Hi Player
Yea, after you lose your capital you can’t collect any dough until it’s liberated.
Old British NO still usable?
-
I like this idea too. In fact, I would like to see perhaps one or two more NOs for England, maybe another for India. I think it sucks that England only has 1 NO for just $5 for controlling ALL original territories. Like ErwinRommel said, they will usually only collect that one round 1, maybe round 2. After that, Italy is sure to nab some British territory that they can’t get back right away. UK should have more NOs.
Germany = 9 wartime NOs (3 compete with Italy)
Italy = 6 wartime NOs (3 compete with Germany)
Japan = 6 wartime NOs
USA = 5 wartime NOs
ANZAC = 2 wartime NOs – but they are a small power
USSR = 19+ possible wartime NOs – all but 1 require USSR to be advancing into Axis territory
France = 1 wartime NO, only if liberated. Perhaps France could have another, I just don’t know what it would be now.
UK = 1 wartime NO. Should definitely be more.
India = 1 wartime NO. Should have at least 2. -
I don’t know about that…
I mean, they probably didn’t drop this NO just to piss the players…
When US troops are all over the atlantic and in the med, by roud 7-10, and when UK get back all his starting territories, they make around 40 IPC/round. I think that’s already hard enough for Euro Axis to deal with that without having to try to get a sub surviving… -
I agree with knp7765 that there should be a revision of NO’s. But what that revision should be, I don’t know.
-
I guess the Axis should loose if they dont get Moscow, India or London by turn 12-14? If they dont have a major advantage somewhere else.
-
I like this idea too.� In fact, I would like to see perhaps one or two more NOs for England, maybe another for India.� I think it sucks that England only has 1 NO for just $5 for controlling ALL original territories.� Like ErwinRommel said, they will usually only collect that one round 1, maybe round 2.� After that, Italy is sure to nab some British territory that they can’t get back right away.� UK should have more NOs.
Germany = 9 wartime NOs (3 compete with Italy)
Italy = 6 wartime NOs (3 compete with Germany)
Japan = 6 wartime NOs
USA = 5 wartime NOs
ANZAC = 2 wartime NOs – but they are a small power
USSR = 19+ possible wartime NOs – all but 1 require USSR to be advancing into Axis territory
France = 1 wartime NO, only if liberated.� Perhaps France could have another, I just don’t know what it would be now.
UK = 1 wartime NO.� Should definitely be more.
India = 1 wartime NO.� Should have at least 2.Germany is required to keep occupying forces in Paris or the French Resistance can place 12 IPC worth of units in Paris at the end of Germany’s turn. French units cannot liberate Paris unless all other original French territories have already been liberated.
Anzac, US, UK-India should get 2 IPC per Island territory it occupies that was originally controlled by Japan.
Japan should get 2 IPC per Island territory with no IPC value that the allies originally controlled.
US places 1 Ftr in London every round that the US is not at war. These change to Tactical Bombers once the US is at war with Germany. These units cannot leave London until the US is at war with Germany.
-
As a house rule its ok, but Us cant have fighters in London when not at war. I think its over to complicated. Always best to keep it simple.
-
I kinda agree with Rommel in this situation; giving the US units in GB is pointless as they won’t fight the Germans.
-
Yeah, I’m not crazy about the US fighters placed in London either.
Not sure about the French idea, probably would never happen since more than likely some French territory will still be Axis controlled. Still, it would force Germany to keep some forces in Paris, which they probably should anyway.
I really like the island NOs for both the Allies and Japan. It gives both some opportunities to add a little to their incomes and it would be nice to make all those little, seemingly worthless islands actually worth something.
How about this one for the UK Europe: UK gains 5 IPCs for having surface warship(s) in the Med (Sea Zones 92-99). Not only would it give UK an extra chance to earn, but be in direct confrontation with Italy’s “No Allied surface Warships in the Med” NO.
Also, what about the Middle East territories of Iraq, NW Persia and Persia? If Germany or Italy control these, it’s worth and extra 2 IPCs per turn for them but if any Allied powers control them, it’s worth nothing except the actual territory value. Shouldn’t the Allies also get 2 IPCs each for whomever controls those three territories? After all, they do have to send troops over to take control of Persia and NW Persia and they actually have to fight for control of Iraq. -
If we overkill it (add a bunch of new NO’s) the game would surely turn inbalanced in favor of the allies. I think there should add only one new NO, to balance things out. If you have a good NO you should also have a political reason. And if its a British NO it should be lategame as if they get a easy NO early (like fleet in med) surely Sea Lion will impossible… And we dont want that :evil:
-
Yeah, I’m not crazy about the US fighters placed in London either.
Not sure about the French idea, probably would never happen since more than likely some French territory will still be Axis controlled.� Still, it would force Germany to keep some forces in Paris, which they probably should anyway.
I really like the island NOs for both the Allies and Japan.� It gives both some opportunities to add a little to their incomes and it would be nice to make all those little, seemingly worthless islands actually worth something.
How about this one for the UK Europe:� UK gains 5 IPCs for having surface warship(s) in the Med (Sea Zones 92-99).� Not only would it give UK an extra chance to earn, but be in direct confrontation with Italy’s “No Allied surface Warships in the Med” NO.
Also, what about the Middle East territories of Iraq, NW Persia and Persia?� If Germany or Italy control these, it’s worth and extra 2 IPCs per turn for them but if any Allied powers control them, it’s worth nothing except the actual territory value.� Shouldn’t the Allies also get 2 IPCs each for whomever controls those three territories?� After all, they do have to send troops over to take control of Persia and NW Persia and they actually have to fight for control of Iraq.The US fighter idea is based on http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ In short, the US ended up with approximately 3 Ftr squadrons under the RAF’s direction that primarily flew defense missions over the UK until later in the war (hence the transition of up to 3 Ftrs turning into TacB which are more offensive). I figured since the US declares war the end of US3, it sort of makes sense to add those Ftrs. However, the dilemma about not being at war and unable to defend themselves creates an issue that I’m not sure how to resolve. Perhaps:
If London has not fallen when the US enters the war, UK can elect to have up to 2 Ftr on London revert to any combination of Ftr/TacB under the US control? (Replace with US units).
I chose the French idea based on the French Resistance that, if Germany left Paris unoccupied, would in all likelihood have risen up against the lack of German occupation. Basically instead of adding units to Paris to start with, it addresses the Germans having to maintain some form of occupation in Paris post its conquest or face units placed in Paris that can assist with an allied landing in Normandy. I just didn’t want them to be able to liberate Paris on their own because I could see it as an easy way for Germany to keep adding IPC’s from a see saw effect of taking paris, withdrawing, retaking paris after they collected income.
As for the Islands, I just want to make the Island hopping a potential windfall for either side. As it stands the NO for Japan is realistically not worth the effort because you have to own ALL of them. I figure a good alternative is to make each one individually worth something to the opposing side to own as all the islands were strategic to one side or the other during the course of the war. Some were more valuable than others, but almost all of them experienced some form of conflict for their control, and as our current pacific game stands, only Hawaii and the Philippines (outside of the DEI) see much action. The biggest part of it is that the islands you start with aren’t worth IPC to you, but are to the enemy. This requires you to protect them and requires the enemy to direct resources after them with some interesting 2 Inf vs 1/2 Inf rolls with maybe a Bombard or two.
I don’t see a reason for the UK to not have the conflicting NO with Italy, it seems plausible to me and doesn’t affect much until mid to late game which is too difficult to project from a strategic point of view to make it a primary goal early on in the game.
Most of those middle eastern countries do have an IPC value, don’t they? Iraq is 2 IPC, Persia is 2 IPC. You get free units from them as well depending on which side you are on which translates Persia being worth 8 IPC for the Allies and Iraq being worth 11 IPC and a NO. The allies have an easier time getting to them as it stands, where as the Axis have to intentionally send units away from their respective fronts in order to obtain that windfall. I wouldn’t tinker with that one too much.
-
But what exactly guys make you think that there is an imbalance that needs to be compensated by a new UK NO ?
-
If Germany, Japan and Italy have good opens they are more likely to win than the allies…
-
Yea Enemy Sub NO was a good one. Think we will include it as a house rule after all it was Britians life line for the war effort.
-
The thing with US fighters is that they would be separate. If anything, do “Lend-Lease” where BRITAIN gets units in Britain.
-
Ive been pushing for the following changes to the UK Europe NOs
When the United Kingdom Is at War in Europe (awarded to the Europe economy):
• 5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls Scotland, Gibraltar, and Egypt and no axis warships are in any of the sea zones adjacent to these territories.
Theme: Vital trade routes to and from the Empire remain open.• 5 IPCs if there is at least one allied surface warship in sea zone 107-108 and/or sea zone 117-118 and no German warships are in or adjacent to sea zones 107-108 & 117-118.
Theme: Vital trade and lend lease material from North America.Attatched is a map of where German subs could nullify NO #2 from.
Note, that Subs built at Normandy can strike 107-108 and 117-118
Which is where the allies MUST keep a boat to get the NO.
So at best Germany will be able to spend 6 to attack a boat every turn, and if it kills it, then be in a position violating the NO.
-
oztea, those are some cool ideas for UK NOs. The second one does seem a bit complicated and fairly easy for Germany to cancel out but it’s not impossible for Britain to gain it.
But what exactly guys make you think that there is an imbalance that needs to be compensated by a new UK NO ?
Personally, I just think it stinks that UK only has that one NO which is usually gone by round 2 or 3 and almost impossible to get back unless Italy really gets fouled up and Germany is too focused on Russia. UK is one of the MAJOR players. All the other major players have at least 3 or more NO possibilities. I just think England should get more than one.
-
Personally, I just think it stinks that UK only has that one NO which is usually gone by round 2 or 3 and almost impossible to get back unless Italy really gets fouled up and Germany is too focused on Russia. UK is one of the MAJOR players. All the other major players have at least 3 or more NO possibilities. I just think England should get more than one.
But…have you seen what it looks like by round 9-11 when US is all over the board in the atlantic and in the med ? UK can have all her territories liberated and often make around 40 IPC per round. And you want to add some more NOs ?
Personally i think it’s hard enough for the Axis without boosting UK more than it should. -
Well, first let me say that most of our games end up in Axis victories, and that usually happens within 7-9 rounds. The games that have been Allied victories usually take longer, about 12-13 rounds or so.
If Japan is doing a decent job of keeping USA busy in the Pacific, and if they manage to take Calcutta and the DEI then they should be able to, then the US isn’t going to be all over the Atlantic and Med. In that case, Germany will probably be SBRing and convoy raiding UK into the poorhouse while driving deep into Russia and Italy will be taking advantage of a weakened Britain and taking many British territories throughout Africa and the Middle East. It will just get harder and harder for Britain to reclaim those territories. THIS is the case where I think UK needs another NO or 2 so they at least have a chance at bringing in a little more income.
Now, in the case of games where the Allies are doing better, then I agree UK will be making plenty of money. Odds are in that type of game, America has managed to at least neutralize Japan and is more heavily invested in Atlantic/Med operations. Germany will probably be stretched thin trying to keep Allied navy and air force at bay while dealing with Russia. Italy probably has gotten pushed out of Africa, lost their fleet in the Med and is cornered in Italy. Then UK will probably be very strong and doesn’t need to have another NO or two. This will probably be late in the game as well. My problem is with the early game, when UK has very few options. I still think they should have more than just one NO opportunity.
-
I think its fun to play Axis with this NO, as if America was to go 100% atlantic (very unlikely) it be a witch hunt after the german subs. The subs might sail to africa or south america and still denying UK income.
It also become vital to keep some german fleet activity against UK, which is as realistic as it can be.
-
Good National Objective, UK making less than italy = something is wrong. Especially since the italian naval is strong, UK is out of position to act, UK won’t see that money till late in the game anyway when it is broke off its ass.
Suggested Topics
