G40 - National Objective Variant: Improves Balance



  • This is an attempt to correct, or somewhat mitigate the pro-Axis slant that many players of G40 have observed, without the need for bids that go well into the double digits.

    Attached is a playable G40 saved game (from the purchase phase of G1) containing three additional national objectives, as well as a few other minor tweaks, that seek to address the balance issues.

    The national objectives (credit to Adam514 for coming up with the idea) are as follows:

    1. Western Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Normandy, Holland, Southern France.

    2. Southern Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives UK + 5 PUs: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece.

    3. Vital Forward Bases: Allied control of all of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Wake Island, Midway, Caroline Islands, Marianas.

    Other minor tweaks:

    1. In air raids, fighters attack and defend at 2 (rather than 1). Bombers and tac bombers still attack and defend at 1.

    2. The Russian bonus for controlling originally axis territories now applies only to mainland Europe (excluding Iraq, Africa, etc.)

    To play, simply load it up as a saved game and take it from there (note: the additional objectives may not appear in the “Objectives” panel, but you will see them listed on the income screen once you achieve them).

    Do you think the objectives go far enough? Overcorrection? Do they improve the gameplay experience? Would be interested to hear your all’s feedback, and any help with play testing would be appreciated.

    RegularkidBalanceVariant.tsvg


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 Moderator

    Thank you for your time in coming up with this idea.
    I am one of those whiners that believe the NOs are messed up. I also thought of removing some from Germany, never adding any. Might make for  a pleasant change.
    Of course an extra 5 for Russia would not go amiss! Actually, rereading your post, I fear that your list may not help as much as I first thought.
    I will find a partner and try it out, however.



  • Wittmann, thanks for your comment.

    The advantage of adding allied national objectives (as opposed to simply removing Axis sing/decreasing income) is to potentially create more dynamic gameplay experience.

    For example, the idea behind the Western European Beach Head NO, apart from adding allied income, is to give the Axis a stronger reason to actually defend those territories. As it now stands, there is rarely any “Atlantic Wall” in G40.  Instead, experienced Axis players just leave a few inf/art garrisoned in Paris to retake coastal territories if need be, otherwise allow the coastal territories themselves to remain undefended. This national objective seeks to correct that, incentivizing Euro-Axis to defend the coast, which, in turn, takes some heat off Russia.

    Anyhow, please do play test it, and let me know your experience. Would welcome ur feedback/suggestions.



  • Hi regularkid,

    thanks’ for your suggestions!
    Especially the “Southern European Beachhead” seams interesting to me. I like the idea of adding greater importance to the Mediterranean; especially the islands.
    On the other hand – at least concerning a financial aspect – these NOs won’t help the allies. I think once you get them you don’t need them any more. (Like a bank loans you money when you’re no longer in dept.  😄 )
    If you just want to hurt Germany or force them to deploy more troops in western Europe, merge the NOs for the occupation of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad into one NO (“If Germany occupies one of the following three cities … receive +5 IPCs”) and add Denmark to your “Western European BH” NO.

    Greetings,
    Lars



  • Alternatively (instead of the W/S EBH and the VFB), Russia could get a real lend-lease NO for a change, to mitigate the economic castration that befalls Russia almost always, which is absolute bull––. As long as the allies have at least 1 ‘connection’ (free of axis warships) to Moscow during wartime, Russia gets +5 IPCs till turn 5, +10 IPCs from turn 6 to turn 10 and from turn 11 and onwards +15 IPCs per turn. Note that this also obsoletes the Russian SZ125 NO.
    Basically this gives any extra income towards Russia instead of the USA.

    BTW, I don’t think the axis ever have enough income to build an atlantic wall. Even if they had, the best cost-effective way to defend it still remains: build a large reaction force (mech + air) that attacks allied asses after they invaded. That way only Western Germany needs to be defended and the rest of the areas will be counterattacked, freeing up a lot of resources that Germany can still throw into Russia.



  • Hmm, well during WW2, there were 3 Lend-Lease routes into Russia: via the White Sea, through Persia, and across the Pacific into Siberia. So perhaps we can give 5 IPC’s per route:

    Archangel route: control Archangel and no Axis warships in 125.

    Persia route: Allies control all 3 Persian territories.

    Pacific Route: Allies control Alaska and Siberian coast.


  • 2019 2017

    There will still be a bid needed for balance of course, it would simply be reduced a bit.

    The goal of these changes, as regularkid said, is to promote actual thinking in regions that usually don’t require much reflection, such as defending the coastal territories in Western Europe. Germany will have to decide if they want to continue their push on Russia or slow it down to prevent an Allied income increase.

    As for the Southern Europe NO, I don’t know how many people noticed this, but when I’m Allies and Italy gets a chance to mess around in North Africa (not including Egypt), Gibraltar and Syria a bit and invests resources into navy/tps, I find it’s easier to win as Allies than when Italy invests in mechs and tanks to open for Germany against Russia (and then buys inf to defend against invasions), which is kind of illogical. This NO encourages Italy a little to keep investing in the Med.

    The island NO in the Pacific should spark some naval conflict in areas that would otherwise be ignored.

    In my games (I try to get 3-4 African territories and Iraq with Russia), Russia always has more than enough money for 10 production in Moscow, so adding even more money to Russia wouldn’t make that much of a difference after round 5-7 when Volgograd is occupied. If you remove the African territories from the Russian NO (though I think Iraq should still be included), then you can consider another NO for Russia, but it has to be contestable in order for it to improve gameplay.



  • Thanks guys for your feedback.

    First, I agree with everything Adam said. Also liked what The Hessian offered about adding Denmark to the “Western European Beach Head” objective, since it is a coastal territory in mainland Western Europe. Makes sense. Would also make the objective somewhat easier to accomplish.

    So, I’ve added new version of the variant, with the following slight tweaks to the “Beach Head” objectives.

    1. US gets +5 PUs if allies control 2 of the 4: Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark.

    2. UK gets +5 PUs if allies control 2 of the 4: Southern Europe, Sicily, Sardinia, Greece.

    Regarding the “Atlantic Wall,” I agree that we are unlikely to see Axis players mounting defenses of the entire western shore, as happened historically;Germany simply can’t afford it. But, on the other hand, the “Beach Head” objective should incentivize at least SOME defense of the coast, so you don’t have the common situation of a single allied transport with a single infantry taking Normandy unopposed. And the money spent to prevent those kinds of incursions is money that is not spent on the Eastern Front, so, in theory, it will help for balance purposes.

    Great feedback ya’ll. Keep it coming!

    RegularkidG40BalanceVariantv2.tsvg
    RegularkidG40BalanceVariantv2.tsvg



  • @regularkid:

    This is an attempt to correct, or somewhat mitigate the pro-Axis slant that many players of G40 have observed, without the need for bids that go well into the double digits.

    Axis has the advantage in G40?


  • TripleA

    Aww no Russia NO for africa 😞 Should give Russia his 2 inf a round spawning in siberia.



  • The revised version of the Map we played today (with the expanded Russian NO). Enjoy.

    RegularkidG40BalanceVariantv3.tsvg



  • Based on your feedback, I’ve made a couple of tweaks to the variant. The most recent version is attached for play testing.

    Changes from the original version are indicated by underscoring:

    Revised Russian National Objectives

    1. Spread of Communism: Bonus for Russian control of originally Axis/Pro-Axis territories is confined to mainland Europe (excluding Africa, Iraq, mid-east Islands, etc.).

    2. Lend Lease: Russia receives +5 PUs, when at war with Germany/Italy, if at least one of three historical Lend-Lease lanes is “open” (i.e., the lane territory is friendly-controlled and there are no enemy warships in the corresponding sz). The Lend-Lease lanes are as follows:

    a. Archangel, sz 125
    b. Persia, sz 80
    c. Siberia, sz 5

    As in the original version of the NO, the presence of non-Russian allied units in originally Russian territory cancels out the objective.

    (Hat tip to calvinhobbesliker and ItIsILeClercs for this change. I enjoyed reading up on the subject)

    Other Allied National Objectives

    1. Western Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, Denmark.

    (Hat tip to The Hessian for this change)

    2. Southern Europe Beach Head: Allied control of at least two of the following gives UK + 5 PUs: Southern France, Sicily, Sardinia, Greece.

    3. Vital Forward Bases: Allied control of all of the following gives USA +5 PUs if at war: Wake Island, Midway, Caroline Islands, Marianas, Marshall Islands.

    (Hat tip to Gencre for this change)

    Air Raids

    Fighters attack and defend at 2 during air raids. Strategic and tac bombers attack at 1.

    Play-Testing

    Over the last week, I had the chance to play test the variant a half-dozen times times, both as Allies and Axis. Some observations:

    1. Axis players generally were more proactive in defending Western Europe against small-sale allied incursions.

    2. In two games, Italy used its surving transport (after Taranto) to move defensive units to sicily and sardinia.

    3. In all but one of the games, the changes to the Lend Lease objective effectively extended Russia’s +5 PU bonus until entry of allied units into Russia (usually by round 6 or 7). Mostly, no serious effort was made to contest the objective. However, in one game I was able to defeat it by getting a sub to sz 80 by round 4.

    4. The 2 attack/defense value of fighters during air raids significantly reduced the frequency of unescorted bombing raids. Dark skies was not attempted in any of the games I played (whether due to the changes, or a coincidence, I don’t know).

    5. The “Vital Forward Bases” objective encouraged “island-hopping,” as well as early naval engagement in the central-pacific, which was fun.

    Thanks again for ur feedback guys. Am curious to hear your thoughts on the changes. Shoot me a message if you’d like to arrange a play test.

    RegularkidG40BalanceVariantv5.tsvg


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

  • 12
  • 6
  • 3
  • 4
  • 16
  • 21
  • 6
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

49
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts