My Global National Objectives

  • Global National Objectives House Rule

    If I basically keep everything from Alfa+3 intact and change only the National Objectives, I may be able to achieve some balance with minimal change. The NOs have been bothering me lately, things like no German NO for capturing London, which would be the very definition on a National Objective, or how about escorting a German infantry to Egypt for no other reason but a quick $5. ANZAC gets $5 for 1 dutch island, and Japan NOs are the hardest to obtain, however Japan needs them the most. Anyway…. here is my new NO house rule.

    National Objectives


    • $10 for control of an each enemy capital.

    • $10 for control of Western United States, Central United States, and Eastern United States

    • $10 for control of Mexico, Southeast Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies

    • $10 for control of Alaska, Hawaii, Philippines, and the Caroline Islands

    • $5 for American surface ships in the Mediteranian

    • $10 one time for liberating Paris


    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • $10 for control of Leningrad, Ukraine, and Stalingrad


    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • $5 for no allied ships in the Mediterranean sea.

    • $5 for control of Gibraltar

    • $5 for control of all original territories

    • $10 for control of Trans-Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Northwest Persia, Persia, and Eastern Persia

    • $10 for control of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, Alexandria, and Egypt.


    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • $10 for control of all China territories.

    • $5 for control of Sumatra, Java, Celebes, and Borneo

    • $5 for control of the Philippines and the Caroline Islands

    • $10 one time if Russia makes an unprovoked attack.


    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • $10 for control of one original German territory (any).

    United Kingdom (London)

    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • $10 for control of all original territories.

    • $10 one time for liberating Paris

    United Kingdom (Calcutta)

    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • $10 for control of all original territories.


    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • $5 for control of all original territories.

    • $5 if allies control Milaya, and Egypt.


    • $10 for control of each enemy capital.

    • 5 French infantry placed on Paris immediately after being liberated.


    • $5 if the Burma road is open.

  • Customizer

    You know, I kind of like these better than the ones we currently have, especially the “$10 for control of an enemy capital” for each power.  Something like that should have been included all along.  I think you may have too much for USA, but I could deal with that.  I do have a couple of questions:
    1 - On the USA’s 2nd NO:  Is “South” America supposed to be “Central” America?
    2 - On Germany’s 2nd NO:  Is it $5 for EACH of those territories or ALL THREE?  (Personally, I think it should be EACH)
    3 - Why take away Germany’s Swedish Iron Ore NO?

  • It should have been central America and I have changed it, I have also changed the second German NO to $10 for control of all 3. As for the Swedish ore NO for Germany, i have removed it because of the following. With Alpha+3, Germany would begin the game earning a $5 NO for peace with Russia and a $5 NO for Swedish ore. Later the loss of the peace NO can be replaced with a German unit in Egypt, but Germany is rarely making above $10 per turn in bonuses throughout the game. With my house rule, Germany earns a $10 NO immediately when they sack Paris, and they will keep that for the majority of the game. After that it only gets better for Germany, if they attempt sea lion and succeed, they will receive another $10 per turn for a total of $20 (which might help recoup the losses and defend against Russia) If they decide to head East instead, there is an opportunity for $20 per turn before they sack Moscow, and if they do get Moscow, that would give them a total of $30 per turn, which is pretty much game over. With my NOs, I wanted to balance the axis without tipping the scales, and that’s why I removed the Swedish ore NO, which is absorbed in the $10 for Paris. I have also just added an NO for Italy, which has lots of opportunities (along with Japan) to make lots of bonus money. As for the strength of America, I felt that the garunteed $20 when they enter the war shouldn’t change, but if they want more, they will need to work for it. I also made it very hard for the UK and Russia to get bonuses, so it’s up to the US.

  • Customizer

    Okay, I forgot about Paris (which IS an Allied capital and falls to Germany almost automatically).  That does make up for losing the Swedish NO and Egypt NO together.  OR perhaps the Soviet Peace NO since Germany rarely gets the Egypt NO before round 4 (sometimes they never get it in some of our games).  I really like that with your NOs, Germany can once again get $10 for taking London (which NEVER should have been removed in the first place!).
    After reading it again, I do now see that the US NOs are somewhat harder to accomplish.  I didn’t realize the 3rd one included the Carolines, a JAPANESE starting territory.  So, to get more money, USA has definitely got to get busy and start kicking some Axis butt.  I like that they are only (more or less) assured $20 and have to earn the rest.  That Mediterranean NO directly affects 2 of Italy’s NOs:  one for Gibraltar since you need to control Gibraltar to enter the Med with surface warships and the one for no Allied surface warships in the Med.  That could really screw Italy up and be an incentive for the US to not go 100% Pacific.
    I like what you did with Japan’s NOs, especially the China one.  I have always thought Japan should get something for totally wiping China out.  It’s not easy to do plus the Allies can simply liberate one little territory and China can put more men there.
    I’m still a little stuck on the German NO for Leningrad, Stalingrad and the Ukraine.  I like that you upped it to $10, but controlling all three of those will be a real bitch to accomplish, especially Stalingrad.  Personally, I still think it should be $5 for each one, but I’m going to try it your way since I like all the rest that you have come up with. I assume for this one, you mean GERMAN control of all three territories, not simply AXIS control, right?  I ask this because I have had games where Italy comes up and grabs Stalingrad.  I even had one game where Japan took it.

  • Customizer

    One more question about the Russian NO:
    It says:  - $10 for control of any original German territory.

    Is this $10 PER territory or a flat $10 for any and all German territories?  In other words, if the Russians capture 2 original German territories, do they get $20?
    Also a question on Italy’s NOs:
    The last two – control of the territories in question means ITALIAN control, not AXIS, correct?
    Also a question on France:
    When Paris is liberated and the 5 infantry are placed there – is this a one time thing or do they get the 5 infantry each time Paris is liberated.  For example, British forces liberate Paris so 5 French infantry are placed there.  Germany re-takes Paris and plunders their treasury.  Then USA forces attack and liberate Paris again.  Do the French get ANOTHER 5 infantry?

  • Thank you Knp for your impute and interest.


    The 2nd German NO is $10 if Germany holds all the three Russian territories at the end of their turn. The reason for this can be explained this way.

    Since this game came out, the debate has always been weather or not Germany should go for Sealion or Barbarossa. Each strategy always had its share of supporters who were willing to argue the merits of their preferred operation. the fact that you could get such a divide as to what to do with Germany was great, and I loved that Germany could go either way with a great balance of risk and reward. All that has been taken away with the extra casualty AA guns and the “if you take London, Russia will enter the war” rule. I wanted to get that element of choice back into the German war effort, so I had to hang a carrot out there.

    Lets say you get the $10 NO for sacking Paris turn one, now you have a choice to make between sealion and barbarossa. Do you risk bringing in Russia by going for another quick $10 and taking London, which will also give you UKs money, and the extra $6 in income? Or do you go for Moscow which is less risk, but harder to gain that extra $10 NO.

    If my house rule gave a $5 bonus for each Russian territory with a minor IC, or gave a $10 bonus if the axis took all three, that would make the decision for Barbarossa easier. The $10 NO Germany would fight hard for during sealion, could be easily gained by taking Leningrad and Ukraine for $5 each.

    But the way the NOs are now, Germany would have to work just as hard for that $10 bonus in Russia, as they would for the $10 NO in London. This way, the debate is back on which strategy is best, and the $10 bonus for capitals works great for every Nation.


    The Russian NO is $10 if Russia controls a least 1 original German territory at the end of their turn. Russia can not earn more than $10 for this NO regardless of how many original German territories they control.


    The 5 Infantry placed on Paris the moment the capital is liberated, represents the french underground forces revealing themselves to fight. It must happen once when Paris is liberated the first time, and may not happen again. However, the one time $10 bonus when America liberates Paris,  does not remove the one time $10 bonus if the UK liberates Paris a second time, or vis versa.

  • Customizer

    Thanks for answering my questions.  I really like your NOs and plan to employ them in my next Global 40 game.  Your explanation about the 3 territory German NO makes much more sense to me now.  I like the Barbarossa vs Sealion idea.

    One more quick question:  This is mainly for the Axis powers’ NOs.  When you list control of certain territories (like all N African territories for Italy or the Leningrad/Stalingrad/Ukraine NO for Germany), you mean that particular country has to control those territories, not just Axis control.  Correct?  Like if Germany controlled Morocco, that would blow Italy’s N Africa NO, right?

  • @knp7765:

    One more quick question:  This is mainly for the Axis powers’ NOs.  When you list control of certain territories (like all N African territories for Italy or the Leningrad/Stalingrad/Ukraine NO for Germany), you mean that particular country has to control those territories, not just Axis control.  Correct?  Like if Germany controlled Morocco, that would blow Italy’s N Africa NO, right?

    That is correct, the only National Objective that may use a joint effort is ANZAC’s NO for allied control of Malaya and Egypt. All other territory requirements must be achieved by the power that owns the NO.

    Cheers, let my know how you like the playability after your game.

  • Customizer

    Hey Young Grasshopper, we finished our game earlier tonight.  The Axis won in 8 rounds.  Actually, BOTH Axis won – Germany/Italy captured 9 of 11 VCs and Japan captured 6 of 8 VCs, although Japan got it’s 6th VC in the final round after the Euro Axis already accomplished their goal and we were playing that last round to see if they could hold them.
    Your NOs I don’t think really changed the game a lot.  Personally, I think your NOs make more sense than the NOs from Alpha+3, but the overall game and income didn’t change very much.
    Germany got the $10 for Paris G1 and had it for the rest of the game, which covers the Swedish NO and Soviet Peace NO.  In fact, it is better because Germany continues to get it even after attacking the Soviet Union, wheras normally they would only get the $5 for Sweeden.  There is the “German land unit in Egypt” NO, but Germany was concentrating on Russia and Italy didn’t even get Egypt until Round 7.  The Brits put up a hell of a fight with the Italians in N Africa and especially Egypt, where they built a Minor IC.  So, Germany wouldn’t have gotten that one anyway.
    Italy did have a hard time getting their NOs.  They got the Med NO Round 2 and kept it through most of the game (a French destroyer screwed that up Round 5 for a couple of rounds).  They didn’t get Gibraltar until Round 4 and the US promptly took it back a round or two later.  Plus, like I said, the Brits were really tough and the Italians never even set foot in the Middle East.
    Japan went without any NOs for a couple of rounds but made a hard push for India and grabbed it J3.  However, it cost them the Carolines which gave the US it’s 3rd NO for $30 per turn.  The Japs scooped up the DEI then went after the Philippines/Carolines NO.  Pushing so hard for India caused them to lose ground against China, which became a real pest with infantry popping up all over.  Japan would clear an area, try to move on, then suddenly more Chinese show up.  After the Philippines/Carolines, Japan went after ANZAC and got Sydney on Round 8.  ANZAC also was being a pest, hitting the Jap navy here and there.  They didn’t have enough to do anything major, but they did keep setting the stage for USA to come rolling in on the next turn.
    Britain actually got the “All original territories” NO for most of the game (6 rounds) by trashing the Italian Central Africa troops and really allowing the Italians no headway in N Africa.  The only reason Italy finally got Cairo was after Germany took London.  UK actually came close to getting Rome too.  Rome was very lightly defended (1 fighter, 1 infantry, 2 AA guns) and UK came with 2 transports full, but no warships.  UK could only send a fighter to escort the transports and Italy scrambled it’s fighter and beat the UK fighter causing the transports to retreat with all their stuff still on them.  Then on Italy’s turn, that same fighter pomptly flew out and sank them.  Big loss for UK.
    As for the “Liberating Paris” NO, neither UK nor USA even came close.  USSR never got the “German Territory” NO as they were mostly defensive.  They had some good counterattacks which set Germany’s advance back but Germany was just too strong and whittled Russia down.  Moscow fell Round 6.
    At the end of the game, Germany was really in the big bucks.  With 3 enemy capitals (Paris, Moscow, London) plus the Leningrad/Stalingrad/Ukraine NO, Germany was making an extra $40 per round, along with $84 in territory values.
    So, overall I don’t think your NOs do anything that changes the balance of the game and are very playable.  Plus, like I said before, they really make more sense.  Especially the “Enemy Capitals” NO.

  • Hey knp,

    That was a great post, thanks for taking the time to try my house rule and to report your findings. I noticed quite a few things about your game and I have a few questions as well. The fact that you mentioned that the new NOs didn’t change the game much, really makes me feel good as it was not my intention to tilt the gameplay, but rather simplify and expand. I wanted the phrase “National Objective” to mean something, and I admit trying to give the Axis a bit more NO$ for balance (but not too much).

    The old German National Objectives:

    At the end of G1, Germany gets a $5 NO for peace with Russia, and a $5 NO for control of the Denmark straight without allied control of Sweden. Thats $10 for 2 NOs, and there is no point in going for London with great risk and low reward. When Russia enters the war, Germany might have a unit in Egypt which would restore the $10 NO total, but if not, the Germans only get $5 for the Denmark NO. The only thing to do after that is to head east as fast as possible.

    The new German National Objectives:

    At the end of G1, Germany gets $10 for control of Paris, and will likely hold it for the majority of the game (simplicity). As you stated, the Germans continued to get $ even after attacking Russia, but you should also be aware that the Germans won’t be penalized for attacking Russia early, and they won’t need to ferry a German infantry from Greece on an Italian boat to Egypt for reasons that make no sense. Also, the Germans have an option to take London with high risk for high reward, instead of just bulldozing toward Moscow (flexibility).

    So even though the outcome of your game doesn’t seem like it was effected much by the new NOs, there is in fact more flexibility and options for Germany, even it it didn’t seem like they made much more bonus cash that if you played Alpha +3.

    Question: What round did London fall?


    It seems as though the Italians were pinned down early and often by the British preventing them from earning any of the bonus cash listed, but it sounds like they wouldn’t have earned anything for Alph +3 either. Good for Britain, but the allies still lost. My question is where were the Americans when all this was happening?

    America and Japan

    They are pretty much handed the $20 when they enter the war, but they won’t get much more if the Japanese take the Philippines early. I appreciate how hard it is to get to Calcutta as early as J3, but I would have taken a round to capture the Philippines and deny America that extra $10. Good for America, but the allies still lost. With Japan taking Calcutta and than turning on Sydney, what did America do to help ANZAC who was putting up a great fight. As for the new NOs, Japan earned $5 extra up from the original NO for taking Calcutta, that must of helped the Axis cause. The japs have the same flexibility the Germans have in the way of NO possibilities. They could have gone in many directions and would have been rewarded in one way or another.


    The Soviet Union was never meant to get bonus cash in my new NOs. the $10 control of a German territory was there if Germany went for sealion early, the Russians could earn a few bucks before the Germans turned on them. $37 starting income is more than enough to mount a good defensive operation in my opinion.

    It sounds like the allies lost because America was stacking up for a tokyo invasion that never came.

    Would you play the new NOs again? Would you modify them? or just go back to Alph+3?

  • Customizer


    Question: What round did London fall?

    London actually fell twice:  Round 4 and Round 7.  The capture in Round 4 was just a chance blunder by UK and happy opportunity for Germany.  UK left London defended with only 1 French infantry and 1 US fighter and didn’t notice the 2 German transports in the Baltic.  Germany ran over with 2 Inf, 1 Art and 1 Tank plus 2 Fighters  and 1 Bomber.  The Fighters protected the transports in case the US fighter scrambled (no German warships at that time).  British AA took out the Bomber and while the Germans did win, with all the AA hit soakers, they only survived with 1 tank.  The Brits had 2 transports with 2 inf, 1 art and 1 tank in Canada and on UK 4 they sailed over and retook London while the US warships killed the German ships.  The damage was done though – Germany got to plunder the British treasury ending up with 114 IPCs to spend on Round 5 and the British IC was reduced to a Minor.

    My question is where were the Americans when all this was happening?
    It sounds like the allies lost because America was stacking up for a tokyo invasion that never came.
    Would you play the new NOs again? Would you modify them? or just go back to Alph+3?

    USA actually split their forces this time and tried to work in both the Pacific and Atlantic.  While they were somewhat successful in some small aspects, they couldn’t really hit the Axis hard enough in either theater.  In the Atlantic, they did manage to end the U-Boat threat and Germany had a hard time keeping any navy in the water until the last round or so.  Also, they kept Gibraltar from the Italians for a long time.  In the Pacific, they gave the Japanese quite a few fleet headadches, but it was mostly a “trading punches” match.  If I had to guess, I would say it was roughly 60% Pacific and 40 % Atlantic.  Like I said, they did give the Axis on both sides some headaches, but couldn’t really muster enough to hit either side with a deciding blow.  They never set foot in Europe and the one time they really dominated SZ 6, it was strictly with warships and their transports were left undefended around Hawaii.  Japan had to sacrifice a carrier to provide a landing spot for a far-reaching fighter, but it was worth it:  3 US transports sunk with no fight and all the US troops stranded on Hawaii with no way to get to Japan.  Good thing too because Japan was pitifully weakly defended, I think at that point I had just 4 or 5 guys there because I had been putting so much stuff in Asia fighting the dang Chinese.
    The thing with USA is, in my opinion, I think they need to go all one theater or the other for the Allies to win.  A lot of players here complain about the US not being forced to split their economy but from everything I have seen, when the US does split somewhat evenly between both theaters, the Allies are doomed to lose.  They just can’t seem to get enough stuff to really hit either Axis hard enough that they can’t come back from.  Unless you have a REALLY good US player or bad Axis players.
    However, if the US goes mostly on one side, they make enough money to buy enough stuff to really hit that Axis hard.  If they do so quick enough, then they should have enough time to send stuff to the other side and pound the other Axis.  Like, say US goes 90-100% Pacific.  If they do it right, they can thoroughly pound the Jap Navy and more easily replace ship losses than Japan can.  Once the Jap Navy is sunk, the US can start grabbing up the island possessions along with ANZAC and with India and China putting up a good fight on the mainland, Japan could be effectively neutralized.  Perhaps US invests in some subs to put in SZ 6 to convoy raid Japan like crazy.  So now the US doesn’t necessarily have to spend a lot of time building up an invasion fleet to actually take Japan, just kind of corner them on their island.  Now the US can start building tons of stuff to send over to Europe.  With any luck, UK and USSR will manage to hold off Germany and Italy long enough for the US to show up with big force and give Germany something to really think about:  the dreaded two-front war.

    I think I will keep using your NOs.  They make more sense to me and are a little easier to remember as well.  (Not like USSR controlling Archangel, is at war, no Axis ships in SZ 125 and no other Allied units in any territory originally owned by the Soviet Union.  Talk about complications!)  I did modify one of your US NOs– The one for Mexico, SE Mexico and Central America.  I added the West Indies to that one.  In this game it was a non-issue because none of the Axis really came close to taking US territories, with the exception of Japan taking the Philippines.

  • Thanks for that report, I will comment on your post in detail when I have more time. I agree with your opinion and I have changed the US NO to include the West Indies. Cheers.

Log in to reply

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 7
  • 3
  • 8
  • 15
  • 10
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys