Thoughts on Global NO's


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Hmmm…  I just reviewed the NO’s posted by Taiki…

    Anyone else a bit disappointed?  I mean, if he accurately posted about USSR’s NO’s, 6 IPC’s per German territory taken if they retain control over all original USSR NO’s?  Seriously?  What kind of an NO is that?  So if the USSR controls like 4 or 5 of Germany’s original territories they would get 24 - 30 extra IPC’s per turn?  But if Japan takes one Russian territory way out East their income drops 24-30 a turn?  Norway is worth 9 to Russia, but only 3 if any single Russian territory is not under Russian control?  That’s insane!  And where’s the no other Allied unit NO?  I hope Taiki just forgot it.

    Too many German NO’s for taking the Russian cities.  Should be one for France and one for Britain or something…  I mean, after changing the sack capital rule - maybe take half the money or something.  😛  And +3 for having a unit in Egypt?  I know it’s your pet NO, Larry, but seriously, +3 for having a unit in Egypt?  That’s almost as crazy as ANZAC having a fighter sitting on any Jap original territory even if owned by an ally, and only 1 tim (horrible rule).

    I do like the ones where G gets +5 if Russia not at war, and Russia getting +5 for being at war.  I also like the UK, Jap, and ANZAC NO’s.  I hope he forgot a USA NO because only having the +30 for being at war is kind of sad.  And why don’t the USA and UK get one for cracking the European mainland, like the AA50 ones for Balkans and France?

    What do you guys think about the Global NO’s?


  • 2019 2018

    I would have to agree with you regarding the Russian NO of EACH territory.  That seems a big excessive.  I also hope that the Russian NO includes no allied units in Soviet territory or else I can just see a bunch of US units sitting in Siberia waiting for an attack on Japan.

    I was also surprised about the US only getting 30 for at war NO, because a difference of 40 is printed on the pacific map, but an income of 82 seems a little better than 92 (at least for the axis).

    The UK no sub rule, is that a one time thing like Anzac in Pacific or is that every round?  If so then Germany better pump out a sub or two every round.

    Germany 3 IPC for a ground unit in Egypt. Does that include Alexandria and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan or just Egypt.  I think it should be anywhere in Africa to encourage German troops in Africa, but to put it in a specific territory is kinda of lame.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I like the NO’s better than say AAP40 or AA50. But honestly i hate NO’s they just seem a cheesy fix for not having for example oil fields.

    They are easier to keep track of and they seem to make the game end sooner because of the ability to really generate lots of extra cash. And now losing parts of france each turn is really painless for Germany.

    Russia is really the key for axis.



  • This gives Japan a huge incentive to invade Russia the round that Germany invades in order to deny the Russians that NO, and in so doing changes the outcome of our AAP 40 games where Japan has no need to worry about Russia.  So, while this rule is outrageous it could also aid the Allies by forcing Japan to change the current script of a J3/4 taking of India.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 49
  • 5
  • 4
  • 5
  • 1
  • 10
  • 8
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

37
Online

13.6k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts