Trimmed down national objectives

[Witt]

If Japan’s become the two mentioned above and I like them as it means it might be less rich this way, what can be Germany’s two?

Caucasus and the Iron ore seem fair choices. One easy. One harder.

Italy has to be trimmed down, I think just the Med NO for them.
Or did you imagine them having a second, Flying Tiger?
If that were the case, I would suggest a harder one. How about 5 IPCs for the 3 the Euro Axis get two for each: Persia, Iraq and NW Persia? Otherwise all of N Africa is a good swap.

Anzac has to be the 4 Islands, surely.
UK, you have mentioned already and US gets the usual 20 and Philippines 5.

I believe iy is the Axis who have it too easy with the NOs and trimming them down to two each would be a good idea. Nice idea Flying Tiger. (Maybe a bid would be unnecessary now!).

[knp7765]

@cyanight:

knp7765 - I like those very much. We might have to add those as well. UK’s objective is really poor and I agree its near impossible after turn 2.  I like the way you broke them into sections though I might nerf it to 2 IPCs instead of 3IPCs.  Have you played with them already?  Do they seem balanced?

Yes, we have used them and they work pretty well. Especially for the UK which can now get a little NO money for a while. That is unless Germany goes with Sealion of course.

I think the No German subs in the Atlantic is a good one and maybe even a little historical. Depending on German purchases, UK can usually collect on this off and on throughout the game. If Germany keeps a strong navy in SZ 112, they could have a sub or two there and deny this NO to England. I figure even though those subs aren’t actively convoy raiding England, just the threat that they could move to a UK convoy zone in a single move is enough to deny UK that NO. So while it is not costing the UK their basic money, they don’t get any extra.

Assuming Germany does not take London, UK will usually collect the $3 for all Canadian territories throughout the game, at least until things go really bad for the Allies. If the Axis can take and hold some Canadian territory, it’s probably getting close to game over for the Allies.

The Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and Trans-Jordan NO is a good one as all of those are important strategic objectives. Malta is kind of the weak link there because if the Axis make a concerted effort to take it, it would be the hardest for the Allies to retake. However, if the Axis have to expend resources on taking Malta, that could give the Allies an extra round to improve the defenses on Egypt. How long the UK is able to collect this NO is dependent upon the Axis strategies.

The Africa NO is fairly easy for UK to obtain, but they have to work on it. This means they not only have to hunt down and kill the small Italian presence there but they also have to dedicate some units to capturing the two Italian territories there. This could weaken their Egypt defense, which could be a disaster for UK in Africa if Italy steps up it’s game. Of course, if UK is patient, they could kill the Italian units, go on to Egypt to keep it from the Axis and let that French infantry from French West Africa walk over and take those Italian territories since it is simply Allied control that activates this NO. Depending on how hard UK goes after the Italians in Africa, the UK could collect this NO as soon as round 3 or 4. If Italy is going strong and captures Egypt, UK could lose the Africa NO as soon as they get it. If Italy is getting beaten, UK could collect on this NO the rest of the game.

The Middle East NO should read “Allied” control of E Persia, Persia, NW Persia and Iraq. This allows Russia to take NW Persia (or even all the territories) and help UK collect that NO. What makes this NO difficult is they still have to attack Iraq and defeat their 3 infantry. For UK, this could mean taking units away from Egypt which could be risky, depending on what Italy is doing. Like the Africa NO, it depends on how hard UK wants to go for this NO as to how long they can collect on it.

All of these are fairly small and not overpowering for UK at all. It simply gives them a little extra money to create a few more possibilities which I didn’t think they had in the regular game. Also, if Germany takes London, that might also be a little extra money in Berlin’s pocket that round.

Also, the VC NO helps out Russia a bit without really overpowering them. I’ve always thought Russia needs a little more because their NOs (except for the Archangel NO) all seem to be offensively based and if Germany goes hard Barbarossa, Russia will have little opportunity to go offensive. Also, keeping those important cities out of German hands I think would provide a bit of national pride in the face of a massive German onslaught. I’ve even thought about changing it from Victory Cities to ICs to include the Ukraine IC for as long as they can hold it.

One thing you have to understand is we have also modified the Russian NO for capturing Axis territory. Russia still gets $3 for each original Axis territory and Pro-Axis Neutral territory, but they also get $3 for each Pro-Allied and Strict Neutral territory as long as it was first occupied by Axis powers. So Russia can’t go attacking Turkey turning other strict neutrals to Pro-Axis and get the $3 bonus for it. (Although, I guess now they could attack the newly Pro-Axis neutrals and get those points).
ALSO, we changed it so only the territories in Continental Europe and Scandanavia count toward this NO (also includes Turkey). This means NO African or Middle East territories and NO Islands. So the following territories DO NOT count towards the Soviet NO:  Iraq, Ethiopia, Italian Somaliland, Tobruk, Libya, Sicily and Sardinia. I’m sorry but I’ve always thought a Russian mech rolling down to Africa and capturing Ethiopia or Italian Somaliland and getting a $3 bonus for each is just silliness.

One more NO we added to Russia is for the Pacific side. Once Russia is at war with Japan, Russia gets $3 for Soviet control of Korea. No imbalance here, just an extra way for Russia to collect a little extra money. In most cases, if this happens, it’s like the $3 for controlling Axis territories in Europe. Basically, it means that Russia is doing fairly well and the Axis are on the way to losing anyway. Not always, but mostly.

[cyanight]

I added these five to our National Objectives. With this addition I think we can do without the need for the setup change of a Fighter added to Ontario. There will be a conflict between Russia taking Irac and UK but I don’t believe both should receive NOs for either of them controlling the same territory. We still have the 20 NOs for Russia in play for controlling an Axis/pro axis neutral territories.

• Edit - Fixed spelling errors.

[axisandalliesplayer]

@knp7765:

We use those NOs for Japan:
$5 each round that Japan controls ALL Chinese territories.
$5 ONE TIME when Japan destroys the Flying Tigers fighter.

I’m sure cyanight meant for the Flying Tigers NO to be a one time thing. I don’t think it would make much sense to simply give Japan $5 basically for nothing every round after they killed the fighter.
This kind of gives me a laugh thinking about if Japan killed the Flying Tigers fighter to get that $5 per round. Then things go very badly, lose their navy and all their territory and end up cornered just on Japan with US subs convoying their remaining 8 IPCs each round. Yet they still can collect that $5 for something they did several rounds earlier.

We also added and/or changed a number of NOs for other countries:
France – $5 per turn for ANY Axis territory controlled by France in Europe. (This would only happen after France was liberated and UK/US allowed them to lead the attack on an Axis territory OR if in some odd circumstance neither Germany or Italy managed to take Paris and France was active and able to mount some kind of offense)
Russia – $2 per turn for each Victory City Russia controls once Russia is at war in Europe. (This way if Germany comes on really strong and blocks the Archangel/SZ125 NO, Russia can still collect 4-6 IPCs in NOs for a while. It may help in defending their capital).
Germany – $5 for controlling London
Here is where we made the most changes. We eliminated the nearly impossible $5 for UK controlling ALL original territories. Let’s face it, after round 2 it ain’t happening.
United Kingdom –
$5 if there are no German submarines in any sea zone in the Atlantic and Mediterranean with the exception of Sea Zones 113, 114, 115 and 100.
$3 for UK control of ALL Canadian territories
$3 for UK control of Eastern Persia, Persia, NW Persia and Iraq.
$3 for UK control of Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and Trans-Jordan.
$3 for Allied control of Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland AND no Axis units in any African territory south of Egypt and the Sahara.

Honestly, I would play with the allies each and every time if those were the British NOs! Throw in Russia getting quite a bit more and it starting to look like the axis need a bid! Yes Japan gets some extra cash. But it doesn’t really compare to what the allies get. In most games I’ve played, UK can regain their NO bonus after a couple of rounds at the latest unless Germany is giving heavy support in the med, Italy’s benefited from good dice, or some such. And Germany is pretty much FORCED to go for some sort of med strat with that much cash going to Britain if they firmly control the Med, Africa, and the ME.

I could see one or two of these working well, especially if Japan’s getting a boost in the Pac as well. But all of the allied NOs listed gives them too strong of an advantage IMO. I’m curious how long have you played with these NOs, do you bid for either side, and how often the axis win?

[knp7765]

I’m telling you, adding these NOs is not a game breaker. They really do work well with the game.
Okay, granted there is a possibility of 22 IPCs now for the UK, but if they are collecting on all of them, things are going pretty bad for the Axis already. Usually, the UK will collect on 2 or 3 of them each round.
The Canada one is easy, but I wanted the UK to have at least one source of almost untouchable income.
The 4 UK territory one is given to UK at the start, but can be taken if the Axis take Malta. If the UK loses it’s Med fleet or moves it up to protect London, they won’t be able to retake Malta and that is one wasted NO for them.
The Africa one is semi-tough for UK. To gain it they only have to kill 3 Italian infantry and 1 artillery and take 2 territories (which could be taken by allies as well). The point is they have to make some effort to get it and if Italy is really threatening Egypt, UK may not be able to spare the units.
The Middle East NO is a bit harder since they have to attack and kill the Iraq troops to get that one, but it is doable. Again, to get it may require taking troops away from defending Egypt.

Also, the No Subs in the Atlantic NO is hard for UK to get and keep. Maybe it is different playing styles between our games and your games, but in our games Germany almost always has 2-3 subs out there and most of the time has them parked in SZ 109 for convoy damage. Germany will also keep SBR on UK’s factory so that costs them. The point is, between losing territory, SBR damage and Convoy raiding, the UK really has a hard time getting a decent enough income to really plan anything on Germany or even Italy. I wanted to give them some chances to make a little money that weren’t too hard or too easy (not counting the Canada NO of course).
As for the OOB NO of $5 for controlling all original UK territories on the Europe map, I don’t see how you manage to get that back for UK after just a couple of rounds. The Axis can stymie that so easily and most times UK simply doesn’t have the resources to waste going after some little territory like Cyprus or Malta to get it back.

As for Russia, yeah we gave them a little more for holding their own victory cities, but remember we also modified the OOB NO so they can’t get a bonus from Iraq, the African territories or the Med Islands. Only in Europe and Scandanavia.

[axisandalliesplayer]

Two questions, what does UK usually do in the med turn one? Do they hit sz97? Sail their fleet towards Gibraltar or maybe into the Pacific? Taking out sz97 with the bomber and a fighter or two from UK plus the sz98 fleet really hurts Italy’s ability to contest the Med. Sz96 should be a given. It really changes the strategic situation removing those 2 transports plus a core of heavy ships and the dd to build a fleet around really decreases the early pressure Italy can bring against Egypt. They can build it back up, but that’ll take turns and by then Egypt should be safe.

And the second question, what does US usually do in your games? I’m assuming you’re putting a LOT if not all the US money into the Pacific if UK’s struggling that bad.

The middle east bonus isn’t all that hard to do. Take Persia on UK1 and you’ve got the ground troops needed to take Iraq. UK starts with a couple air in the med and they can be used to hit Iraq. There’s also the tank and mech if needed as well as the Indian air as long as India itself isn’t threatened that turn. Taking Iraq/Persia gives UK +4 every turn and it’s something they can do as early as UK2. That bonus will be UK’s even if it takes an extra turn or so, that’s easy money for UK from Rd4 on.

It might take a couple of turns, depending on if Egypt’s threatened or not, but the Ethiopian troops can’t be reinforced. This one’s variable as it depends on what Italy’s moves are and how much Egypt is threatened. You have some fast movers in Egypt, a transport that unloaded 1 dude in Persia and now has a full load, and potentially a cruiser/bb coming over from the Indian ocean for support shots. If nothing else, you can have mech/arm/air coming up from S. Africa. As long as UK isn’t facing a Sea Lion threat, UK should be able to start buying troops as late as Rd3 or so to support Egypt. I like to place a minor in the ME as that gives me the option of supporting Egypt, India, or Russia with those builds. It shouldn’t take UK more than 4-5 turns tops to gain this bonus and that’s being conservative. Usually those troops are eliminated earlier than this and that’s without the added incentive of raking an extra +3 each turn. Even if Egypt does fall, it just seems like the UK can take this one pretty early since Italy’s really limited in contesting this one. Maybe change it so that UK needs to hold Egypt in order to collect or change it to no axis troops in the whole of Africa and not just sub saharan.

Italy taking Malta or Cyprus is a pain. No ifs or buts about it. This one’s pretty variable as it really depends on a whole slew of options. Such as how much German help is pouring into the med, whether US is active in the Atlantic and in what force, whether Taranto(sz97 happened), any dicings, etc. I’ve seen games where the allies won even when Malta or Cyprus were taken in the first couple of rounds and never retaken. Conversely there are games where UK moves to retake either within a turn or two.

The sub one is hard for UK to negate within the first couple of turns at the least. Past that it depends on whether UK’s building straight into Africa/ME via factories that might’ve been built in Persia, Iraq, or Egypt. And whether there’s an American fleet operating in the Atlantic or not. And lastly whether Germany’s invested in a fleet of a carrier or two plus a couple fodder units (including subs) is tough for UK to handle alone, especially if it’s based off of W. Germany and can scramble 3 air units to help protect it. Dealing with subs in sz109 is easier, even if London’s being bombed to death.

Build a dd in sz106 and it can hit sz109 next turn plus any air in London itself. As long as the dd survives, Germany now needs to commit 1-2 subs plus several air units to retake that sz. Make sure you always have a backup dd to do the same thing next turn. The savings from the raiding plus killing 1-2 subs a turn and forcing Germany to build more each turn is worth it to UK. Doesn’t really get that NO for UK but that does solve the raiding problem. Force Germany to build 1-2 subs each turn plus keep the air in W. Germany both to protect the sub(s) from British dds and to hit sz109 in order to keep the RAF from scrambling. Whatever is there isn’t going against Russia.

As far as the bombing is concerned, just build a factory or two in the Middle East and/or Egypt. UK doesn’t HAVE to build from London, especially if they add another factory or two to build out of that’ll put units almost directly near the front lines. If Germany/Italy start bombing these new factories, than the equation changes. They’ll face the same threat factor in the bombings and there’s a smaller reward for them since minor factories max out at 6 damage. It’ll be easier for UK to repair that damage vs the max of 20 on their major. The only thing UK needs to be careful about if it goes this route is ensuring that Germany isn’t in position to go for a later game SL.

[knp7765]

Okay, to answer your questions:
1 > In most of our games, UK will NOT do a Taranto raid. It just tends to cost too much for the UK. If Germany sends a fighter to help scramble, assuming somewhat even dice on both sides, in most cases the Italian Battleship, cruiser and transport are sunk plus 3 Axis fighter destroyed. However, UK usually loses all the Med fleet and a good amount of aircraft as well. On average, the UK survives with the bomber and 1 or 2 other planes and no ships. This leave UK with no naval presence and little air while the Italians still have a cruiser, destroyer, sub and transport plus their strategic bomber. Those will most likely paste the two French ships and Italy has total control over the Med.
Usually, UK will send the SZ 98 Cruiser to SZ 96 and the SZ98 Destroyer to SZ 99, both as blockers, and leave the carrier in SZ 98 with fighter and tac. UK will also take the SZ 98 transport with 1 inf 1 art from Egypt to SZ 96 and attack Tobruk along with the Egypt Mech and everything in Alexandria. This usually wipes out the Tobruk force leaving Italy very weak in Africa. With the blockers, that will mean at least 2 rounds before Italy can attack Egypt directly. Usually Italy will spread it’s fleet out to hit the blockers and French ships. Then UK’s remaining air power will sink most of the Italian fleet without having to worry about scramblers. In most cases, the UK DD from SZ71 and French DD from SZ72 will come up to help protect the carrier in SZ 98. After that, Italy’s threat to Egypt is pretty much at an end.
2 > Yes, in most of our games the US goes primarily after Japan. They try to send some assistance to Europe, mostly in the form of bombers to SBR with maybe a few ships and transports to make a landing somewhere that the Brits can back up, but for the first few rounds it is mostly warships and air power to take on the Japanese Navy. We have found that if the US can take out or at least neutralize Japan (navy dead, cornered on island), then it is easier for the Allies to gang up on that big bully Germany. Sometimes this will happen before Moscow falls but a couple of times it happened after Moscow fell but most of the German forces were still in Russia and couldn’t get back to help Berlin in time.

On a side note, about the UK using alternate factories. UK has done this very thing to good effect in a couple of games. In one game, Germany pulled off a kind of surprise Sealion , around round 6 I think, because they had bombed out the London IC and when they bought a stack of transports, UK couldn’t repair the damage AND put enough defensive units there. They were a little light because of the other ICs and units placed there.
In the other game, Germany was totally fixed on taking Russia and just sank the Royal Navy and bombed UK facilities. This time, UK had 2 rounds of men stacked up there plus 5 or 6 fighters. They didn’t scramble in the naval attacks, moved the Gibraltar fighter to London and purchased a couple. Also, Germany lost it’s navy – the battleship in battle with the RN and the CA and Transport were killed by the Russian CA and SS. Germany’s scramblers could kill the Russian cruiser, but with no DD they couldn’t touch the sub.
So, with no German navy builds and all of their land units and tacs heading into Russia with the exception of a few infantry along the coast, Germany kept it’s bombers and fighters in the west to attack UK facilities. Since they had plenty of escort fighters, UK wasn’t about to fritter away it’s planes as interceptors and Germany had great fun maxing out the factory and both bases in London.
However, UK bought small factories in Egypt and Persia and did exactly what you suggested. They placed tanks and mechs in Persia, infantry in Egypt to stymie any Italian attack and planes in South Africa that could fly up and attack in the Med. It was brilliant. The Italian fleet was sunk and Italy was pretty much neutralized. All of Africa was under Allied control. Plus, the tanks/mechs in Persia helped defend Calcutta then went to Russia. Our German player was a little surprised to see a British armored attack taking back the Caucasus from him.

[Narvik]

@cyanight:

• +5 for UK if no subs in the Atlantic

Even if I agree with Flying Tiger that the NOs is a pain to keep track off, and need to be trimmed down, this is one NO I want to see in the game. I don’t think the convoy zones do the job properly. The UK convoys are too easy to protect, forcing Germany to buy anything but subs. Funny enough, Germany is the big shipping nation in this game, with convoy zones at every coastline, making it easy for UK to starve them out with some subs. I figure the Huns should have spend more resources on railways.

So my suggestion is switch the lame UK empire maintenance NO with the no subs in Atlantic NO. Lets say every seazone above 86 87 and the Med and the Baltic is not part of the Atlantic of course. Now Germany will have a reason to buy subs, and UK a reason to buy navy.

As for some of the other NOs, I think it is lame that an attacker can collect more money from a burned down, bombed and plundered territory than the owner can in peacetime. I guess the designer did it this way because he wanted a scripted game, and did not trust the players would follow the historical correct path without some bait. So lets just ditch all territory based NOs.

For Germany I love the Swedish Iron ore NO, and the Russian Trade NO. Even if the name National Objective is a misfit, this is what NOs were made for, casual income that is hard to track in other ways. So I would ditch the Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad NOs, because Germany don’t need a carrot to attack this places. But keep the Caucasus, Iraq and Iran oil NOs. Since oil is not printed on the map, then NOs is a good way to model it. Oil is what keep an army floating, not the vigor the population get from burning down Stalingrad.

I would even give Russia a 3 IPC trade NO when at peace with Germany. Trade would benefit both. Then skip the silly Commy propaganda NO for occupying some poor eastern Europe territory.

Just saying

[Narvik]

The most silly NO is when Russia get a one time pay out for taking Berlin. If you play with rational people, the game is usually abandoned when this happen. There are very few people in the world that bother to spend one more day kicking a dead horse, which is basically what you do when playing until Tokyo is taken.

[knp7765]

Hey Narvik,
I agree with you on the Berlin NO for Russia. It is pretty silly. After all, once Berlin falls, isn’t the game pretty much over?

As for the No German subs in the Atlantic NO for UK, you can’t just go north of sea zones 86 and 87. There are convoy zones all along the African coast where Germany could station subs and bleed more money from the UK. The UK must keep those pesky U-boats away from those waters too.