting in Pacific 1940. Better to join Anzac and UK Pacific, one less nation to worry about. Takes it from 9 players down to 8, same as Halifax, just in a different way.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

Well with enough HRs or set up changes, anything can be made to work.

Absolutely, everyone has enough favorite house rules which differ from another person’s favorite house rules, that these ideas won’t ever be played the same from table to table.

@Black_Elk:

In the first round the British Empire Pacific starts with 27 ipcs, or I guess 28 if you want to switch W. India and W. Canada around, but its pretty much the same difference.

Case in point, I also thought of switching those territories to make it a more pure border… however, my goal is to not change more than what’s needed especially if my group is used to things being a certain way.

@Black_Elk:

Lets say just for the sake of interest, that Japan does not DoW in the first round, then on the British Empire’s first turn, the British do the Java play and bring 3 fighters in range from Australia New Zealand, which they can now use on attack the following round, since there is no separate Anzac nation. British take Sumatra. With the NOs as worded, they are way up on income, now approaching 50 IPCs.

Japan cannot let this happen, so you effectively force J1 DoW with these NOs, which is already the likely plan for Japan anyway, but here it becomes even more critical.

If I’m reading this right, you’re assuming that the UK would claim NOs while not at war, but the National Objectives in post #1 state that the UK must be at war with Japan in order to collect these bonuses. When Japan does DoW on the Pacific Allies, all they would need to do is take Hong Kong to prevent the #1 NO, and the UK ain’t getting that back any time soon. Unless the Allies have claimed all 4 Dutch territories, or that Japan has completely ignored the Island grab (which is highly unlikely) the #2 NO is equally difficult to obtain after Japan declares war. That leaves the #3 NO which should be easy enough to collect and protect, so if the UK Pacific is making more than 5 IPCs in NOs… Japan is not playing well.

@Black_Elk:

Now lets assume J1 DoW, with the British Empire losing Kwangtung and probably one of the 4 ipc islands or the New Guinea NO. Now British Empire Pacific is back down to collecting in the Low 30s. If they lose New Guinea and Kwangtung, then all 3 of their NOs are lost.

I hope we are on the same page about the Dutch Islands, The UK will not collect a National Objective if the Dutch territories remain Dutch… only if the UK or the USA have control markers on all Dutch Islands will they collect 5IPCs.

@Black_Elk:

Now British Empire Pacific is back down to collecting in the Low 30s. If they lose New Guinea and Kwangtung, then all 3 of their NOs are lost. This leaves the British Empire Pacific with little money to spend in Australia, and little reason to do so. I expect they will drop the whole pile in India, and use their extra fighters from Java to start launching attacks out of India, without ever spending a dime on Sydney.

This is all theoretical, there hasn’t been a single play test yet and it’s hard to say how much gets spent where. I can say for sure that if I’m playing the UK… I’m gonna be sure that Calcutta is secure before dropping boats off Sydney, just like I would protect London before dropping a factory in Egypt. I know this because I personally have difficulty finding the value in ANZAC purchases, for me… the mainland is the more important fight, and if Japan goes for Sydney, well than I now have the money to protect that as well.

@Black_Elk:

I think if we want to pursue this idea further we may need different NOs for the British Empire Pacific. Right now we have NOs which read “for control of All original territories” and these are just too easy for the enemy to disrupt, and strategically kind of uninteresting since they don’t encourage anything specific to occur. The New Guinea NO is ok, from the standpoint that USA could recover it, but the other two NOs are out as soon as Japan declares war. More specific NOs tied to a single territory (or at most 2 territories together) would be better. For example +5 for control of Malaya, or +5 for control of Queensland, or something similar. This would encourage Japan/British Empire Pacific to fight over specific areas (areas further outside their normal comfort zone), and at least discourage them from abandoning Australia or Singapore to the Japanese indefinitely. You could do the back up capital idea and it would probably work on balance, provided you had stronger NOs to ground the fighting somewhere other than just India itself, which will already be a huge magnet anyway.

Obviously I don’t want to hand cuff the UK Pacific with NOs that can’t be achieved… but doesn’t every nation have at least 1 impossible NO that they can never claim? On the other hand, we don’t want to stack the odds against Japan with bonus NO money for the UK, that would only make Calcutta and Sydney impossible territories to take.

I made the new NOs on the fly knowing that the old NOs for the UK and ANZAC would be obsolete… so I’m listening to any alternative NO packages.

@Black_Elk:

One advantage of using UK sculpts is that you have more total units and roundels to work with, but it does seem rather unfortunate to have an entire Anzac unit set that gets no use. I think I still like the idea of making them Gray with a separate turn. Otherwise you have to come up with a set up change for Egypt, since the OOB rules would no longer work there (with the 2 Anzacs becoming British) or perhaps that makes no difference to your balance aims. But the two combined would seem to be rather challenging on Axis, since Cairo and India would both be that much harder to crack.

I’ve got no problem putting my gray ANZAC pieces away if I have to, I’ve got tons of other game pieces I’m not currently not using. I also don’t mind the ANZAC troops in Egypt being british, the troops in Canada are British. Also, the Allies should be strong in Africa… it’s the only place on the board they can hold and build from (most times).

@Black_Elk:

Go gray, I say, with a separate turn, and you won’t have to make as many set up changes. Or if the idea is to make a lot of set up changes, then tweak away and fix the whole game. No half measures. If you’re going to go for it, go all the way. I feel like Halifax was set aside prematurely, because it didn’t go far enough in the set up changes. Having already made a bunch of set up alterations, it didn’t carry them through to the logical next step of a complete redesign of the whole board haha. ;) The best Mod is either very few changes to keep it as close to OOB as possible, or just open pandoras box already, and lets make a full scenario that really does balance well for both sides, while still being fun to play for each individual power.  :-D

Write up an option #2 for gray pieces as well as a separate turn, and I will copy and paste it into post #1.

@Black_Elk:

Right now, Italy is the power that no one wants to play in all my games even moreso than UK, since they just get raided and raided and raided. Which is why I thought it might be nice to give them a break, and have British Empire Pacific move on Anzac’s turn in the sequence. Italy gets hosed all the time now. Alas, OOB convoy rules, they just don’t do a whole lot for me hehehe. On the whole I like this idea a lot. I feel that the British Empire Pacific would make more sense, than a lone Anzac and separate UK Pacific, which feel weirdly out of place in Global 1940.2, even if they might be interesting in Pacific 1940. Better to join Anzac and UK Pacific, one less nation to worry about. Takes it from 9 players down to 8, same as Halifax, just in a different way.

Don’t get me started with Italy, I’m this close to replacing all their units with German and go back to classic style… but that’s a totally different thread.

[Black_Elk]

Just real quick, since my phone is about to run out of batteries hehe… about the DoW.

I believe if Japan doesn’t DoW, then UK has the option to make an unprovoked declaration of war on Japan, which would award 45 ipcs total (assuming Java and Sumatra.) Is that correct? Or 46 if they take Dutch New Guinea instead of Java.  I think anyway. Which means they’d almost always DoW, one side or the other? I’ll look when I get home…

OK back now…

Oh wait no, you are totally correct, I misread your second NO. I thought it was the same as the Anzac NO for New Guinea.  But I see now it says “all original Dutch territories.” OK so that seems a bit more manageable, from the perspective of India not going too monster. But in that case, is the NO really achievable for the British?

I get the idea that OOB, many nations have impossible NOs. But I think that’s a bad thing generally. NOs that can’t be achieved just take up space in the rulebook haha. If they can be achieved, then they serve as gameplay drivers for both sides. One side wants to achieve it and tries, the other wants to deny it, so it prompts both sides to act. This is the essence of a contested NO. But if the NO is impossible, then both sides simply ignore it, and it does nothing for the gameplay. In such cases the NO should be scrapped, since players shouldn’t have to memorize stuff that doesn’t come into play. I understand the OOB model, 1 safe NO, 1 contested NO, 1 impossible NO. I just don’t really think it’s the best model. Better to have just have the contested NOs to focus the gameplay in historical directions. A safe NO is fine, but should only be given if the nation really needs additional income to function on balance. Impossible NOs are pretty irrelevant though, I’d rather see contested NOs in their place, and NOs that encourage people to do historical things, that they wouldn’t do otherwise, without an NO incentive.

I wouldn’t want to derail the adoption of this idea by providing a bunch of alternative variants at this point. I’d rather see one strong mod that has better chances of adoption. If that uses UK units and Calcutta for the capital then that’s certainly workable. We just need solid NOs to keep Sydney from being too irrelevant.  I really prefer focused NOs to the ones with more sprawling conditions. If they NO says “all territories a, b, c, x, y, z” I just think they are less likely to drive the gameplay, since they are so easy for the enemy to shut down.

Let’s take the Dutch islands NO proposed vs the original Anzac NO for New Guinea (the one I mistook above).

With the original Anzac NO there is a reason for Japan to invade Dutch New Guinea. Under the new draft there is little reason to do this, since Japan can disrupt the NO just as well from Java or Borneo etc. places where they already want to be. From the UK perspective,  the additional requirement (for Allies to control all Dutch territory) makes going for a place like Dutch New Guinea even less likely, so they probably give up on the NO altogether, as too impossible to invest in achieving.

I’d be sad to see the grey Anzacs go, but the reality is that there just aren’t enough Anzac roundels in the Box, and too few units to fully support an expansionist British Pacific. Whereas there are a bunch of normal beige UK units.

Haha that’d be funny, just ditch Italy altogether and make them German. Though I’d rather rewrite the convoy rules, than eliminate Italy, since then it’d be 8 Allies vs 2 Axis and kind of ridiculous hehe. But I get where you’re coming from. It’s frustrating to play a nation that is broke all the time and can’t contribute to the war effort.

[Black_Elk]

ps. ok so lets take another look at the UK Pacific and Anzac NOs from the OOB game, if they were all taken together it might read something like

5  if the British Pacific control both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.

5  if Allies control Malaya, and all of the original Anzac territories, and is at war with Japan.

5 if the Allies (not including Dutch) control all of Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands, and is at war with Japan.

The first two are fairly weak, and both dependent on control of Malaya, with an added condition tacked on that is very hard to maintain. They are unlikely to be achieved unless Japan is losing badly. These are what we might call endgame resolution NOs, because they award money that can only be consistently achieved once the player is already winning. Japan can shut down both fairly easily at the outset, almost as soon as they are at war, all they have to do to deny the Allies 10 ipcs is take Malaya.

Why not simplify this NO and just say British Empire Pacific gets +5 if they control Malaya?

This would mean that both Japan and British Empire Pacific would contest this territory directly. It wouldn’t be off the table just because Kwangtung is under Japanese control (very likely) or because the Japanese managed to take a single Anzac territory (fairly simple). If you want to drive fighting over Malaya, then just put the focus on the single territory, and not saddle it with a bunch of extra requirements that make the focus territory irrelevant. Malaya +5 is simple, and such an NO has the benefit of also being relatively easy to remember. Here we’ve taken 2 unlikely NOs and replaced them with 1 NO that is much more likely to be contested.

Now lets look at the final OOB NO. How about something more straightforward, like +5 for control of New Zealand. Since this is one of the more remote territories which Japan might take, and which in the war, it was a major strategic objective for the Allies to keep this supply route open. I mean that’s why Solomons and all the rest were so significant after all, right? So why not just be more direct, and boost the territory with a NO bonus, to give both sides a reason to fight over it.

Or what if, instead of saying you need control of “such and such” you simplified it and made it more universal?

Like +1 ipc for every pair of valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific, or maybe +1 ipc for every 3 valueless islands controlled in the Pacific, (once at war with Japan of course). This would put about a dozen ipcs up for grabs and activate all the islands where conflict never occurs, making them relevant to the gameplay. Instead of NOs for Japan and America,  what if we used the NOs for the British Empire Pacific to encourage fighting over all these valueless islands? This makes a kind of sense historically, since Japan wanted to cut off the British Pacific and seperate them from their American Allies. The NO could reflect this in a general way, to provide interest for the gameplay.

Just musing on ideas. I just think, if you’re going to go through the effort of removing a nation from the game, and bringing the British Empire Pacific into being, then why not take the same opportunity to make the Pacific NOs as interesting to the gameplay as possible. Not something that is so challenging to achieve, as to be practically irrelevant, but something that really puts the gameplay onto the islands. Because that is what everyone wants, and which the Pacific fails to deliver on most A&A boards.

Otherwise I just don’t even see the point of having NOs in A&A, if they only become a factor in exceptionally rare instances, then they might as well not even exist. We should instead try to make them critical to the balance of power on the gameboard. Something that can swing back and forth. Don’t you think? I mean, since we have the opportunity here with this overhaul of the British Pacific.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Why not simplify this NO and just say British Empire Pacific gets +5 if they control Malaya?

This would mean that both Japan and British Empire Pacific would contest this territory directly. It wouldn’t be off the table just because Kwangtung is under Japanese control (very likely) or because the Japanese managed to take a single Anzac territory (fairly simple). If you want to drive fighting over Malaya, then just put the focus on the single territory, and not saddle it with a bunch of extra requirements that make the focus territory irrelevant. Malaya +5 is simple, and such an NO has the benefit of also being relatively easy to remember. Here we’ve taken 2 unlikely NOs and replaced them with 1 NO that is much more likely to be contested.

Now lets look at the final OOB NO. How about something more straightforward, like +5 for control of New Zealand. Since this is one of the more remote territories which Japan might take, and which in the war, it was a major strategic objective for the Allies to keep this supply route open. I mean that’s why Solomons and all the rest were so significant after all, right? So why not just be more direct, and boost the territory with a NO bonus, to give both sides a reason to fight over it.

Or what if, instead of saying you need control of “such and such” you simplified it and made it more universal?

Like +1 ipc for every pair of valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific, or maybe +1 ipc for every 3 valueless islands controlled in the Pacific, (once at war with Japan of course). This would put about a dozen ipcs up for grabs and activate all the islands where conflict never occurs, making them relevant to the gameplay. Instead of NOs for Japan and America,  what if we used the NOs for the British Empire Pacific to encourage fighting over all these valueless islands? This makes a kind of sense historically, since Japan wanted to cut off the British Pacific and seperate them from their American Allies. The NO could reflect this in a general way, to provide interest for the gameplay.

I really find these NOs much better.
Such NO " Like +1 ipc for every pair of valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific" should be even simplified to “1 ipc for every valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific”.
This will make IJN in the mood to take those Islands. This will better reenact their WWII strategy.
However Japan will need some IPCs to make it valable strat.
Maybe revised the Outer perimeter defense to 4 islands out of 5?

[Young Grasshopper]

I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.

New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)

When at war with Japan…

5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls Malaya.

5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories conecting the Burma road.

5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories.

[Black_Elk]

Now we’re cookin’  :-D

I dig it! Going to slate a game for this weekend

[Young Grasshopper]

@Black_Elk:

Now we’re cookin’  :-D

I dig it! Going to slate a game for this weekend

Yep, my group will be playing this Saturday.

Gonna go back to regular 2ndE production rules, but we’ll modify a couple of Russian NOs in addition to these house rule ideas.

[Young Grasshopper]

Just spit balling here, but imagine if all the Axis peices in G40 we’re one color, and all the Allied units one color. No national objectives (maybe 5 IPCs per victory city), both sides at war, and the Axis side going first.

HHMMMMM!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.

New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)

When at war with Japan…

5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls Malaya.

5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories connecting the Burma road.

5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories.

And what about this slightly different ones, YG?

5 IPCs per territory if Pacific British Empire controls Kwangtung and/or Malaya.
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.

Why did you let aside this ANZAC OOB NO which promotes combat over islands ?
5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.

Shouldn’t you add Dutch New Guinea to this one:
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories and Dutch New Guinea.
Theme: Strategic southern defense zone.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

@Young:

I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.

New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)

When at war with Japan…

5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls Malaya.

5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories connecting the Burma road.

5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories.

And what about this slightly different ones, YG?

5 IPCs per territory if Pacific British Empire controls Kwangtung and/or Malaya. ?
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.

Is this a house rule? because the oob NO I believe says " 5IPCs for control of both Kwangtung and Malaya".

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Baron:

And what about this slightly different ones, YG?

5 IPCs per territory if Pacific British Empire controls Kwangtung and/or Malaya. ?
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.

Is this a house rule? because the oob NO I believe says " 5IPCs for control of both Kwangtung and Malaya".

Yes and No (not in spirit).
In the original NO both territories were required to get the 5 IPCs bonus.

I just think Kwantung can be still part of it, but it gives another 5 IPCs (as it is the most difficult part of the NO to achieve, as Black Elk told).

So, by keeping Kwantung in this NO, you keep the general direction given by the OOB NO.

I also edit the previous post:
@Baron:

Why did you let aside this ANZAC OOB NO which promotes combat over islands ?
5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.

Shouldn’t you add Dutch New Guinea to this one:
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories and Dutch New Guinea.
Theme: Strategic southern defense zone.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.

New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)

When at war with Japan…

5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories conecting connecting the Burma road.

This one, was it only part of the Chinese’s NO?