G40 Redesign NOs specific thread


  • 2017 '16

    This thread is a copy of many posts in original Redesign thread.
    The quote link are above the main texts but I left them in regular writing mode to help reading.

    By making a specific thread, I hope it will help gather enough infos and comments to make a consensual decision about this topic.

    @Argothair:

    Here’s that pair of bulleted lists we discussed from a couple of pages ago! Let me know if you have anything to add to either list, or if you see any goals that have no methods that would help achieve the goals, or if you see any methods that don’t help achieve any goals.

    | GOALS

    • Balance Allies vs. Axis

    • Offer alternatives to a joint Axis attack on Moscow

    • Offer alternatives to having all players focus on the center

    • Encourage Japan & USA to fight in the Pacific theater

    • Allow the USA to get into the game more quickly

    • Give China a chance to resist the initial Japanese attacks

    • Offer more opportunities for players to build navies

    • Reduce time needed to get troops across an ocean

    • Encourage Germany to defend the Atlantic Wall in Western Europe

    • Reduce power of strategic bombers when used against warships

    • Encourage interceptions and dogfights vs. strategic bombers

    • Provide a victory condition other than concession or sudden death

    • Increase the focus on the Battle of the Atlantic / submarine raids

    • Enhance the value of cruisers and battleships

    • Reduce ‘gamey’ incentives when liberating a dead ally’s territory

    • Help ensure an interesting role for France, Italy, Canada, and/or ANZAC

    • Simplify purchasing decisions

    • Give players something to buy for 5 IPCs

    • Increase ‘thematic’ feel of submarines

    | METHODS

    • Standard bid of extra units

    • Bid of extra cash income each turn

    • Alter the turn order (America first, China first)

    • Increase territory values in Pacific

    • Increase national objectives in the periphery

    • Increased number of victory cities

    • Victory cities provide lend-lease ‘warchest’

    • Limited movement b/w Russia & Western China

    • Discounted ships / redesigned naval cost structure

    • C5 defenseless bombers

    • Additional airplane types

    • Defender gets to soak free hits vs. purely amphibious attacks

    • ‘Fortress Europe’ national objective for unbroken control of Western Europe

    • M3 transports / cruisers / all boats

    • Enhanced naval bases, air bases, infantry bases

    • Double warchest bonus after reaching threshold # of victory cities

    • Convoy zones for submarine raids

    • Alter special abilities of destroyers vs. subs vs. planes

    • Cruisers / BBs can fire anti-aircraft shots

    • Cruisers / BBs can carry marines

    • All ships are cheaper

    • Standardize ship prices at $6 - $9 - $12 - $15

    • Territories become pro-neutral after capital falls

    • Liberation / return of territory to original owner is optional

    • Vichy France / France joins Nazis

    • French partisans placed w/o capital

    • French capital in London or Africa

    • Redistributions of British economy / turn among Canada, ANZAC, UK Pacific

    • Revamped factory system (more tiers? Higher unit caps for all factories? X units + 2 infantry?)

    |

    Edited per Baron Munchhausen’s additions

    @CWO:

    @Black_Elk:

    Lately I’ve been thinking more and more of an evolutionary/selection approach rather than an engineering/design approach, ever since Barney figured out a way to include several different standardized HR options into a single package. The thought being that with so many variables, it would require a different balance corrective depending on which house rules are in play anyway. So more ways to introduce cash might be helpful depending on for example whether one chooses to use a C5 bomber or a C12 bomber. Or whether one introduces a VC cash grab, or just wants to play using the OOB VCs. Whether one uses standard capital rules or China rules for everyone post capital collapse. Playing with a new NAP or not etc.

    I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title. But I think the a la carte HR concept as the first step basically requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in the near term. Once the tools are in the tool chest, with the standard options outlined, it becomes a lot easier to build a particular modification out of those materials. As opposed to pre-planning everything to the Nth degree. And it’s easy enough to edit as we go along, for things that need adjustment. So for NOs I would just try to ballpark it right now, get some working values out, with the understanding that they may need to change as the result of feedback.

    Perhaps this methodology may seem rather backwards compared to the approach used to develop OOB game, but “grand design” type mod projects have been tried several times with several boards and often still seem to fall rather short, even when the playgroup is pretty large and the testing periods are pretty extensive, with multiple Alphas etc.

    I still think by far the easiest method to balance the board under any conditions, is either by adjusting the starting cash or through a standard bid. So I don’t know if the OOB balance is really best place to start. I’m more interested in other things. Fine tuning the balance by sides seems easier to me than most of this other stuff, since it can almost certainly be achieved by just adding a number to the starting cash of individual nations, or else adding combat units via a bid mechanism.

    I suppose at this point I am trying to see which of the many ideas/options under consideration will actually stick, since the brainstorming threw a lot of stuff at the wall. There are currently a couple dozen HR tech adds in the tripleA gamefile. Some of which may work as stand alones, others more in conjunction with a series of HRs. Some may prove less popular, hard to say at this point.

    “Backward” may not be quite the right word.  Along the lines of what I discussed a few posts ago, when I was talking about design methodologies, I think it’s more a case of what the logical outcome is for a particular design approach.

    In one approach (call it the goal-driven approach), Step A is to set the specific objectives of the project, as clearly and in as much detail as possible, so that one knows what to aim for.  In such an approach, the Step B which logically follows is to generate ideas and to check them against the objectives set in Step A to see if these ideas fit the desired goal.

    In the reverse approach (call it the option-driven approach), Step A is to generate lots of ideas, without imposing on them any restrictions that pertain to whether or not they fit a precise, detailed goal.  In such an approach, the Step B which logically follows is to figure out what can be done with all of these ideas…in other words, to see how they can be integrated into (to use an automotive analogy) a functional four-wheeled vehicle rather remaining a collection of separate components.  This building-up-from-the-components approach, in its pure form (and I’ll say more about that in a moment), basically creates a situation in which you look at your collection of separate components and say, “Okay, if we put together components A, B and C, we can create a game that does this; if we put together components C, D and E, we can create a game that does that…” and so forth.

    That analogy isn’t perfect in the case of an A&A redesign, of course, because we’re not dealing with a pure form of the building-up-from-the-components approach.  We’re dealing with a game that already exists, and there’s an aspiration to improve it in various ways.  This discussion thread has, by and large, been following the option-driven approach rather than the goal-driven approach, so Step A / Step B as described under the goal-driven approach don’t apply.  However, because we’re dealing with a pre-existing game, Step A / Step B as described under the option-driven approach don’t necessarily have to apply either because there’s another option…and I think it’s perhaps what Black Elk was driving at in the part of his post that I’ve quoted.

    To go back to my automotive analogy, I think that at this point Black Elk isn’t aiming for a single finished product, but rather is aiming to create a “car customization kit” that would present a whole bunch of options to the individual car buyer and which would leave it up to each individual buyer to decide what features he wishes to use in the customized car he orders.  The basic car would always be the same, but it could be customized in all kinds of ways: Do you want a moderately conservative blue paint job, a very conservative black one, or a flashy red one?  Whitewall tires or black?  An upgraded music / sound system?  Manual transmission or automatic?  Retractable hood or fixed?  Do you want leather-covered seats?  Do you want armoured doors and bullet-proof windows, if you’re a VIP type of person?  And so forth.  And it would be up to the buyer to be sensible about what options he would combine, because some combinations would be less optimal than others.  (Example: the previously-mentioned safety-conscious VIP who wants to keep a low profile would be poorly served by a car that combined armour plating and bullet-proof glass with a retactable roof and a flashy red paint job.)

    Black Elk said at one point that “I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title.”  That’s possibly one way of looking at it, but an alternate way of looking at it would be in purely practical terms.  Since any A&A redesign process involving more than one person is almost guaranteed to generate various degrees of disagreement, and since even a single person may be at a loss to decide which among many options he wants to use to solve a given problem (because choosing option X means rejecting option Y), the whole “problem” of reaching a decision can be avoided entirely by offloading the problem to the end user (the car buyer, in my analogy) by saying: “Here are the options we’ve devised for you; now go ahead and choose which ones you want to use.”  It’s pragmatic.  And in a sense, it also solves another old problem: replayability.  Any “finalized” redesign of A&A is likely to meet with the same fate as the OOB game: it will get decoded and “solved” to the extent that experienced players will eventually figure out the optimal set-piece moves for each power…and, ironically, will also figure out the redesign’s flaws, which in turn will make them want to redesign the game again, which will bring us right back to the starting point for all of this.  The car-customization-kit approach, by contrast, creates the possibility that players will never play twice under the same set of rules, which automatically creates variety.  In such a scenario, the “testing different combinations” phase would not be a means to achieve the end-result of the redesign process; the practice of playing with different combinations would instead be the actual end result of the redesign process.


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    @Black_Elk:

    OK full list

    Sphere of Influence Violations:
    -10 ipcs from Russian income, if Western units in Soviet territories.
    -10 ipcs from British income, if Soviet units in Western territories.
    -10 ipcs from German income, if Japanese units in European Axis territories.
    -10 ipcs from Japanese income, if European Axis units in Japanese territories.

    NAP Violations:
    -10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
    -10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Russia is first to break the non aggression treaty.

    Objective Bonuses

    GERMANY:
    +5 if not at War with Russia
    +5 for each Axis controlled territory: England, Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
    +5 for control of Norway and Denmark together, if Sweden is neutral.
    +5 for control of Normandy and Holland together.

    RUSSIA:
    +5 if not at war with Japan.
    +2 for Axis territories under Soviet control.
    +5 if at War, for each open supply route: Persian Corridor, Pacific Route ALSIB Northern Trace, Arctic Route.

    UK EUROPE:
    +5 for each Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.

    UK PACIFIC:
    +5 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung.

    JAPAN:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.
    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.
    +10 if Japan controls Hawaii.

    USA:
    +10 at War
    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    +5 one time bonus for each Kamakazi island captured by Allies.

    CHINA:
    +6 Burma Road.

    ITALY:
    +1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.
    +5 if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean.

    ANZAC:
    +3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.

    FRANCE:
    +10 if Allies control Paris.

    Total Axis Objectives: 10
    Total Allied Objectives: 12
    Total Sphere of Influcen/NAP penalties: 6

    Exactly 28 entries, same as OOB. But covering way more ground.

    I bumped Redesign NOs.
    Gibraltar already worth something in them.
    5 for UKE and 1 for Italy.
    You may add
    ITALY:
    +1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.
    +5 if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean or Gibraltar owned.

    That way, it may represent how it allows to watch Med shipping
    But, it provides a way to Italy to get 6$ from Gibraltar (1 Med TT +5 Gib owned).
    Without cumulative effect of Gibraltar + no allied ships which would give 10 IPC otherwise.

    For Japan, do you think it is too difficult:
    +10 if Japan controls Hawaii and Midway.
    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.

    That way Hawaii worth 1 for TT + 1 for being an Allies island TT, + 1 as VC and +10 bonus.
    Midway is now part of the deal +1 for being an Allies island TT.
    It now gives an incentive to fight over Midway first, then Hawaii.

    Compared to OOB USA NOs, this seems nerfed a lot:
    USA:
    +10 at War
    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.

    OOB:

    If all basic TTs are US, it is +10 (EUSA, CUSA,WUSA)
    +5 (Alaska, Aleutian, Hawaii, Johnston and Line)
    +5 (Mexico, SEMexico, Central America and West Indies)

    Why do you change France for Normandy?

    +5 if at War and Allies control France

    South Pacific Island National Sovereignty issues theme could be:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    American Continental National Sovereignty issues theme could be:
    +5 (Aleutian, Alaska, Mexico, SEMexico, Central America and West Indies)

    That way USA income stay as normal.

    It provides a incentive to defend them and for Japan to invade at least 1 of each group.

    Aleutian stay interesting target for Japan: +1 IPC -5 for USA.

    However, Panama is not a big NO in this.

    The issue with a basic National Sovereignty like:
    +1 for each US Territory under US control (Pacific and European theaters) if at war.
    Is that it gives not much motive to invade one or another TT, always same little IPCs swing.
    This could at least provide for the other part of +10 for being at war.(Increasing US cash on hand)

    USA has already 4 NOs but as we just discussed how encourage historical play pattern toward Midway, Wake and Aleutian?
    How Panama canal can be depicted as a vital node in Allies/US strategy making it a huge success if captured by Axis?

    Here are localities that were very important and why:

    Panama canal ( it takes alot longer to go around South America to bring supplies to the war effort)
    Midway- obvious

    +10 if Japan controls Hawaii and Wake or Midway?
    +10 if Japan controls Panama, Aleutian and Alaska?
    (Theme: capture of vital US PTO intelligence and communication center.)

    The Dardanelles are important, but I don’t see how you can realistically incorporate them into G40, given that Turkey is a neutral. Similarly with other canals and straits, their presence and control is already valuable in a strategic sense for ship movement. I suppose an economic bonus given for controlling them wouldn’t be a bad idea, but that would have to be factored into other bonuses and income expected for each Power. Unless the intent is for them to be only opposite objectives… such that the Axis get economic bonuses for controlling original Allied straits/canals and Allies get bonuses only for controlling originally Axis straights/canals. That sounds kinds cool actually.


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    I like these three:
    ITALY
    +1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.
    +5 if no Allied ships in the Med

    UK Europe
    +5 for each Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.

    ANZAC
    +3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.

    On the last point, here an interesting post of Regular Kid:
    @regularkid:

    addressing the controversy broadly, making the Solomon Islands the lynch pin for ANZAC’s island NOs wasn’t even a close call; from both a gameplay perspective and (for me, equally important) a historic perspective, it was obviously the right thing to do.

    If there is any doubt as to the huge strategic importance of the Solomon Islands, you have only to read the first couple paragraphs of this instructive article on the Solomon Islands Campaign, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands_campaign, quoted below:

    "_The Solomon Islands campaign was a major campaign of the Pacific War of World War II. The campaign began with Japanese landings and occupation of several areas in the British Solomon Islands and Bougainville, in the Territory of New Guinea, during the first six months of 1942. The Japanese occupied these locations and began the construction of several naval and air bases with the goals of protecting the flank of the Japanese offensive in New Guinea, establishing a security barrier for the major Japanese base at Rabaul on New Britain, and providing bases for interdicting supply lines between the Allied powers of the United States and Australia and New Zealand.

    "The Allies, to defend their communication and supply lines in the South Pacific, supported a counteroffensive in New Guinea, isolated the Japanese base at Rabaul, and counterattacked the Japanese in the Solomons with landings on Guadalcanal (see Guadalcanal Campaign) and small neighboring islands on 7 August 1942. These landings initiated a series of combined-arms battles between the two adversaries, beginning with the Guadalcanal landing and continuing with several battles in the central and northern Solomons, on and around New Georgia Island, and Bougainville Island.

    “In a campaign of attrition fought on land, on sea, and in the air, the Allies wore the Japanese down, inflicting irreplaceable losses on Japanese military assets. The Allies retook some of the Solomon Islands (although resistance continued until the end of the war), and they also isolated and neutralized some Japanese positions, which were then bypassed. The Solomon Islands campaign then converged with the New Guinea campaign._”

    Given the above, _not i_ncluding the Solomon Islands in an NO entitled “Supply Lines” (i.e., Fiji, Samoa, and Gilbert), would make little thematic sense. As others have noted, taking the island in BM 3.2 negates just 6 PUs of ANZAC’s income as opposed to 5 PUs in the OOB game. . . this is hardly a huge change. Really, the only thing that makes Solomon Islands  unique in BM 3.0 is that it is the only island that can negate all 6 PUs at once. And that seems appropriate.

    Finally, I don’t think it is accurate to say that Solomon Islands was “routinely” taken by Japan in OOB games. That certainly hasn’t been my experience.

    Baron Munchenson, in response to your proposal, thats not really the direction we are going with the NOs.

    @Black_Elk:

    So go with these if we can?

    I think its the ticket.
    😄

    @Black_Elk:

    Sphere of Influence Violations:
    -10 ipcs from Russian income, if Western units in Soviet territories.
    -10 ipcs from British income, if Soviet units in Western territories.
    -10 ipcs from German income, if Japanese units in European Axis territories.
    -10 ipcs from Japanese income, if European Axis units in Japanese territories.

    NAP Violations:
    -10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
    -10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Russia is first to break the non aggression treaty.

    Objective Bonuses

    GERMANY:
    +5 if not at War with Russia
    +5 for each Axis controlled territory: England, Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
    +5 for control of Norway and Denmark together, if Sweden is neutral.
    +5 for control of Normandy and Holland together.

    RUSSIA:
    +5 if not at war with Japan.
    +2 for Axis territories under Soviet control.
    +5 if at War, for each open supply route: Persian Corridor, Pacific Route ALSIB Northern Trace, Arctic Route.

    JAPAN:
    +5 if not at War with the West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.
    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.
    +10 if Japan controls Hawaii.

    UK EUROPE:
    +5 for each Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.

    UK PACIFIC:
    +5 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung.

    USA:
    +10 at War
    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy.
    +5 one time bonus for each Kamakazi island captured by Allies.

    CHINA:
    +6 Burma Road.

    ITALY:
    +1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.
    +5 if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean.

    ANZAC:
    +3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.

    FRANCE:
    +10 if Allies control Paris.

    Total Axis Objectives: 10
    Total Allied Objectives: 12
    Total Sphere of Influence/NAP penalties: 6

    Exactly 28 entries, same as OOB. But covering way more ground.

    @Baron:

    Maybe we can make some good comparison analysis to improve Redesign NOs.

    @regularkid:

    Hey all. Proud to announce the release of G40 Balanced (Balance Mod v3.0). Below is the official ruleset (with changes from the original Mod in blue.  3.0 changes are in red). Attached is a playable saved-game file of the Mod. As before, the national objectives and rule changes are coded for easy playability. Simply load the file as you would any other saved game, and you’re good to go. Also, the new Rules are stated in the “Game Notes” panel.

    Please note that the NOs will not be listed in your “Objectives Panel,” but they are working and the game will automatically keep track of them. If you would like to see the objectives in your “Objectives Panel,” there is an optional download, which will provided in the next post. Hope ya’ll enjoy!

    G40 Balanced - Balance Mod 3.0

    Original Game Credits: Bung, Veqryn

    Mod Squad: Adam514 (co-originator and oracle), Deathbringer1974 (chief executive troll), dust (good at math), dss85 (playtester and game breaker), Gencre (general haha), redrum (XML high priest), Regularkid (co-originator and king of noobs), Young Grasshopper (topper goodwill ambassador)


    REVISIONS


    Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

    Revised Capital Capture Rules: The capture of a player’s capital results in the plunder of that player’s PUs only the first time the capital is taken. Subsequent recapture of the same capital results in the player’s PUs being destroyed.

    Revised Victory Conditions: If Germany is Allied control, an Axis victory in the Pacific requires 7 (rather than 6) Pacific VCs. If Japan is Allied control, an Axis victory in Europe requires 9 (rather than 8 ) Europe VCs.

    New Unit - Marines: Cost 5; Attack at 1; Attack at 2 when involved with an amphibious assault; Defend at 2; No bonus from artillery; Can be loaded onto cruisers and battleships (1 to a ship).

    Note: During amphibious assaults, Battleships and Cruisers may bombard territories other than the one they unload their marines into.  Also during amphibious assaults, Marines attack at 2 even if they arrived over land (to join an amphibious assault by other ground units).  Kamikazes (by themselves) do not prevent and cannot be used against a marine amphibious assault that is from a different power’s cruiser/battleship.  Marines loaded in the combat movement phase must conduct amphibious assault in that same phase.
    Additional National Objectives

    Germany

    • 2 PUs if Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Crete are Axis or Pro-Axis controlled.
    • 5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in either London (the United Kingdom) or Egypt. (This modifies Germany’s “Presence in Egypt” objective).

    Russia

    • 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
    • 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).
    • 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).
    • An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

    Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia.  The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.

    Japan

    • 5 PUs if Axis controls Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands. (This modifies Japan’s “Strategic Perimeter” objective).
    • 5 PUs if Axis controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
      *      3 PUs if Japan controls Iwo Jima and Okinawa and is at war with the USA

    USA

    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas.
    • 5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.
    • 5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.

    China

    • 3 PUs if Allies control Yunnan, Szechwan, Burma, and India. (This modifies China’s “Burma Road” objective).
    • At the start of China’s turn, a Chinese infantry is spawned in each non-coastal Chinese territory under Axis control that is not garrisoned by at least one Axis land unit (i.e., infantry, marine, mech infantry, artillery, or armor). These “guerrillas” engage in combat wherever they are spawned and may not be moved until China’s next turn.

    UK

    • 3 PUs if UK Europe controls all its original territories. (This modifies UK’s “Original Territories” objective).
    • 3 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece, Southern Italy, and Allies have at least one land unit in any of these territories.
    • 3 PUs if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic, excluding szs 112 and 125-127.
    • 3 PUs if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Allied or Pro-Allied controlled.
    • 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if: (1) British control West India and either Egypt or South Africa; and (2) there are no enemy submarines in the western half of the Indian Ocean (sz71,…,sz81).
    • 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if Malaya and Kwantung are Allied controlled. (This modifies UK Pacific’s “Malaya and Kwantung” objective.

    Italy

    • 3 PUs if Malta, Cyprus, and Crete are Axis controlled.

    ANZAC

    • 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese and Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands are controlled by the Allies (other than the Dutch). (This modifies ANZAC’s “Strategic Islands” objective).
    • 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese and the Solomon Islands, Gilbert Islands, Fiji, and Samoa are Allied controlled.
    • 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese, controls all of its original territories, and Malaya is Allied controlled. (This modifies ANZAC’s “Control Original And Malaya” objective).

    VICHY FRANCE RULE SET

    The following rule-set simulates the circumstances and strategic consequences of the Franco-German Armistice, and is intended for play with the G40 Balance Mod.

    Game Conditions for Franco-German Armistice

    At the beginning of France’s turn, if the following conditions are met, the Franco-German Armistice will occur:

    1. Axis has control of both France and Normandy Bordeaux;
    2. Axis has never controlled Southern France; and
    3. There are no non-French, Allied land units in Southern France.

    Game Consequences of Franco-German Armistice

    French Territorial Control: At the beginning of France’s first turn in which Armistice conditions are met, all originally French territories not already under Axis control immediately change ownership to Pro-Axis Neutrals, except: (1) French Equatorial Africa; (2) New Hebrides; (2) any French territories containing non-French allied land units.

    Any non-French allied air units in Vichy-controlled territory are destroyed upon conversion of the territory to Vichy control.

    With the exception of Southern France (see discussion of “Zone Libere” below), Vichy French territory operates the same way as other Pro-Axis Neutral territory. An Axis player may capture Vichy French territory and commandeer its forces by moving a land unit into the territory during the non-combat phase of his turn.

    Fly-over restrictions applicable to other Neutral territories do not apply to Vichy French territory.

    Fleet at Toulon: In addition to the change in French territorial control, the Armistice changes control of the the French fleet in sz 93, from French to Pro-Axis neutral. The Vichy French fleet maintains a strictly defensive posture. It may not be moved. It may not be captured by the Axis. The fleet is immediately destroyed if any power, other than the Free French, occupies Southern France

    "Zone Libre": Any Axis occupation of Southern France following the Armistice results in the scuttling of the Vichy French Fleet at Toulon and the disbandment of all remaining Vichy French forces. These forces are removed at the end of the Axis player’s turn in which the occupation of Southern France takes place. Any formerly Vichy French forces that were previously commandeered by the Axis are unaffected by this change.

    Armistice’s Effect on National Objectives: Following the armistice, Southern France is considered Axis-controlled for purposes of Italy’s “Roman Empire” objective. Otherwise, the Vichy France arrangement has no impact on National Objectives. Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco must still be directly occupied by Germany or Italy to achieve Italy’s “North Africa” objective. Japanese occupation of French Indo China still negates Japan’s “Trade With America” objective.

    Liberation of France: The Allied liberation of France effectively terminates the Armistice. Any territory and forces still under Vichy French control (including any surviving fleet in sz 93) revert back to Free French control. The Vichy French forces in the Southern France and sz 93 will also revert back if Southern France is liberated by the Free French.


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Shifting gears back to 1942.2 for a moment. Since we are doing House Rule objectives for G40, I think we could also consider these for 1942.2
    I would suggest that we keep Sphere of Influence and the NAP for v5, but reduce the penalty to fit with the smaller board. Something like…

    Sphere of Influence Violations:
    -5 ipcs from Russian income, if Western units in Soviet territories.
    -5 ipcs from British income, if Soviet units in Western territories.
    -5 ipcs from German income, if Japanese units in European Axis territories.
    -5 ipcs from Japanese income, if European Axis units in Japanese territories.

    NAP Violations:
    -5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
    -5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Russia is first to break the non aggression treaty.

    The closest board in scale to 1942.2 (and its predecessor) is AA50, with 6 players and 18 total objectives.
    In 1942.2 we have 5 players. I think this would recommend something in the range of 15 total objectives, or perhaps a dozen.

    We should fold the Italian objectives into the German objectives for sure, but there are others which would also need to be adapted for a board like 1942.2. China is not a separate nation in v5 for example, but it could likewise be folded into US or Soviet objectives to suggest Chiang or Mao.
    The values in AA50 can also be rather high, suggesting +5 for pretty much everything. I think some of these could probably go down in value or be somewhat more focused to match the economy and playscale of v5, which is more limited in scope.

    Below is the AA50 list…
    Which objectives get axed, and what do we change so it makes more sense for V5?

    National Objectives Germany: Lebensraum-
    +5 PUs if Axis control France, NW Europe, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Poland.
    +5 PUs if Axis control 3 of Baltic States, East Poland, Ukraine, East Ukrain, and Belorussia.
    +5 PUs if Axis control Karelia or Caucasus

    Japan: The Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere-
    +5 PUs if Axis control Manchuria, Kiangsu, and French Indo China.
    +5 PUs if Axis control 4 of Kwangtung, East Indies, Borneo, Philippine Islands, New Guinea and Solomon Islands.
    +5 PUs if Axis control 1 of Hawaiian Islands, Australia, or India

    Italy: Mare Nostrum-
    +5 PUs if Axis control 3 of Egypt, Trans Jordan, France, and Gibraltar
    +5 PUs if Axis control Italy, Balkans, Morocco and Libya AND no enemy surface ships in sea zones 13, 14, or 15.

    United States: The Arsenal of Democracy-
    +5 PUs if Allies control France.
    +5 PUs if Allies control Philippine Islands.
    +5 PUs Allies control W U.S., Central U.S., and E U.S.
    +5 PUs if Allies control 3 of Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands, and Solomon Islands.

    United Kingdom: The British Empire-
    +5 PUs if Allies control any territory originally controlled by Japan.
    +5 PUs if Allies control E Canada, W Canada, Gibraltar, Egypt, Australia and South Africa.
    +5 PUs if Allies control France or the Balkans.

    Soviet Union: The Great Patriotic War-
    +5 PUs if Soviets control Archangel and no allied forces in Soviet controlled territories.
    +10 PUs if Allies control 3 of Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Balkans.

    China: Chinese Resistance & The Flying Tigers  
    +1 infantry for every two territories controlled by China at the beginning of her turn. These infantry must be place in a territory with less than three Chinese pieces. No Chinese Units, including the Chinese Fighter may leave Chinese territory (except for Kwangtung) (this means no entering sea zones)

    @Baron:

    For my part, I prefer a much simpler scheme without any other NOs outside these:
    Sphere of Influence Violations:
    -5 ipcs from Russian income, if Western units in Soviet territories.
    -5 ipcs from British income, if Soviet units in Western territories.
    -5 ipcs from German income, if Japanese units in European Axis territories.
    -5 ipcs from Japanese income, if European Axis units in Japanese territories.

    Japan NAP bonus:
    +5 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
    -5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.

    Russia get no bonus (outside keeping intact all Eastern TTs and VCs)
    But suffer no penalty from breaking it.
    However, Japan bonus would remain active for all the rest of the game.

    No complex things to learn and only a NAP which is beneficial to Russia and Japan.

    This would be another incentive to go west for Japan, without compromising the Center Crush strategy.


    Once this said, with option toggle switch on/off, it is still an opportunity to test NOs as a viable concept for 1942.2

    However, VCs will already play a part in strategy.
    I think that it must be as simple as 1 or 2 max per 5 powers, so 5 or 10 NOs at most.

    For Germany, I would use a kind of Atlantic Wall for Europe and Mare Nostrum in Med.

    Atlantic Wall (Fortress Europa):
    +5 PUs as long as these Axis TTy were never conquered by Allies: Norway, NorthWestern Europe and France.
    Once Allies take this once, no more bonus.

    Mare Nostrum:
    +3 PUs If all TTy bordering Med are Axis Controlled: Gibraltar, France, Italy, Southern Europe, Trans-Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Tunisia and Morocco.

    For Russia, it is difficult because VCs (with Warchest might incorporate most of Lend-Lease NOs).
    If Helsinki is chosen as VCs over Archangel, then it may be possible to use:

    Soviet Union: Arctic Convoy route
    +5 PUs if Soviets control Archangel and no axis warship in bordering SZ 4.

    United Kingdom: The British Empire western colonial resources
    +5 PUs if No Axis warship in Atlantic SZ (excluding SZ5 and SZ6) and Gibraltar is an Allies TTy.

    United Kingdom: The British Empire eastern colonial resources
    +5 PUs if No Axis warship in SZ28, SZ33, SZ34 and SZ35 (African East Coast+ India SZ) and Suez Canal is open (Egypt and Trans-Jordan are allied TT).

    Japan: Outer defence perimeter:
    +5 PUs if Japan control Hawaiian Islands, Midway, Wake and Solomon Islands

    Japan: The Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere-
    +5 PUs if Japan control Manchuria, Kiangsu, French Indo-China, Kwantung and Burma.
    +5 PUs if Japan control 1 of Eastern Australia, New Zealand or India.

    (IDK which one is better for Japan)

    United States: The Arsenal of Democracy-
    +5 PUs for each TTy Allies control: France, Philippine Islands or Kwantung.
    +1 PUs for each original Axis Pacific Island TTy owned by Allies.

    Here is my first draft. 10 NOs+ NAP and Sphere of Influence Violations…


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    @General:

    @Baron:

    @General:

    It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

    I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

    Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

    I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
    Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

    About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
    While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
    Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
    With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
    I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
    NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

    I like the idea of putting a minor industrial complex on West India and downgrading the major in India to a minor. As part of this tradeoff in the global game, Bombay can serve as a backup capital for UK Pacific.

    Regarding Panama, adding a national objective for both US and Japan makes sense, and a naval base there would reward Japan for making the effort to get there. I still think it can be integrated in a global game as a minor victory city of some kind given it’s strategic importance.

    ITALY NOs:
    +1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.

    +5 for each, if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean OR Gibraltar & Morocco are Axis captured, Axis conquest of Suez Canal (Egypt and Trans-Jordan), Axis conquest of Panama’s Canal.
    Theme: Control of Allied waterways and vital communication centers.

    JAPAN NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Hawaii AND either Wake or Midway

    +5 for each, Japan controls Panama or Aleutian AND Alaska
    Theme: capture of vital US PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    Does something like this can still suit you?
    So both Japan and Italy would benefit from Panama’s canal.

    UK EUROPE:
    +5 for each Allied controlled territory: Panama, Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.

    +5 if Allied controlled: Skagerrak-Kategatt strait (Norway and Denmark),
    Theme: Capture of vital Axis iron ore trading and communication waterways.

    What about this one?
    Enough NOs for Canal control?

    @Argothair:

    I like the proposed changes to India. I’m indifferent on the W. Canada naval base.

    I think Panama should have a naval base, and should be part of a major NO for the USA based on tropical naval supremacy, e.g., +10 for USA if Allies control all of Panama, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America and there are no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

    This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.


  • 2017 '16

    @Imperious:

    I would like to see some NO’s randomized or areas like VC provide some randomized cash bonus.

    Like capture Baku get one D6 roll per turn representing oil from this region. Or alternatively, if say Italy closes the Suez, the British player loses random D6 roll of cash per turn. Some captured areas represent not much for the new owner, but a strategic cost to the original owner.

    The game only represents “if you take this, you get this” Sometimes if you take this, you gain nothing but the original player loses something.

    Rostov-on-Don oil field

    You mean Maykop oil center?  Rostov doesn’t have any oil, its just the “gateway to the Caucasus”, so if you control it you can supply any point south or east


  • 2017 '16

    @CWO:

    @Argothair:

    This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

    This actually raises an interesting point about objectives in general (such as victory cities, national objectives, national advantages and so forth).  The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”, meaning an objective that benefits one specific side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by that side, but that doesn’t benefit the enemy side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by the enemy.  From the enemy’s point of view, therefore, taking control (or whatever) of that objective has what could be called the “single benefit” of depriving the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective.

    By contrast, a “symmetrical-benefit objective” would be an objective that benefits whichever side controls (or whatever) the objective.  From the enemy’s point of view, taking control (or whatever) of such an objective has a “double benefit” effect: you not only deprive the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective, you also get to make use of those IPCs (or other desirable features) for your own purposes.


  • 2017 '16

    @CWO:

    @Baron:

    Thanks for this concept: symetrical/asymmetrical benefit objective.
    Was Suez Canal a symetrical benefit objective if Axis would have reached it historically ?

    No, Suez was an asymmetrical (single-side benefit) canal.  It was valuable to the British because it offered them a shortcut sea route (both for trade and for military purposes) between Britain and the parts of the empire that were located in the Indian Ocean / Pacific / Asia areas.  It also offered a roundabout route (via the Cape of Good Hope) from Britain to the Middle East, if the partially-Axis-controlled Mediterranean was too hazardous for shipping (especially for troop ships, which were very valuable).

    Suez was of no direct use to the Axis in WWII (in its historical form) because Germany/Italy in Europe and Japan on the other side of the world were essentially fighting separate wars and had little reason (and no significant means) to send stuff to each other.  Suez might have been marginally useful to the Axis if Germany and Italy had conquered the Middle East (for oil) and had teamed up with Japan to capture India…and even then, from Germany’s point of view, that would mainly have been a land campaign.

    @Baron:

    @Argothair:

    The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”

    That’s very well-put, CWO Marc. In case I wasn’t clear before, I believe that objectives that were historically asymmetrical should always offer an in-game benefit to only one side. If you want to make that benefit more radical, you can do that by increasing the size of the benefit.

    For example, suppose you think Panama was just the most important territory in the whole world, and you want a 30 IPC swing, but you agree that Japan would not have been able to make economic use of the territory. So, give the USA 30 IPCs/turn if and only if it controls Panama, and then Japan (or Germany) can try to deny America the use of the canal in order to inflict major pain on the American economy.

    Conversely, suppose you think Malta was of only minor importance, so you want no more than a 4 IPC swing, but you agree that Malta would have been symmetrically useful for both the UK and Italy. So, make Malta worth 2 IPCs for Italy if it controls Malta, and 2 IPCs for the UK if it controls Malta, and then you’ll have the right-sized swing while maintaining symmetry.

    The examples are just examples – the point is that symmetry and size are two different variables, and we should strive to tailor each of them appropriately for each objective.

    I still maintained that economical (Industrial in IPC) values and strategic (Progress in IPC) values (such as cutting enemy’s resources access ways) should be rewarded.

    As far as I understand balancing working on BMode, NOs bonus play a major part in it.
    At the actual development stage, I believe these numbers should not be totally determined and fixed in cold stone. However, I believe major NOs centered around resources and communication ways should be generally described as symetric or asymetric per side as more beneficial  to one or more powers.

    That way, it may gives a general guideline to ascribe general values, such as Skageratt strait worth both sides but less to one, so can be +5 Germany vs +3 for Allies, or Normandy could worth a lot to Germany +10 but +5 to UK and US Allies, still making an even exchange. Just for the example.

    However, giving a lot to one side and nothing in return, but in an impossible zone to fight for will be like giving a free +10 when at war.
    I cannot not insist IPC should mean something like Industrial or Income and Progress Credits.

    The real increase in production is on as most as possible peaceful home-land. Destroying assets is never a way to increase production capacity. Engineering can do a lot on productivity but with destroyed equipment it is hard to improve production.


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    Yeahs its definite a downside that more information isn’t represented directly on the map. We tried to come up with some simplified convoy systems using roundels, or sz with a value marker. Right now in tripleA the convoy and blockade option does offer at least a sz control marker, which I think helps. But yeah this is an area where I think we could do some good.

    On the asymmetry/symmetry thing, I think for VCs (and to a certain extent the printed ipc values on the OOB map) you have some suspension of disbelief going on in the OOB game already, where the values are universal for both sides. NO’s on the other hand seem to have been designed from the outset with the idea of trying to somehow get at the asymmetry in a way that feels more realistic. It’s just a little unfortunate that the associated goals don’t have any visual to accompany them on the game map. Not sure there’s a whole lot we can do about that, though I like the idea of keeping the total number of NO’s and number of associated TT’s or SZs a bit easier to memorize/manage.

    I think its great when the game rewards players for knowing their history, and that’s where the NO’s really come into play. But the OOB game does require a fair amount of rote memorization or referencing (and has some oddities, even for people who are well studied) so I still see a lot of areas where we could streamline it.

    I love the Income and Progress Credit idea that Marc offered up, as a way to make the money in this game more flexible. At least the “Progress” part gives us way to blur the lines a little, if we need to make an NO more symmetrical than it might have been in reality, just so the gameplay doesn’t  skew too hard in a game breaking direction, or as a corrective for those situations where the base economy of a specific nation can’t function without a certain amount of money coming in on the regular. I definitely prefer the idea of NO’s focused on TT’s in contention rather than at the core of a nations home territories, so it can be an incentive for the give and take.

    I think I kind of agree with Arg and IL about the approach to Vichy. It seems pretty challenging to make them a full blown player-nation, and would probably lean towards giving control of those TT’s to one side or the other. But I also like the idea of simplified Free France player that works the way China does without a capital. I like the idea that France might behave in a somewhat similar way, once its capital is occupied. A long time back, I suggested the idea of giving China an occupied Capital at Nanking/Shanghai, with the idea that the reason their rules are so peculiar is because they begin play with an occupied capital. Not sure if others liked the idea. In this case the Kiangsu VT would basically be doing double duty, servicing both Shanghai and Nanking. And perhaps if it recovered, maybe it awards China with a more normalized style of gameplay? Don’t know if it would really work, but in any case I do like the idea of giving the Free French something more to work with if they are preserved as a full nation, like a way to spawn units (either with an autospawn, or with a military base) or to collect income somehow.

    @Baron:

    One things which might be helpful, if enough Control Marker available could be, for tabletop, to write bonus number on white side, then let each player put its markers on specific NOs zone or TTy.
    If Hawaii worth 10 IPCs for Japan, you place this 10 visible, when captured you flip this token to Japan flag symbol. That way, all players will see which TTs are in contention. And may look under token to see which power it benefits. For Gibraltar, 2 #5$ tokens one from UK and one from Italy can be left on Gibraltar. UK would be upside while Italy NCMarker would be upside down so 5$ would be visible…


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    @Argothair:

    I like the proposed changes to India. I’m indifferent on the W. Canada naval base.

    I think Panama should have a naval base, and should be part of a major NO for the USA based on tropical naval supremacy, e.g., +10 for USA if Allies control all of Panama, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America and there are no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

    This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

    What about this Argothair:

    Compared to OOB USA NOs, this seems nerfed a lot:
    USA:
    +10 at War
    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.

    OOB:
    If all basic TTs are US, it is +10 (EUSA, CUSA,WUSA)
    +5 (Alaska, Aleutian, Hawaii, Johnston and Line)
    +5 (Mexico, SEMexico, Central America and West Indies)

    Balance Mode:
    Japan

    • 5 PUs if Axis controls Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands. (This modifies Japan’s “Strategic Perimeter” objective).
    • 5 PUs if Axis controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
    • 3 PUs if Japan controls Iwo Jima and Okinawa and is at war with the USA

    USA

    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas.
    • 5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.
    • 5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.

    I know this to much of NOs, but it allows some choice amongst them.
    Which ones do you prefer?
    Maybe it can provide a general direction to make simpler and more accurate ones.

    Offensive USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
    (Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas and Japan)

    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 10 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)

    Defensive USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are USA:

    A- Pacific Islands:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Continental North America:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Continental Central America:
    +5 (Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    That way USA income also stay around normal.

    It provides a incentive for USA to defend them and for Japan to invade at least 1 of each group and especially to target Panama’s canal as a way to undercut 10 IPCs from USA.

    JAPAN:
    Japan Defensive NOs:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.

    Japan Offensive NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Philippines, Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway?
    Theme: capture of 5 vital US Pacific bases and strategic outer defense perimeter.

    +5 for each, if Japan controls Panama OR Aleutian and Alaska OR New South Wales (Sydney)
    Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.

    @Baron:

    @Argothair:

    Sounds good to me!

    Would you prefer that one?
    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways theme could be:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

    @Imperious:

    Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy as before.

    Panama needs to be important, but perhaps it should be a reverse NO. If the axis capture it , US loses 5 IPC. To gain 5 IPC for already having something is just adding income to the game which in turn adds time because your buying more units with more income and it will take longer to destroy more units. Panama is a really easy “objective” so you really just gave the US player a freebee.

    Have you considered this?


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    ANZAC:
    +3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.

    OOB

    • 5 IPCs if an Allied power controls Malaya and ANZAC controls all of its original territories.
      Theme: Malaya considered strategic cornerstone to Far East British Empire.

    • 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.

    +2 for each Allied controlled territory

    Solomons, New Guinea, Dutch New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya

    Theme:

    +5 for each Allied controlled territory

    Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung.

    OOB
    When the United Kingdom Is at War with Japan (awarded to the Pacific economy):

    • 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls both Kwangtung and Malaya.
      Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.

    +2 for each Allied controlled territory

    Burma

    Malaya

    Kwangtung

    OOB
    When the United Kingdom Is at War in Europe (awarded to the Europe economy):

    • 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls all of its original territories in its European economy.

    Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.

    +2 for each

    Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Crete and Cyprus.

    +5 each

    Denmark

    Normandy.

    OOB
    When Italy Is at War:

    • 5 IPCs if there are no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean sea (sea zones 92 through 99).

    Theme: Propaganda and strategic advantage.

    • 5 IPCs if Axis powers control at least 3 of the following territories: Gibraltar, Southern France, Greece, and Egypt.

    Theme: Stated national objectives Greater Roman Empire.
    +5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria.
    Theme: Stated North African military objectives.
    +2 IPCs per territory if Italy controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia.
    Theme: Access to strategic oil reserves.

    ITALY NOs:
    +1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis. (Max.: 13 IPCs)
    +5 if no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean OR Gibraltar is Axis captured OR Suez Canal (Egypt and Trans-Jordan) is Axis controlled.
    Theme: Control of Allied waterways and vital communication centers.

    OOB:
    National Objective and Bonus Income: Germany’s objective is Lebensraum (living space). Extra space was needed for the growth of the German population for a greater Germany. To reflect this objective, Germany collects bonus IPC income during each of its Collect Income phases in the following situations.
    When Germany Is Not at War with the Soviet Union:
    +5 IPCs representing wheat and oil from the Soviet Union.
    Theme: Beneficial trade with the Soviet Union.

    When Germany Is at War with the Soviet Union:
    +5 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Novgorod (Leningrad), Volgograd (Stalingrad), and/or Russia (Moscow).
    Theme: High strategic and propaganda value.
    +5 IPCs if an Axis power controls Caucasus. Theme: Control of vital Soviet oil production.

    When Germany Is at War with the United Kingdom and France:
    +5 IPCs if at least 1 German land unit is in Axis-controlled Egypt.
    Theme: Gateway to the Middle East oilfields (high propaganda value).
    +5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neither pro-Allies nor Allies-controlled.
    Theme: Access to iron ore and other strategic resources.
    +2 IPCs per territory if Germany controls Iraq, Persia, and/or Northwest Persia.
    Theme: Access to strategic oil reserves.

    REDESIGN
    GERMANY:
    +5 if not at War with Russia
    +5 for each Axis controlled territory: England, Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, (Persia and/or Northwest Persia ?).
    +5 for control of Norway and Denmark together, if Sweden is neutral.
    +5 for control of Normandy and Holland together.

    OOB
    When the Soviet Union Is at War in Europe:
    +5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union.
    Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
    +3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.
    Theme: Propaganda value and spread of communism.
    +10 IPCs (one time only) the first time the Soviet Union controls Germany (Berlin).
    Theme: National prestige.

    REDESIGN
    RUSSIA:
    +5 if not at war with Japan.
    +2 for each Axis territories under Soviet control.
    +5 if at War, for each open supply route: Persian Corridor, Pacific Route ALSIB Northern Trace, Arctic Route.

    @Baron:

    @Imperious:

    Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy as before.

    Panama needs to be important, but perhaps it should be a reverse NO. If the axis capture it , US loses 5 IPC. To gain 5 IPC for already having something is just adding income to the game which in turn adds time because your buying more units with more income and it will take longer to destroy more units. Panama is a really easy “objective” so you really just gave the US player a freebee.

    Have you considered this?

    This is what I’m actually considering.
    In fact, USA will probably be around +10 or +15 IPCs NOs (and a few more from VCs) while OOB it was near +15 or +20 IPCs:

    Also, this is why I like Argo suggestion about Axis Submarines in SZ89 and SZ64 nullifying the bonus.
    Making a harsh time on USA, so 5 IPCs bonus would only remain.

    OOB USA NOs
    +10 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Eastern United States, Central United States, and Western United States.
    Theme: Basic national sovereignty.
    +5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, and Line Islands.
    Theme: National sovereignty issues.
    +5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies.
    Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    Offensive USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
    (Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas and Japan)

    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 10 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)

    Defensive USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are USA:

    A- Pacific Islands:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Continental North America:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Continental Central America:
    +5 (Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    OOB
    When Japan Is Not at War with the United States:
    +10 IPCs if Japan is not at war with the United States, has not attacked French Indo-China, and has not made an unprovoked declaration of war against United Kingdom/ANZAC.
    Theme: Strategic resource trade with the United States.

    When Japan Is at War with the Western Allies (United States, United Kingdom/ANZAC and/or France):
    +5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
    Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.
    +5 IPCs per territory if Axis powers control India (Calcutta), New South Wales (Sydney), Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu) and/or Western United States (San Francisco).
    Theme: Major Allied power centers.
    +5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.
    Theme: Strategic resource centers.

    JAPAN:
    Japan Defensive NOs:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.

    Japan Offensive NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Philippines, Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
    Theme: capture of 5 vital US Pacific bases and strategic outer defense perimeter.

    +5 for each, if Japan controls Panama OR Aleutian and Alaska OR New South Wales (Sydney)
    Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control.


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    It gives me 24 NOs actually.
    Easier to approve: ANZAC (1), UKPac (1), Italy (2), UK Europe (2), France (1), China (1)
    Intermediate to approve: Russia (3), Germany (4)
    Harder to determine if still OK: USA (4+) much complexity, Japan (5).

    This excludes all Sphere of influence penalty NOs (4).

    It makes 28 including 3 peacetime NOs: 1 Germany, 2 for Japan.

    My suggested USA NOs list is written in a way to explain three possible Japanese strategy:

    Offense USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)
    (Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas and Japan)

    +1 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 10 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)

    Defense USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are USA:

    A- Pacific Islands:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Continental North America:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Continental Central America:
    +5 (Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis submarines in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    Wake Island, Philippines, Guam were conquered (also part of Japan NOs).
    Midway was next step for Japan to reach its own NO. Wake already cut a US 5 NOs.
    Aleutian were captured by Japan, this cut another 5 IPCs from US.
    Finally, if Panama’s Canal was next target, it would cut another 10 IPCs from US NOs.
    Leaving not much money to built units.

    In addition, A and B are on Pacific map while C and D are on Europe map.

    Would you like to see Greenland as part of North American continental NOs with Alaska and Aleutian ?
    That way, it may allows Germany a way to undercut a US 5 IPCs NO?


  • 2017 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    @Imperious:

    Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy

    For me it would be more important to list the possible expanded objective goals first, then modify the values as needed. Rather than the other way around, if that makes sense? So for example, once you know that Panama is a desired objective, it’s easier to pick an appropriate value relative to the others, or to pull money off another objective and put it into this one, or perhaps modify any of these somewhere down the road if the initial value proves too high/low to make the objective relevant.

    Lately I’ve been thinking more and more of an evolutionary/selection approach rather than an engineering/design approach, ever since Barney figured out a way to include several different standardized HR options into a single package. The thought being that with so many variables, it would require a different balance corrective depending on which house rules are in play anyway. So more ways to introduce cash might be helpful depending on for example whether one chooses to use a C5 bomber or a C12 bomber. Or whether one introduces a VC cash grab, or just wants to play using the OOB VCs. Whether one uses standard capital rules or China rules for everyone post capital collapse. Playing with a new NAP or not etc.

    I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title. But I think the a la carte HR concept as the first step basically requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in the near term. Once the tools are in the tool chest, with the standard options outlined, it becomes a lot easier to build a particular modification out of those materials. As opposed to pre-planning everything to the Nth degree. And it’s easy enough to edit as we go along, for things that need adjustment. So for NOs I would just try to ballpark it right now, get some working values out, with the understanding that they may need to change as the result of feedback.

    Perhaps this methodology may seem rather backwards compared to the approach used to develop OOB game, but “grand design” type mod projects have been tried several times with several boards and often still seem to fall rather short, even when the playgroup is pretty large and the testing periods are pretty extensive, with multiple Alphas etc.

    I still think by far the easiest method to balance the board under any conditions, is either by adjusting the starting cash or through a standard bid. So I don’t know if the OOB balance is really best place to start. I’m more interested in other things. Fine tuning the balance by sides seems easier to me than most of this other stuff, since it can almost certainly be achieved by just adding a number to the starting cash of individual nations, or else adding combat units via a bid mechanism.

    I suppose at this point I am trying to see which of the many ideas/options under consideration will actually stick, since the brainstorming threw a lot of stuff at the wall. There are currently a couple dozen HR tech adds in the tripleA gamefile. Some of which may work as stand alones, others more in conjunction with a series of HRs. Some may prove less popular, hard to say at this point.

    For the NO expansion, I think we’re working under the idea that it’s best if used with a VC expansion (and catered to those conditions), but also could work independently.

    To that last Q, I think Greenland could be added, not sure where it should go though. I suppose if you consider Alaska/Greenland as part of an Arctic control NO they could go together, but it seems to make that one a bit thematically ‘fuzzy.’ I would nix the word “continental” from each, since it’s not very descriptive for any objective that includes Greenland or Aleutians or West Indies.

    I like the idea of regional Sovereignty NOs, where the theme serves as a mnemonic device for the region effected. So in that sense it might be nice to have the Alaska NO as it’s own discrete thing, rather than attaching Greenland (even if I like the idea of Germany have some potential to disrupt a US NO if they managed to conquer that TT.) It never really comes into play at all OOB.

    Of the 4 listed, C seems like the one with least gameplay interest. Because in order to disrupt it Axis would have to hold one of these territories through the US collect income phase, which seems rather challenging for some already far flung TTs. Seems to require that Axis take Central America and land blitz blockers in Mexico to have a chance at holding it long enough to disrupt. Or I guess if G landed in W. Indies, or the US had no blitz units at the ready it’s more doable, but still seems like a lot to take down the NO.

    D seems a lot more attractive since it can be disrupted with ships. I wonder if the wording there needs to specify submarines? Seems like having a destroyer or a carrier or a battleship ought to be equally disruptive. Even if subs are the most likely.

    @Black_Elk:

    ps.

    @Imperious:

    Panama needs to be important, but perhaps it should be a reverse NO. If the axis capture it , US loses 5 IPC. To gain 5 IPC for already having something is just adding income to the game which in turn adds time because your buying more units with more income and it will take longer to destroy more units. Panama is a really easy “objective” so you really just gave the US player a freebee.

    Have you considered this?

    Just to clarify my thought for the US was to eliminate the OOB freebee objective (the one I listed earlier generically as +10 at War) and replace it with a few objectives that are more interesting. That’s basically what Baron did. This shows the OOB objectives and how they might be replaced.

    10 PUs if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled.
    Replaced by the Panama NO, and the Alaska NO.

    5 PUs if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled.
    Replaced by the Hawaii NO

    5 PUs if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled.
    Removed

    5 PUs if USA is at war and the Philippines is American-controlled.
    Replaced by the Axis island NO

    5 PUs each turn the USA has one land unit in France.
    Replaced by the Normandy NO.

    I think the Mexico NO could just be dropped altogether in favor of something else that is more focused/achievable for Axis, or to increase the value of some other NO. Especially if Panama/West Indies sea zones are already incorporated in another NO.


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    Here is another draft based on your intent, Greenland is place with the other ATO TTs NO:
    This provide a way to interrupt this NO via either Panama, Greenland or West Indies opportunistic invasion.
    It keeps Panama as a highly valuable target (cut 10 IPCs).

    Offensive USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)

    Replaced by:

    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 20 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)
    (Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)

    Defensive USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are US control:

    A- Pacific Islands or “Hawaii NO”:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Alaskan Territories:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Atlantic Partnership Territories:
    +5 (Greenland, Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB plus Greenland which fall under treaty case Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    @Black_Elk:

    Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.

    Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.

    @barney:

    You could give the 5 bucks for whack’in it and the 2 bucks for control. Replace “captured” with, “captured or recaptured”

    or “liberated” if you prefer

    @Baron:

    @Black_Elk:

    Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.

    Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.

    Do you think +2 for US might help for one part?
    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters) including Philippines liberated.
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines. (Max.: 22 IPCs= 9 PTO+2 ETO)
    (Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)

    And we should look at Japan NOs to increase the IPCs swing.

    Something like this:

    JAPAN:
    Japan Defensive NOs:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.

    Japan Offensive NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
    Theme: capture of US Pacific bases and strategic defense perimeter.

    +5 for each, if Japan controls Philippines OR New South Wales (Sydney) OR Aleutian and Alaska OR Panama
    Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control. (Max.: 20 Islands = 20 IPCs)

    However, it seems a lot of money will be get easily by Japan: islands (+1) + Philippines (+1 and +5).


  • 2017 '16

    @Imperious:

    i never figured out why Larry when he added NO’s never considered why some areas are of benefit to capture ( which adds income), while other areas cause players problems ( which should cost players income).

    If the allies ever entered the danish channel, Germany should lose ipc
    If the axis take Gibraltar or the Suez, UK loses income
    If Japan takes Panama, US loses Income
    If the Allies Manchuria, Japan loses income
    If the allies sweep the axis out of Africa, Italy loses income
    If the axis control Archangel, Amur, and Persia ( all parts) the Soviets lose income- that’s where 100% of the lend lease came from 25%/50%/25%
    If the Allies take Sweden, Germany loses income
    If the axis control some sea zones in the gulf of Mexico, the US loses income

    etc.

    @Baron:

    Positive bonus is easier to grasp as concept and gives a better incentive.
    The lure of profit is a general principle incentive.
    But fear of loss is an higher motivation principle.

    So, it may creates more defensive pattern logic, more turtle up tactics.
    So, instead of rewarding risk for daring strategy, it rewards the higher defensive capacity.

    The game may be more static that way.

    You may also get similar results as long as you use NOs to give IPCs to strategic TT owned.
    Such as, +3 or +5 if x or y+z TT is owned.
    And give no IPC to capture a given target.
    That way, losing a TT or SZ means NOs bonus loss.

    2 kind of asymmetric NOs:
    +5 / +3 original owner vs 0 bonus to capture or cut an NOs
    +10/+5 original owner vs +5 / +3 to capture a given TT or whole group to get NO.

    Symmetric NOs:
    +5 owner vs +5 bonus to capture

    The issue is about creating too much NOs. Which add too much IPCs in game.

    Seems more interesting to suggest a positive goal to keep or reach a given target.

    So, your list is pretty interesting as a check list for Redesign NOs,
    does it satisfy all of your conditions above.

    @Imperious:

    Positive bonus is easier to grasp as concept and gives a better incentive.

    I think taking somebody’s lunch money is better motivation, its easier to take than to receive im for that. Or if its easier to receive than to take im for that. Whatever is easier– Most will take all the low laying fruit first right?


  • 2017 '16

    @simon33:

    Here’s my wish list, which is basically a development of BM3.

    From BM3 I will steal:

    • SBR rules (ftr A2 D2)
    • Breaking up the Lend Lease objective into a 3IPC national pride and 2IPC lend lease. Or perhaps swap them around.
    • Balkan + Crete objective for Germany
    • Malta+Crete+Cyprus objective for both Italy and UK
    • Guam/Midway/Wake objective for USA and Japan
    • Amur and Persia Lend Lease lanes (2IPC each) but in the latter case, you also need to hold NW Persia and the Caucasus
    • No lend lease before round 3
    • Atlantic free of subs but send it to Canada
    • Vichy but convert British units starting in France to French units
    • Marines but 1/1 and 4IPC cost with no bonuses. In PBF/PBEM these will always be taken first as casualties.
    • Removal of objectives for USSR taking Berlin
    • Reduce the two existing ANZAC objectives but to 4IPC each.

    From BM I will ignore:

    • Guerilla fighters for China
    • Extra ANZAC and UK_Pac NO
    • USA Pacific Islands NO (Carolines, Marianas, Marshall, Palau)
    • USA North Africa objective
    • Reduction in Chinese NO
    • UK Sicily/Sardinia objective
    • Bonus in Lend Lease for Japanese DOW on USSR
    • Japanese bonus for Okinawa & Iwo Jima

    I will also add:

    • Reverse the German objectives for Novgorod and Volgograd (Rationale: the tank factories benefited the USSR, not Germany, and the USSR needs some love)
    • SZ5 being a convoy zone - Rationale: Kamchatka still has no roads in and Vladivostock is a major port. Should get some hate with blockades
    • Canada as a separate power or separate economy, haven’t completely decided which, with only the Atlantic clear of subs as the NO from BM. I prefer the separate power really.
    • Perhaps trim a couple of UK inf from London to help out sea lion.
    • Airbase on Malta. Reason: Historical accuracy. Was an important air station.
    • UK Original ownership of Sierra Leone. Reason: Historical accuracy
    • USSR DOW on Japan will nullify Mongolia. Reason: Logic
    • Increase max damage on airbases, naval bases and minor industrial complexes to 9. Rationale: Increase pressure on defenders to provide interceptors and reduce the effect that you don’t want to trade a territory with significant damage on a major IC because you repair their damage. Also makes it more worthwhile to bomb the bases.

    Now, I think these changes have a small chance of balancing the game. Would require a fair bit of play testing. There is also the chance of a breakthrough in play making balance somewhat different.

    I think that is all I’ve been thinking about.

    EDIT: I’ve also been thinking about having a scramble of one unit from every land territory which can’t be revoked by bombing. If you have an airbase, you’d have 4 units potentially to scramble.


  • 2017 '16

    @Baron:

    Aim:
    If the allies ever entered the danish channel, Germany should lose ipc
    If the axis take Gibraltar or the Suez, UK loses income

    On Gibraltar, it works because it worth 2 IPCs for UKE and gives 5 IPCs to Italy, making it a 7 IPCs swing.
    Egypt and Trans-Jordan gives together 2 IPCs to Italy but it was not considered in UK NOs.
    This is strange and an important omission OOB which was conveyed until now.
    I added Suez Canal as +2 NOs. Do you think 12 IPCs on UK1 collect income is too much, because I think so?

    UK EUROPE
    Defensive UKE NOs:
    +2 for each Med Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Crete, Cyprus or Suez Canal is Allied controlled (Egypt and Trans-Jordan).
    Theme: Maintenance of empire and assistance to Pro-Allies countries.

    Offensive UKE NOs:
    +5 each if Allied controlled: Danish (Skagerrak-Kategatt) Straits (Denmark) OR Normandy.
    Theme: Capture of vital Axis communication waterways and/or Atlantic Wall.

    If Japan takes Panama, US loses Income

    Looking at these US and Japan NOs:
    On Panama, USA holding it means +10 IPCs
    Japan control it, then it means + 5 IPCs
    Total swing of 15 IPCs, -10 for USA and +5 for Japan.

    If the axis control some sea zones in the gulf of Mexico, the US loses income
    This NOs would cut 5 IPCs from US, but give no bonus to Axis:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones

    If the Allies Manchuria, Japan loses income
    Since Japan have no NO, it worth only 3 IPCs for the TT + 1 IPC for VC.
    And any Allies win +4 IPCs.
    So that one is far less interesting but still 8 IPCs swing.

    @Baron:

    Here is another draft based on your intent, Greenland is place with the other ATO TTs NO:
    This provide a way to interrupt this NO via either Panama, Greenland or West Indies opportunistic invasion.
    It keeps Panama as a highly valuable target (cut 10 IPCs).

    Offensive USA NOs:
    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)

    Replaced by:

    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 20 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)
    (Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)

    Defensive USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are US control:

    A- Pacific Islands or “Hawaii NO”:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Alaskan Territories:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Atlantic Partnership Territories:
    +5 (Greenland, Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB plus Greenland which fall under treaty case Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    @barney:

    @Baron:

    @Black_Elk:

    Seems clean, Philippines is kind of an issue in G40, since it is not an Axis starting possession, but does include a Kamikaze marker.

    Perhaps trying to do anything objective related to those is too difficult. Or maybe it’s better oriented towards Japan (which seemed to be the Balance Mod approach.) Though I still think you need a fairly high swing for these to make them more attractive US targets.

    Do you think +2 for US might help for one part?
    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters) including Philippines liberated.
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines. (Max.: 22 IPCs= 9 PTO+2 ETO)
    (Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas)

    And we should look at Japan NOs to increase the IPCs swing.

    Something like this:

    JAPAN:
    Japan Defensive NOs:
    +5 if not at War with West.
    +5 if not at War with Russia.

    Japan Offensive NOs:
    +10 if Japan controls Guam, Wake, Hawaii and Midway
    Theme: capture of US Pacific bases and strategic defense perimeter.

    +5 for each, if Japan controls Philippines OR New South Wales (Sydney)OR Aleutian and Alaska OR Panama
    Theme: capture of vital Allies PTO intelligence and communication centers.

    +1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control. (Max.: 20 Islands = 20 IPCs)

    However, it seems a lot of money will be get easily by Japan: islands (+1) + Philippines (+1 and +5).

    Well if you want the 2 bucks it could look like this:

    @Baron:

    I see.
    It is possible to create CANZAC via edit mod.
    But not Canada as a minor power.
    So, it seems better to prioritize Canada first.

    NOs are not ready either.
    Is it necessary to have the lowest number of NOs?
    Sometimes it seems easier to have more like 3 or 4 or even 5 for major like US.

    USA original TT NO is hard to not split into regional TTs.
    Otherwise, it becomes all or nothing NO bonus.

    @Baron:

    Nice.
    It fits the bill for me.

    To reach a 12 IPCs minor Power and increase action in PTO:

    Yukon: 2 IPCs
    North Western Canada: 2 IPCs
    Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba (AlSaMa): 2 IPCs
    Ontario: 3 IPCs
    Quebec: 2 IPCs
    The Maritimes: 1 IPC

    If wanting to give Labrador NFL 1 IPC,
    then I would reduce AlSaMa to 1 IPC.

    Just a 10 IPCs would be:
    Yukon: 2 IPCs
    North Western Canada: 2 IPCs
    Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba (AlSaMa): 1 IPC
    Ontario: 2 IPCs
    Quebec: 2 IPCs
    The Maritimes: 1 IPC

    And if wanting to give Labrador NFL 1 IPC,
    then I would reduce Yukon to 1 IPC.

    Canadian NO
    +5 PUs for each of these three: if controls all original Canadian TTs, if no Axis warship in Atlantic SZs (except SZs 113, 114, 115) OR  if a Canadian unit is on an Axis TT in Africa or in Italy or is in Normandy.

    @Baron:

    It would need a territorial NOs such as +3 PUs for all Canada TTy,
    and another for +5 if no Axis warship in ATO to be somewhat viable.
    And +5 if a Canadian unit is on an Axis TT in Africa or Italy or +5 if a Canadian unit is in Normandy.

    This might be a workable minor Power.

    UKE NOs however needs an increase compared to OOB for the 7 less IPCs income each round.


  • 2017 '16

    Here is another try to cut another No from USA:

    Defensive USA NOs,
    National Sovereignty issues theme: (Max.: 4*5= 20 IPCs)
    +5 bonus each, if all basic TTs in each group A, B, C & D are US control:

    A- Pacific Islands or “Hawaii NO”:
    +5 (Midway, Hawaii, Wake, Johnston and Line)

    B- Alaskan Territories:
    +5 (Aleutian and Alaska)

    C- Atlantic Partnership Territories:
    +5 (Greenland, Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America and West Indies)
    Same as OOB plus Greenland which fall under treaty case Theme: Defense treaty and trade obligations.

    D- Control of Vital US communication access ways:
    +5 Panama’s Canal: Central America AND no Axis warships in Caribbean (SZ89) or Panama (SZ64) Sea Zones.

    Offensive USA NOs:
    +1 each for liberating Philippines, or control of original Axis island or Territory under US control (Pacific and European theatres).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in European and Pacific war and special “I shall return” Mac Arthur’s theme for Philippines.

    10 PTO islands: Hainan, Palau Island, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
    Kamikaze islands: Formosa, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariannas, Japan
    6 PTO TTs: Siam, Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol, Manchuria, Korea
    10+6= 16 TTs
    ETO:
    7 Italian’s TTs: Sardinia, Sicily, Tobruk, Lybia, Albania, Southern Italy, Northern Italy,
    9 Germany’s TTs: Holland Belgium, Denmark, Western Germany, Southern Germany, Germany, Norway, Poland, Slovakia Hungary, Romania)
    7+9 = 16 TTs
    (Max.: 33 IPCs= 1+16 PTO and 16 ETO)

    +5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
    Theme: Opening a Western European Second Front

    +5 one time bonus for each Kamikazi island captured by Allies.
    Theme: Moving war in enemy’s own territories and SZs. (Max.: 5*6 = 30 IPCs)

    Replaced by:

    +2 for each Axis island under US control (Pacific and European theaters).
    Theme: USA is an active Allies member in war. (Max.: 20 IPCs= 8 PTO+2 ETO)


    Canada is catching up the Normandy NO:
    Canadian NO
    +5 PUs for each of these three: A, B and C
    Defensive Canadian NO,
    A- if controls all original Canadian TTs,

    Offensive Canadian NOs,
    B- if no Axis warship in Atlantic SZs (except SZs 113, 114, 115)
    C- if a Canadian unit is on an Axis TT in Africa or Italy, or is in Normandy.


    UK EUROPE
    Defensive UKE NOs:
    +1 for each Med Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Crete, Cyprus or Suez Canal is Allied controlled (Egypt and Trans-Jordan).
    Theme: Maintenance of empire and assistance to Pro-Allies countries.
    (Max.: 7 IPCs= 7 med ETOs)

    Offensive UKE NOs:
    +5 each if Allied controlled: Danish (Skagerrak-Kategatt) Straits (Denmark) OR Normandy.
    Theme: Capture of vital Axis communication waterways and/or Atlantic Wall.
    (Max.: 10 IPCs= 5*2 ETOs)


  • '16

    I would associate an IPC payout only with achievements, not actions. The purpose of changing victory conditions should be to push play in directions it would not otherwise be likely to go.

    Let achievements be defined as any action that is predictably difficult because it can be readily opposed.

    Therefore, an achievement would be the Italian conquest of Egypt or British retention of the East Indies. Actions might be Italo-German conquest of Yugoslavia or German occupation of Rumania.


  • 2017 '16

    Maybe this might come in handy, someday. Too easily lost if not quoted with a fitting thread name.

    @Argothair:

    Just brainstorming here – I thought I’d throw out a handful of potential national objectives for the 1943 game, and see if anyone likes any of them. If nothing else, maybe they’ll help inspire other people to come up with better ones.

    AMERICA
    Free French: +3 IPC if there is at least one Allied-controlled factory in Quebec, French Indochina, Normandy, France, or Southern France.
    I Shall Return: +3 IPC if America controls the Philippines.
    Champions of Democracy: +5 IPC if America controls at least 4 of the following: Norway, Holland, Denmark, Southern Italy, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia.
    Chinese Bases: +5 IPC if the Allies control at least 8 territories marked with a Chinese rondel AND America has a strategic bomber in Kwangtung, Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol, or Manchuria.
    Naval Supremacy: +5 IPC if the Japanese have no carriers or battleships on the map.

    BRITAIN
    Secure Supply Lines: +3 IPC if there are no Axis troops in Africa, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Persia, Northwest Persia, or Eastern Persia.
    Colonial Restoration:+5 IPC if Britain controls India, Burma, Malaya, and Kwangtung.
    Pacific Commerce: +3 IPC if the Allies control New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, New Zealand, and all of Australia.

    RUSSIA
    Relieve the Siege of Leningrad: +3 IPC if the Russians control Novgorod, Archangel, and any one of the following territories: Belarus, Baltic States, Vyborg, Karelia.
    All Quiet on the Eastern Front: +5 IPC if the Russians control Amur and did not participate in combat with any Japanese units this turn.
    Ukrainian Conscripts: +3 IPC if the Russians control Western Ukraine, Ukraine, and Rostov.

    GERMANY
    Atlantik Wall: +10 IPC if the Allies do not control any of Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Holland, Normandy, or Spain.
    Oil Supplies: +5 IPC for each of the following territories the Germans control: Venezuela, Romania, Caucasus, Iraq, Persia, Saudi Arabia.
    Panzer Offensive: +5 IPC if Germany has a total of at least three tanks in the territories marked with Russian rondels.
    Finnish Defenders: +3 IPC if the Germans control Finland but not Novgorod.
    Baltic Shipping: +3 IPC if there are no Allied ships in Sea Zones 113, 114, and 115.
    Not a Step Back: +3 IPC if Germany attacked at least one Allied-controlled territory this turn and did not perform any retreats this turn.

    JAPAN
    Inner Defense Ring: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Iwo Jima, the Marianas, Guam, Formosa, and Okinawa.
    Petroleum Shipments: +10 IPCs if the Japanese control Persia, Borneo, or Celebes and there are a total of at least 3 Japanese transports in Sea Zones 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 79, and/or 80.
    Soviet Non-Aggression Pact: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Manchuria and Korea, and Japan has not participated in combat with any Russian units this turn.
    Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere:: +3 IPCs for each of the following territories Japan controls: Kwangtung, Malaya, India, French Indo-China, Korea, Shensi, Yakut.
    Imperial Glory: +10 IPCs if Japan controls at least two of the following territories: Amur, Hawaii, Alaska, New South Wales, South Africa, New Zealand.


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
  • 3
  • 33
  • 3
  • 8
  • 44
  • 56
  • 1706
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

72
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts