The worst National Objective: and one quick way to fix game balance. *HR

@Young:

I believe that any house rule or new national objectives that benefit the Allies and replaces the bid system, needs to effect both sides of the map and are a bit harder on Japan than on Germany.

By strengthening Russia, this is basically what we are doing.

The problem with offering a bid in G40, like many of the previous games, is that competent players will always use the bid to break an opening battle. This takes the whole game balance by side down to a single roll in a single round, generally against (or in support of) the weakest link, whatever that is determined to be for the game. Its very hard, once you depart from the OOB conditions, to find a bid that actually works, since there is a very strong potential that you’ll be taking a broken situation, and then breaking it in the opposite direction. In G40 the political element makes this even more complicated than it was in the earlier A&A games (not everyone is at war at the outset, and players gravitate towards spending their bid where it will have the most dramatic impact as early as possible.) This may have been an alright expedient in some of the earlier games, where the pre-placement bid was comparatively low (under 10 ipcs), and fairly limited in scope, but don’t think the bid works particularly well in G40, because the TUV gap is so much broader.

The Allies require a minimum of about 10 ipcs per round in Russia, once at war, just to maintain at the center. Otherwise the center will fold, just like it does in every A&A game, and the whole Allied strategy in later rounds just devolves to stacking Moscow as deep as you possibly can, with as many Western units (e.g. fighters) as you can get into the area. This puts even more pressure on the Axis and especially Japan to race towards a Moscow crush as quickly as possible. If on the other hand you give the Russians a consistent leg up on income, this dynamic changes from being an entirely defensive stack fast and prep for the inevitable, to one that at least encourages some trading and forward offensives by the Soviets. Consider that if you can get around 10 ipcs to Russia per round, once at war, that is the equivalent of a Fighter a round, or a mech/tank combo, or 2 inf and an Art combo. Superior to almost any bid you might offer the Allies in terms of TUV, and less annoying for the Axis player, since it doesn’t break their openings. Put the emphasis and the action where we need it, in Russia.

@Herr:

My general idea was to add one NO for Russia that would be easy to get and hold, and one that would be available unless Japan would do something about it.

The easy one is the Persian Corridor of course (I rather like that term because it was also used in the actual war). I’d prefer to keep Northwest Persia in as a requirement, because it makes sense historically and is easy to accomplish for the Allies anyway. It does weaken the NO slightly of course once the Caucasus falls to the Axis. But requiring SZ80 to be free makes perfect sense.

I thought about the Soviet Far East, but I picked Amur because it would be more of a dilemma to Japan whether or not to take it. If Japan does take it, they activate the Mongolians for Russia. Using the Soviet Far East will probably make Japan decide that taking out the Soviet NO is too much of a risk, because it can be reached directly from America as you pointed out. But with Amur, the temptation is there, and probably there’s pressure form Germany to take it out - but Japan also knows that pushing north is not their best general strategy.
SZ1 - agreed, that makes sense. Or maybe SZ8, to have the Aleutians as an additional prize for Japan if they want to fight it?

On the whole, I really like the general idea: fix the game balance, and do so by helping Russia.

“Persian Corridor” works for me, I just tacked on the “supply” to distinguish the three route related NOs, from the two other more baseline NOs. The only reason I thought it might be a good idea to attach a sz80 and sz 1, was to make these NOs read essentially the same way that the Archangel/Sz125 NO reads, e.g. with an associated convoy lane.

I see the logic of Northwest Persia for the Trans-Iranian railway, but I’m still not convinced its necessary to include NW Persia. The territory of “Persia” has a value at 2 ipcs (so its easy to spot), it already borders Iraq, and also borders the Caspian, which would probably have been sufficient to transport goods out of Persian into Russia, even if the route through the Taurus was cut off. From a gameplay standpoint, doesn’t including Northwest Persia, also require the inclusion of Caucasus? At which point I feel the rule gets a bit wordy. That is my thought anyway, just for simplicity.

I like the idea of changing the Russian NO’s.
I like Herr kaleun’s suggestion about the ‘Persian Corridor’ a lot as well (just need a clear allied path between Persia and Moscow during Russia’s turn).
The allies should be able to get at least 5IPCs into Russia per turn (through lend lease), using the route via Archangelsk, Persia, or Amur. Maybe even 5IPCs per turn per clear route. So that would be 15/turn, -5 because Germany easily denies the Archangelsk route, -5 because Japan so easily removes the Amur-option (even when Germany goes Sea Lion and the Siberians stay in the Far East), leaving 5IPCs per turn for the Persian route, which the allies should be able to keep open.

As to the Pacific supply route, I would continue to make the case for Soviet Far East over Amur.  The logic here is historical, since our primary supply route into Russia via the Pacific was the “Northwest Staging Route.”

We built a highway all the way from the west coast of the the States/Canada up to Fairbanks in Alaska, and launched support into Siberia via the air. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALSIB

Also provides a good name for the Russian NO: Alaska-Siberia Air Road, “The Northern Trace.”

Sure, Amur/Vladivostok would force Mongolia into the fight, but the actual supply route into Russia didn’t go through the Port/Amur, but rather through the Far East and Siberia, out of Alaska via the Air.

I think in this case, it would be nice to give a nod to the history. Also given the geography, I would say that sz 1 is the ideal candidate, both because it is a convoy lane (easy to spot) and because it is within 2 spaces of Soviet Far east (easy to spot), and finally because it can be reached from Japan but covered from North America for the purposes of disruption.

The main port in Alaska, Anchorage borders this sea zone, and was likewise used to supply the air staging out of Fairbanks, so it makes sense here as a point of disruption (arguably we don’t need to attach any sea zone, since the actual supply was by airlift, you could make a case for Persia by rail or out of India not needing sz 80 too , but I think it makes sense for consistency with the other the NO to have 1 Land: 1 Convoy.) So here, Japan would at least be required to launch a sub to cut off aid, which could in turn draw off US destroyers on the counter, and put the focus on the North Pacific (when the US really wants to focus south) encouraging Pacific conflict between Japan and N. America along this route. Sz 1 also gives Japan a way to disrupt the aid out of North America, without requiring a DoW against Russia.

I favor these names…

Additional National Objectives: Soviet Union

“Persian Corridor” support to Russia via the Trans-Iranian supply route:
+5 ipcs if Allies control Persia, and sz 80 is free of Axis warships.

“The Northern Trace” support to Russia via the Northwest Staging route, and the Alaska-Siberia Air Road:
+5 ipcs if Allies control Soviet Far East, and sz 1 is free of Axis warships

Anyone object to these? My thought would be to try and fix the game simply by adjusting Russia’s NOs, since that gives us the most bang for our buck, with a fairly minor change. I still don’t like NOs, but since they are the way G40 was designed, let’s at least give the Russians some NOs that make sense.

I also think it’s important to recall, that a strong Axis player will always find a way to shut down these supply NOs eventually. The more territories and sea zones we try to encompass as necessary conditions, the easier it is for them to disrupt. Even the original NO for Arch and 125 doesn’t encompass all the sea zones and territories it should from a strict logistical historical stanpoint, but it would be too wordy to require Murmansk/Karelia. Likewise if you try to require Alaska/W.Canada, or Northwest Persia/Caucasus. At some point the rule just gets too complicated. I still believe that even with additional supply NOs, Moscow will still get crushed if we don’t give them a steady +5 just for being at war, and a steady +5 for no Western units on red land. So the NOs above should be in addition. The supply NOs can and will be contested, but at least with a baseline of +5 at war, and another +5 for no Western units, Russia will have the resources to fight for their contested supply routes.

I suppose this thread is the one gathering the HR discussions, so I’ll edit the headline.

I have made the argument here for the baseline Soviet National objective, trying to work it out of the Errata  :-D
It definitely has me excited. Uses only the wording of the NO that is already present in the Official Rules
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34569.msg1332895#msg1332895

If you really want to redraft the NOs though, and wanted to include three supply route objectives. You might consider redrafting each of these to include 2 land territories and 1 convoy sea zone, so that all three read exactly the same. This would require re-drafting the Arctic supply route NO so that it included an additional land territory to match the Persian Corridor and the Northern Trace NOs.

For example a completely reworked Soviet National Objective list might read something like this.

National Objectives: Soviet Union

“The Great Patriotic War” Theme: the Soviet Union joins the Allies. *
+5 IPCs if the Soviet Union is at war with at least one European Axis power.

“Soviet Sphere of Influence” Theme: National prestige.
+5 ipcs if there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union.

“Arctic Convoys” Theme: access to Allied Lend-Lease material, support to Russia via the Arctic supply route (Archangel and Murmansk).
+5 ipcs if Allies control Archangel and Karelia, and sz 125 is free of Axis warships.

“Persian Corridor” Theme: support to Russia via the Trans-Iranian supply route.
+5 ipcs if Allies control Persia and Northwest Persia, and sz 80 is free of Axis warships.

“The Northern Trace” Theme: support to Russia via the Northwest Staging route, and Alaska-Siberia Air Road.
+5 ipcs if Allies control Soviet Far East and Alaska, and sz 1 is free of Axis warships.

“Red Advance” Theme: Propaganda value and spread of communism.
+3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.

“Final Offensive” Theme: National Prestige.
+10 ipcs (one time only) the first time the Soviet Union controls Germany (Berlin).

*could be considered optional, or as a conditional “At War” before the other objectives are awarded.

The first objective listed “War in Europe” could be optional, but I think it would help, especially during the endgame if Axis are dominant. Likewise we could explore these NOs as either “at war” required, or independent of the DoW. But either way, at the very least, we can provide Russia more cash via supply and more cash for not having Western units on their land. This would be my corrective for center balance over a bid.

My case for the Soviet Far East over Amur for the Northern Trace is this…  If Japan decides to invade Russia in Amur to deny the NO, Allies have no viable response, on account the Japanese push overland from Manchuria/Korea out of sz 6. It’s also debatable whether Russia even gains from Mongolian entry, since these units are largely stuck out of position. So for Japan the incentive and ability to shut down the NO is likely too high to make the NO viable. Japan doesn’t really need sea zone 5 to contest Amur, since they can just stack sz 6 and go with the conveyor belt overland to cover Amur and shut down the supply permanently.

Soviet Far East on the other hand, would bring more sea zones into play, especially sz 5, but also sz 4 and sz 3. Most importantly, it is contestable out of North America and can be reached from sz 10. Conceivably USA could try to hold it for the Russian NO (even at the cost of the -5 for western units on red land) if they want to pursue a Pacific strat out of the North. Things like an airbase or even a facility in Alaska could potentially be viable, if there was a greater incentive, which this NO would provide.

Before balking at the amounts, recall that these would be for a game with No Allied Bid! and that it is quite probable that Axis will still be able to contest all the supply routes. The +5 for no Western units on red land would give them an easy NO, once it is separated into its own condition, provided they can keep Soviet land free of other Allies. It seems likely that Allies will be able to hold at least 1 of the 3 supply routes into Russia, but perhaps not without utilizing western support. So that still leaves you in the +5 range. But if you add to this an At War +5 ipcs, that puts Russia in the baseline range of +10 extra bucks from National Objectives a round, at least once they they start fighting. The other three supply NOs are here to draw the Axis off the center crush initially, by giving them more to do at the outset. At any given time Axis will probably be able to shut down 2 out of 3 supply routes, but if just one stays open, then there is a good chance that Allies can keep Russia at the +10 baseline, even if they have to start accepting Western units on Red territory to hold on to the supply. This should make the no Bid game feasible for the Allies against an Axis opponent of equal skill.

Thanks YG and definite thanks to Herr KaLeun and everyone else providing input on this and providing the substance. Something about three routes just feels right doesn’t it?

I truly believe this will provide an entertaining solution on game balance without totally busting the opening. It wouldn’t immediately affect the Sea Lion potential or the game in the Med on Italy/Cairo, or India or the Pacific, but eventually it could affect all these areas via the leg up for the Soviets that Allies would receive. It’s also convenient, in that, if the 3 supply NOs and the Soviet Sphere of Influence aren’t enough, we can always add the War in Europe NO for an extra +5. I’m optimistic.

I think they would look slick on a card, in a comprehensive NO expansion deck too. For players that dig cards. Which I definitely do  :-D

Definitely! Done :)

I edited the lead post so its easier to reference. Any other thoughts on how to improve these?
I think the names are feeling pretty solid now. Good call.

Yeah, I was thinking we could reserve The Great Patriotic War as optional here, only if it proves necessary after trying the others on balance. For people who just want a quick G40 fix, without the additional two Supply NOs, they could use the At War bonus as an alternative. But with the 3 supplies routes it play, Russia may have enough that you don’t need to award the extra 5 for it. In this case it is just a condition that precedes the others.

I’m pretty open to using Amur over Soviet Far East, if it works better on balance. I was playing solitaires last night to see how each one worked. I think Japan should be able to shut down The Northern Trace without too much cost, sz 1, forcing USA to trade destroyers, and Alaska are also options, as well as contesting the route in Russia directly. But at least this gives Japan something to else to consider.

for Amur I think you will see a Japanese DoW against Russia more often, but either territory Amur or Soviet Far East, both have strategic interest. I’d like to playtest both to see which one offers the most for the Pacific gameplay.

So given all that, perhaps a reading more like this, for the current draft… we can make Soviet Sphere of Influence the “theme” of the Great Patriotic War NO. And leave the +5 for being at war in europe as strictly optional.

National Objectives: Soviet Union

*If the Soviet Union is at war with at least one European Axis power, then…

“The Great Patriotic War” Theme: Soviet Sphere of Influence.
+5 ipcs if there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union.

---

“Arctic Convoys” Theme: access to Allied Lend-Lease material, support to Russia via the Arctic supply route (Archangel and Murmansk).
+5 ipcs if Allies control Archangel and Karelia, and sz 125 is free of Axis warships.

“Persian Corridor” Theme: support to Russia via the Trans-Iranian supply route.
+5 ipcs if Allies control Persia and Northwest Persia, and sz 80 is free of Axis warships.

“The Northern Trace” Theme: support to Russia via the Northwest Staging route, and Alaska-Siberia Air Road.
+5 ipcs if Allies control Amur and Alaska, and sz 1 is free of Axis warships.

---

“Red Advance” Theme: Propaganda value and spread of communism.
+3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.

“Final Offensive” Theme: National Prestige.
+10 ipcs (one time only) the first time the Soviet Union controls Germany (Berlin).

• Optional +5 ipcs suggested for the separate condition “At war in Europe” when playing without the added supply routes. Suggested +5 if at War in Europe and “not at War with Japan” (NAP). These only if game balance recommends them, or as a bonus against opponents of varying skill. Otherwise “At War in Europe”, serves as a necessary condition which must be met to activate all Soviet NOs, but which awards no ipcs itself.

What does everyone else think, Amur or Soviet Far East?

@Herr:

I wasn’t aware of ALSIB, thanks for the historical note. Though on a broader scale, I’d say that Vladivostok would be possible as well, as it was part of the general Pacific Route.

The Pacific Route does seem to offer a much different flavor than the Northern Trace, but it also seems like something that would only be possible if Russia and Japan are not at war.

I wonder if this might be simplified? As a stand alone NO I would write is like this…

“Pacific Route” Theme: Non Agression Pact with Japan, access to Allied Lend-Lease material, support to Russia via convoys from North America and the Pacific.
+5 ipcs, if the Soviet Union is not at war with Japan.

This would give the Russians an incentive not to DoW Japan. Considering that if Russia and Japan are not war, then this NO would probably have been out historically, or would have to change to something much more complex, like control of Amur, and no axis warships in sz 6. But I think this NO might be interesting as just a simplified way to get Russia +5 ipcs during the initial rounds when they are not at war with Japan. Just like the other NOs, being at War in Europe should be a requirement to activate this aid.

Japan would then be under pressure to shut down the Pacific Route +5 with a DoW, but only at the risk of activating the Northern Trace NO. Under these conditions we could attach Amur to the Northern Trace rather than Soviet Far East, so that if Japan does go to war they are more likely to face Mongolian entry.

Also how do you guys feel about the inclusion of Karelia to the Arctic Convoy NO? I think it would make sense, so that this NO matches the formula of the others: 2 land, 1 convoy each, but again I’m pretty open here. I think the most important thing is just making sure that the Soviet Union actually receives enough NO cash once at war to fight, because otherwise its just a lot of text without much meaningful purpose to the gameplay, same as the OOB stuff we’re trying to fix. I think the way reads above, we’re much closer to a bid free game, which should be the goal.

Right now Persian Corridor will give +5 for at least a few rounds after Germany DoWs, after that its harder to say, since it is certainly possible for Axis to put the squeeze on Persia or sz80. Soviet Sphere of Influence will award +5, at least for as long as Russia can justify keeping Allies out of their land, but eventually that one will be unsustainable too.

Arctic Convoys, and the Northern Trace are going to be harder for Allies to achieve, and its likely that Russia will not receive any money for these, beyond maybe a round or two. But they will both provide distractions for the Axis, so they do have an influence on the gameplay.

The question is, will all that be enough on balance by sides? It seems most of you feel that it would. But if not,  then I suggest +5 to the Soviets for the “at war” condition in europe,  +5 for the “not at war” condition in the Pacific. Either of which could be optional. If we need them.

These two “War condition NOs” could also serve as an alternative to the supply routes, combined with just The Great Patriotic War NO, and the OOB NOs. In which case the most basic three for Russia would be.
+5 if at War in Europe, then…
+5 if no western units on originally red territory, The Great Patriotic War: theme Soviet Sphere of Influence.
+5 if not at War with Japan.

This last formula would work for people who are less interested in the Supply routes with expanded NOs, but something very simple to track. I think either would probably work.

@Herr:

That’s a lot more than the average Allied bid!

Recall that pre-placement Bid units are inherently more valuable than units which enter the game in later rounds through the normal purchasing mechanics. Comparing them at a 1:1 doesn’t take into account the strategic advantage of extra units on the board at the outset. Even going back to Classic, whenever the Bid was restricted to normal income, the ipc amount was always higher than the amount you’d award in pre-placement units, because the ability to break a battles can yield more on the TUV trade in the first round when you bid pre-placement. Also, I think +15 ipcs in Supply is being a bit optimistic for the Allies’ chances. sz 125 is fairly simple to cover with G, so that knocks 5 ipcs right there. Persia seems likely, but again sz80 isn’t all that far away from Japan. Amur is doable for Axis as well, if at a cost of some annoyance in China. So all the supply routes could be contested. That just leaves the +5 ipc for no western units on red land, which is a nice aspiration for the Soviets, but it can be hard to maintain once under pressure. If that one goes, or is traded out to hold on of the supplies, then Russia is still down in the +5 ipcs per round range or potentially down to zero in NOs.

If it balances just with the supply and the Great Patriotic War, then that’s great, but if those NOs are not enough, then we have the “At War in Europe” or “Not at War in the Pacific” ideas. These could be kept at the ready to boost the Soviets if needed, or as an alternative to bidding for the weaker player.

Thanks CWO  Marc, I was hoping you’d drop by and help vet some of these.

I think the basis for the relatively high value of supply value of the NOs awarded, comes from the fact that Allies are returning so few victories. OOB no bid, and it is virtually impossible for Allies to win. Russia is so nerfed to begin with, and all there objectives are stalled on the DoW. I agree it’s debatable whether the Persian Corridor might be a gift, but sz 80 does provide Japan with some options. If it came down to attaching Egypt or India, I would probably substitute just one of these for Northwest Persia to keep with with the 2 land 1 convoy formula. But I do believe on balance that Russia needs more money. Considerably more than they receive OOB, if you’re going to support a no bid game for Allies.

I agree the 10 ipcs for Berlin is probably the worst of all. It leads me to think that most of the NOs in G40 were probably included before the game was thoroughly playtested. That one is just enitrely pointless, it is not a game driver, the objective to take Berlin is so obvious and so decisive already, it doesn’t need an extra NO to make it happen. Total waste of space in the rulebook hehe