National objectives



  • National objectives in AA50, what do we know? You get an IPC bonus each turn for holding a set of territories. This is the complete, confirmed list. Please feel free to join in the discussion of the meaning of this decisive element of AA50!

    Germany

    • Axis control of France+Northwestern Europe+Germany+Poland+Czechoslovakia/Hungary+Roumania/Bulgaria = 5 IPCs
    • Axis control of at least three out of: Baltic States+East Poland+Belorussia+East Ukraine+Ukraine= 5 IPCs
    • Axis control of either of: Karelia S.S.R. or Caucasus = 5 IPCs

    Soviet Union

    • Allied control of Archangelsk + no UK or US units on Soviet-controlled territories= 5 IPCs
    • Allied control of at least three of the following: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary and/or Balkans= 10 IPCs.

    Japan

    • Axis control of Manchuria+Kiangsu [Shanghai region]+French Indo-China/Thailand=5 IPCs
    • Axis control of at least four out of: Kwang-tung [Hong-kong region], Netherlands East Indies, Borneo, Phillippine Islands, New Guinea and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs
    • Axis control of at least one of: Hawaiian Islands, Australia or India =5 IPCs

    UK

    • Allied control of any Japanese 1941 at-start territory [Manchuria & Kiangsu are Japanese-controlled Chinese territories]= 5 IPCs.
    • Allied control of Eastern Canada, Western Canada, Gibraltar, Egypt, Australia and Union of South Africa= 5 IPCs.
    • Allied control of one of: France and/or Balkans=5 IPCs.

    Italy

    • Axis control of at least three out of: Egypt, Trans-Jordan, France and/or Gibraltar=5 IPCs.
    • Axis control of Italy+Balkans+Morocco/Algeria+Libya+No enemy ships in Med sea zones, sz 13,14,15 [transports and submarines do not count]= 5 IPCs.

    US/China

    *Allied control of France = 5 IPCs
    *Allied control of Phillippine Islands=5 IPCs
    *Allied control of West US+Central US+East US= 5 IPCs
    *Allied control of at least 3 of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs.


  • Official Q&A

    Impressive list!  You’ve done some good digging here.  I’ll weed out a couple of incorrect ones for you:

    UK

    (No enemy ships in Atlantic sea zones: sz 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,11,12=5 IPCs)

    US/China

    (All chinese territories=5 IPCs)



  • /Krieghund

    Thanks, edited the post! After we get it all corrected, we can start to discuss what all this will mean for the game strategies. I think this is the biggest change in the game, apart from the addition of Italy!


  • Official Q&A

    I agree.  This is a huge addition to the game.  It’s going to add a lot of strategy, and bring more action to some of the areas that previously haven’t seen much.

    As with the techs, I’m not giving away everything I know right away, but I’ll let you know as you get “warmer” or “colder”.



  • It seems that the national bonuses will be easier to achive in 1941 senario on turn 1 for the axis than for the allies? As I see it Japan, russia, Germany and Italy all have the possibility to get the +5 extra IPC? Maybe US depending on what japn does.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    where are you pulling these bonus IPC info from?

    if using the pictures only as a tool for example where do you see the marking on the sea zone to indicate its a SZ that is bonus?



  • /IL

    All the ones that are without parenthesis are from posts by people from GENCON. They might not be totally correct (one territory might be askew here and there) but it’s probably correct most of it. Japan’s I read from a pic, as I wrote.

    The ones in parenthesis are just my guesses if you take into account the objectives in the war itself. Krieghund helped me discard two of them, and most likely several more are wrong.

    I don’t think there are any markings one the board for any objective. It’s all just on the chart for each power.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    ok then.



  • I think that this is a good idea from Larry. It makes the game more realistic and tries to get nations to accomplish traditional objectives that existed during World War 2 (even though it can take some of the fun out of the “what if…” game and some potentially interesting scenarios.)


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Yes its more historical to have some reward for taking the territories that were actually of value to specific nations.



  • @shermantank:

    I think that this is a good idea from Larry. It makes the game more realistic and tries to get nations to accomplish traditional objectives that existed during World War 2 (even though it can take some of the fun out of the “what if…” game and some potentially interesting scenarios.)

    nice post.  I agree.


  • Official Q&A

    @Lynxes:

    Germany

    Poland+Czech-Hungary+Bulgaria-Roumania= 5 IPCs

    Not exactly.  Germany gets 5 IPCs if the Axis powers control France, Northwestern Europe, Germany, Czechoslovakia/Hungary, Bulgaria/Romania and Poland.



  • / Krieghund

    Thanks again, edited my post! Keep it coming. So this bonus is about the integrity of the continental system that Germany envisioned, it is a good counter to sacrificing France or NW europe to mini-invasions or to use the eastern territories as buffers since that would have made German government of those areas impossible. Germany now has an incentive to switch the war over to the Atlantic and to Russian soil, which is great for historical feeling of the game.

    As a Swede by the way, I like that Scandinavia is of more value now. Norway’s value was to guarantuee Sweden’s malicious iron and industrial transports to germany in wintertime, which went via Narvik. Taking Norway would probably also have stopped shipments altogether as the Swedish government at the time bowed to external pressure, and the same for Finland. I thus take the now 5 IPC value of scandinavia to include Sweden’s resources, unashamed of my egotistic focus on a country that is impassable…  😄



  • @Lynxes:

    As a Swede by the way, I like that Scandinavia is of more value now. Norway’s value was to guarantuee Sweden’s malicious iron and industrial transports to germany in wintertime, which went via Narvik. Taking Norway would probably also have stopped shipments altogether as the Swedish government at the time bowed to external pressure, and the same for Finland. I thus take the now 5 IPC value of scandinavia to include Sweden’s resources, unashamed of my egotistic focus on a country that is impassable…  😄

    As a Norwegian, I agree. Except Sweden isn’t impassable, it would have been easy to occupie Sweden from the south, since all the military equipment was in Karelske Neset (Viborg). Only reason Sweden could be free and neutral, was because Swedens friend and protector Herman Goering guaranteed Swedens integrity. Otherwise Adolf wanted to occupie Sweden as well.

    Germany depended on 3 things for survival. High grade steel from Sweden, nickel from Finland and oil from Rumenia. Homeland Germany only had coal. But having only steel, or only oil, would do no good, you need to combine all the resources to gain a profit. And this is brilliant modelled in A&A50 with this new bonus rule.

    BTW, Sweden didn’t do much use in WWII, but now you got a lot of excellent authors that write a lot of good books, like Tamelander, Zetterling and Smedberg. So here in Norway we say that it was Norwegian resistance that killed Hitler, and you Swedes wright about it. We are the practicioners, you are the academic theoretichs.



  • A comment on Sweden in WW2.  The US actually sold a fair number of aircraft engines to Sweden in WW2, which the Swedes used to build up their air force.  The Finns used both Brewster Buffalo and Curtiss P-36 Hawk fighters, the Hawks being acting sold to the Finns by the Germans, who captured the aircraft in both Norway and France.  The US sold spare parts in excess of Swedish requirements to the Swedes, knowing that they would in turn be sold/delivered to the Finns, aiding them in their fight against Russia.  The British did likewise with spare parts for the Finns Bristol Mercury aircraft engines, which powered the Fokker D-21 fighter and the Bristol Blenheim light bomber that the Finns were building under license from the British.  The Swedes also furnished the US and UK with a radio-controlled V-2 that landed by mistake in Sweden.  The British also were buying ball-bearings from Sweden throughout the war, and used high-speed converted PT boats to run the blockade to Goteborg.  And of course, both the US and the UK used the magnificent 40mm Bofors gun.



  • And thanks to Timerover this is no longer an Anniversary thread


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    If you people write up more information about who sold what to and from Sweden, then you need to make a History thread for Sweden. I unintentionally thought i was moving Timerovers History post to the History section, but i just moved the entire thread by accident. Everything is corrected. Any more stuff not about the thread will be deleted. Too much stuff to sort thru when it has no material issue to topic under discussion.



  • I think it’s time Krieghund gave us a few solid national objectives we don’t have. Please….



  • Only reason Sweden could be free and neutral, was because Swedens friend and protector Herman Goering guaranteed Swedens integrity. Otherwise Adolf wanted to occupie Sweden as well.

    That is a very interesting story about how Sweden stayed neutral. It all started “because an obscure German aviator fell in love with a beautiful Swedish woman on a cold winters night in 1920.”

    Goering first wife lived there and he had, through his former brother in law (Count Eric Von Rosen), Given his word to King Gustav of Sweden that Swedish neutrality would never be violated by the Nazi party.

    When Goering heard of Hitlers plan to invade Sweden with the OKW in March of 1941, he immediately went to Berchtesgaden and stould up to Hitler for the first time in his life.

    He told Hitler of his promise to the King and said that if they invaded Sweden, the fuhrer would have to accept his resignation.

    Hitler could see that Goering was quite sincere about this and their relations as friends, were still very good. Although Hitler was not happy about it, he ordered an immediate halt to the OKW. Hitler knew that if anything, he could attack Sweden later but that never ended up happening.

    A side note regarding Goering:
    After the death of Goerings first wife, he never really was the same. She pushed him to work harder and be a better man while his second lover lured him away with all her might to spend, eat, and drink lavishly in their gorgeous home along the Black Forest. She even had Goering help her Jewish friends get out of Germany.

    Goering was coherced by her to intervene more than a few times when her Jewish friends (mostly actors and aristocracy) were taken into custody by the SS and Gestapo. There was a final intstance later in the war when Goering & Hitler were not on good terms. Once again Goering was begged to intervene on behalf of a husband and wife taken into custody and were awaiting deportation to a concentration camp. Goering interviened by telephone and an agreement was made that they would be sent to “one of the nicer camps” and given their own private quarters with a servant. However, out of spite for Goering, the Reichsmarshall had them executed immediately.

    Source of Refferance: “Eagles of the 3rd Reich, the men who made the Luftwaffe” by Samuel W. Mitcham JR.



  • @Kreighaund:

    Are the national objectives the same for every country in both 41 and 42 edition?


  • Official Q&A

    Yup.



  • @Atlantikwall:

    @Kreighaund:

    Are the national objectives the same for every country in both 41 and 42 edition?

    @Krieghund:

    Yup.

    Now, if we just had a complete list of what they are it would be a very great help.  Are they any that have not yet been mentioned, or have they all be covered?



  • (Sorry for messing the thread with historical excuses, deleted that one, back to subject…  :oops: )

    I do think we should try to discuss what National objectives means for the game. I’d love some updates to the rules, but what we have now is probably quite close to the real thing.

    From other threads we have two basic conclusions:

    1. Nat obj’s favours the Axis in the early game, and if the Allies switches the tide of the war the game could “swing” quickly against the Axis, possibly shortening the game.
    2. Nat obj’s encourages historical play, i.e. Japan going south and east, Italy not putting all their troops on the Russian front etc. Advantage: less strange strategies, the war will be more of a “world war” using all of the map, disadvantage: risk for a “scripted” feeling to the game.

    Are there more points to how it changes the game? Or should we try to go more into each country and how it changes the play? I would like to add that I think the advantages very much outweighs disadvantages for both points above, and think Nat Obj’s are one the great improvements to the game!


  • Official Q&A

    @Lynxes:

    US/China

    (Phillippine Islands=5 IPCs)

    This one is correct.



  • I think we’re getting closer to the real thing now, but one country is still a bit in the dark: UK. I haven’t got a single one of my suggestions confirmed. Let’s just explain my choices:

    Gibraltar, Egypt, Transjordan, Persia
    India, Burma, Hong-kong, NEI, Borneo, Solomon Islands

    These two just represent that defending their empire was a major priority in the war. UK had a defensive strategy and this was unavoidable due to how stretched out it’s empire was.

    France, Northwestern Europe, Norway, Finland

    UK had a commitment to liberate all democracies of Western Europe, which was why Norway was a target in Churchill’s view and probably similar when it comes to “Market Garden” offensive vs. the Low countries.

    Italy, Balkans, Libya, Morocco-Algeria

    This was due to Britain’s commitment with the Greeks and the Yugoslavs, and the need to counterbalance Soviet influence after the war. The US was more concerned with winning the war as quickly as possible, whereas UK with the european perspective thought also of the political situation on the continent.


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

  • 41
  • 1
  • 3
  • 3
  • 32
  • 12
  • 9
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

35
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts