Young Grasshopper's G40 House Rules

You bought decks from me?

Of course why not?

UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPC’s if there are no German submarines in all sea zones from 101 to 111, and from 116 to 124

Italian Sub does not block this NO?

SZ91 Atlantic side of Gibraltar was a very important SZ for UK’s Convoy going to and coming from both Africa and Med.

However, it is not simple to formulate a KISS NO to clearly identify SZs without enumerating them.

@Fiera:

Hello YG,
We had a game round last weekend and played with your victory objectives.
After the game the Japanese player stated, that there is no real objective for doing the island hoping. So we decided to implement the victory objective called �Island Hoping� which is the same for Axis and Allies to take control of all of the following 11 islands/island groups:
Iwo Jima, Marianas, Paulau Islands, Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands, Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, Line Islands
We decided to take out the Philippines as those have their own VO **and the Aleutian Islands, as well as the Chinese coast islands because those had a minor strategically value during WW2. **

By discarding Okinawa and Aleutians, you are going against history. There is no incentive to reenact this part of PTO WW2.

On that point YG’s VO give more room to act like Allies did in WW2. They recaptured Aleutians and fight over Okinawa.

@Young:

New Europe and Pacific Victory Objectives for the Allies replacing the Philippines and the London liberation. Island hopping is now a thing!

Allied Powers

Europe
-The Soviet Union controls 6 original European Axis territories
(FOW) *The Soviet Union
Pacific
-The Allies control 14 of the 16 Pacific Islands originally controlled by America and Japan
(FOW) *The United States

This should be added because African Italian TTs might count for this VOs.

You should add a VO for Japan over control of most of Islands in PTOs.
Something to sweeten the Outer defense Perimeter NO.

@Baron:

UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPC’s if there are no German submarines in all sea zones from 101 to 111, and from 116 to 124

Italian Sub does not block this NO?

SZ91 Atlantic side of Gibraltar was a very important SZ for UK’s Convoy going to and coming from both Africa and Med.

However, it is not simple to formulate a KISS NO to clearly identify SZs without enumerating them.

What about this?

UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)

• 5 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in North Atlantic Ocean, (this excludes Norwegian Straits and Baltic Sea SZs 112, 113, 114 & 115 and Norwegian and Barents Sea SZs 125, 126 & 127).
  So SZs:
  89, 90, 91,
  101, 102, 103, 104, 105,
  106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,
  116, 117, 118, 119,
  120, 121, 122, 123, 124 must be free of any Axis Submarine.

OR
UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in SZs 89, 90, 91 and all sea zones from 101 to 111, and from 116 to 124
Theme: United Kingdom’s North Atlantic Ocean shipping lanes are cleared from danger.

UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
-2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 101 to 111
-2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 116 to 124
-2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 90 to 99

Nice way to make it comprehensible.
From SZ95 and beyond, you require that UK sink Subs in Italian drop off SZ95 and SZ97.
Requiring SZ90 to 94 is one part,
SZ96, SZ98 and SZ99 are more clearly UK shipping lines.
But SZ95 and SZ97, is more puzzling.
How are they part of UK supply lines?

Seems OK for play-test, after all it is only  2 IPCs bonus.
And it cost 6 for Italy for trying to interdict this bonus.

@Baron:

By discarding Okinawa and Aleutians, you are going against history. There is no incentive to reenact this part of PTO WW2.

On that point YG’s VO give more room to act like Allies did in WW2. They recaptured Aleutians and fight over Okinawa.

That is partially correct, Baron.

Okinawa had a huge strategically value, much bigger than on A&A, because it had airbases and docks to repair ships. Furthermore it was essential to keep the connection between Japan main lands, Korea, Manchuria on the one hand and the Japanese fleet in the Southern Pacific on the other hand. So yes, I agree with you and will propose to add this island, when we playtest it next weekend. That way both sides will start with 6 islands/island groups, which need to be captured.

Aleutian Islands had no strategically value at all. The invasion force was small and most likely a feint attack while the main force was heading for Midway. The only reason why USA took it back was prestige. They could not let the Japanese capture US territories. No one did that for more than 200 years. And hey, they got 5 IPC NO for it.  :wink:

To put it in a nutshell, our proposal, in comparison to YG´s, is that you need all islands/island groups to get the token, but discard the following islands/island groups:
Hainan, Formosa, Aleutian Islands and Philippines
(the Philippines keep their own VO because it is a “moral obligation” (Douglas MacArthur) to liberate those)

Additionally this token counts for both sides in our version.
Our idea was to create a simillar situation like in Africa.  :evil:

Seems fair.

I like this symmetrical aspect:

That way both sides will start with 6 islands/island groups, which need to be captured.

@Young:

Thanks for the suggestions BM… I think I’ve got it now. Axis National Objectives

Germany (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if an Axis power controls London

Japan (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if Japan controls all original Chinese territories

Allied National Objectives

Soviet Union (2 NOs which will replace the original National Prestige NO)
-5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships in sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel as well as London
-5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any original Russian territories

United States (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers

UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
-2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 101 to 111
-2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 116 to 124
-2 IPC’s if there are no Axis submarines in all sea zones from 90 to 99

ANZAC (in addition to all original NOs)
-3 IPCs if the Allies control Cairo (when at war with Germany and Italy)

I like the idea of a lighter touch to messing with national objectives than in balanced mod. Not sure I like the idea of an additional US objective just for being at war (is it with any or all Axis powers?) or the ANZAC/Egypt NO. Given that ANZAC start the game at war with Germany and Italy, why include that bit in parenthesis? That’s an awkward part of the standard rule book.

Regarding SBR, I never really understood why there was such an urge to mess with the +2. That change was for the better. After risking a bomber and scoring a hit, I don’t want to do only one damage, bad enough only doing 3. However, why not steal the good (and obvious) idea from balanced mod of fighters A2 D2?

Do these changes balance the game? I still see a big advantage for the Axis with these rules, just less than G40.2.

Sorry for the late feedback. I was pretty occupied during the last weeks.  :-(

We did playtest the “Island Hoping” VO and in our opinion it worked very well. The Axis decided to do a G1 Barbarossa and a J1 Pearl Harbor. The idea was to force USA into a Pacific war and that way provide Germany the needed air to crush Russia. This idea worked and the US player did heavily invest in the Pacific to prevent Japan from getting the islands and later even more to get the islands himself. Because of this fact we would say that those new VOs are very good, because before there was not much to lose in the Pacific for the Americans, but a lot to win in Europe.

Resume, we will keep playing with the new VO in our next games and keep you informed!  :wink: