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…
@Baron:
@Baron:
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?
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.
@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
@CWO:
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.
@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:
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.
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…
@Baron:
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:
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?
@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.
@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?
@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.
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.
@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.
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.
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:
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).
@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?
Here’s my wish list, which is basically a development of BM3.
From BM3 I will steal:
From BM I will ignore:
I will also add:
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.
@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.
@Baron:
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.
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)
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.
Maybe this might come in handy, someday. Too easily lost if not quoted with a fitting thread name.
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.
