The worst National Objective: and one quick way to fix game balance. *HR

[CWO Marc]

The British in WWII used both routes to get from Great Britain to the Indian Ocean (and vice versa): through the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal, or “around the Cape” (of Good Hope, in South Africa).  Each route had flaws and virtues.  The Mediterranean / Suez route was much shorter, but it was much more open to German and Italian air and surface attacks in the Mediterranean, especially around the Malta choke-point.  The Cape route was much longer but comparatively safer.  I think that the route choice in any given case depended on such factors as the urgency of the shipment (for which the Mediterranean / Suez route was preferable) and the value of the cargo (for which the Cape route was safer – for example in the case of troop transports, which were viewed as very important to safeguard from attack).

[gtg21]

@Herr:

I’m not sure why it should be a requirement for an NO that it can be easily contested. For example, the US has several NO’s that are difficult to reach for the Axis, too.

I didn’t mean to imply that a NO had to be easily contested.  Just that this one - in the context of how its currently written - seems to me to be beyond the reach of being reasonably contested.    Perhaps adding Allied control of Caucasus would improve it?

I like all the others.  And I like the Persian Corridor NO in principle - but it does seem off to me.  In part because I can envision a board scenario where the USSR is collecting it but any objective person would look at the board and think “That’s nuts!”.  Axis control of the Caucasus is probably the best example.  Afterall, there are Russian territory control corollaries in both of the other Lend Lease NOs.  Why not this one?  Seems reasonable to factor in the fact that the supplies need to reach Russian territory somewhere, and the Caucasus is undeniably the entry point for this NO.

A separate question I have is what is the basis for making the 3 Lend Lease objectives collectively worth 15 IPCS?  And not 6 or 9?  It doesn’t seem like anyone is too concerned with the idea of Russia dropping an extra 5 infantry per turn (assuming all NOs are collected).  Do people really think the game is that tilted in favor of the European Axis on an average player level?  Seems to me splitting the baby and going with 9 total IPCs would be the more prudent approach rather than risking an unintended consequence of a different kind of imbalance.

[variance]

The worst NO is the one that says Russia gets $10 for the rape of Berlin.
The second worst NO is the one that says Japan gets $5 if they control Guam, Wake, Midway, Gilbert and Solomons

[Black_Elk]

Thanks CWO  Marc, I was hoping you’d drop by and help vet some of these.

I think the basis for the relatively high value of supply value of the NOs awarded, comes from the fact that Allies are returning so few victories. OOB no bid, and it is virtually impossible for Allies to win. Russia is so nerfed to begin with, and all there objectives are stalled on the DoW. I agree it’s debatable whether the Persian Corridor might be a gift, but sz 80 does provide Japan with some options. If it came down to attaching Egypt or India, I would probably substitute just one of these for Northwest Persia to keep with with the 2 land 1 convoy formula. But I do believe on balance that Russia needs more money. Considerably more than they receive OOB, if you’re going to support a no bid game for Allies.

I agree the 10 ipcs for Berlin is probably the worst of all. It leads me to think that most of the NOs in G40 were probably included before the game was thoroughly playtested. That one is just enitrely pointless, it is not a game driver, the objective to take Berlin is so obvious and so decisive already, it doesn’t need an extra NO to make it happen. Total waste of space in the rulebook hehe

[KaLeu]

@gtg21:

@Herr:

I’m not sure why it should be a requirement for an NO that it can be easily contested. For example, the US has several NO’s that are difficult to reach for the Axis, too.

I didn’t mean to imply that a NO had to be easily contested.  Just that this one - in the context of how its currently written - seems to me to be beyond the reach of being reasonably contested.    Perhaps adding Allied control of Caucasus would improve it?

I like all the others.  And I like the Persian Corridor NO in principle - but it does seem off to me.  In part because I can envision a board scenario where the USSR is collecting it but any objective person would look at the board and think “That’s nuts!”.   Axis control of the Caucasus is probably the best example.  Afterall, there are Russian territory control corollaries in both of the other Lend Lease NOs.  Why not this one?  Seems reasonable to factor in the fact that the supplies need to reach Russian territory somewhere, and the Caucasus is undeniably the entry point for this NO.

Agreed. Adding ownership of the Caucasus as a requirement seems quite reasonable, for the reasons you mention.

@gtg21:

A separate question I have is what is the basis for making the 3 Lend Lease objectives collectively worth 15 IPCS?  And not 6 or 9?   It doesn’t seem like anyone is too concerned with the idea of Russia dropping an extra 5 infantry per turn (assuming all NOs are collected).  Do people really think the game is that tilted in favor of the European Axis on an average player level?   Seems to me splitting the baby and going with 9 total IPCs would be the more prudent approach rather than risking an unintended consequence of a different kind of imbalance.

I’ve been wondering the same…. it all depends on what the NO’s would precisely be in the end. Maybe I’ll do some scenario analysis, but I seem to have more plans than time these days.

[Witt]

I must say that I thought 20 possible IPCs were a tad much.
An At War NO of 5 is a good start. Then make the 3 others (if you believe 3 are necessary and historical ) worth only 2.
I know someone said 3.

[Noll]

“Red Advance” Theme: Propaganda value and spread of communism.
+3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.

Due to the change in Russian NO’s I’d limit this NO to continental europe territories, so no Iraq, Libya, Somalia…

[IKE]

@variance:

The worst NO is the one that says Russia gets $10 for the rape of Berlin.
The second worst NO is the one that says Japan gets $5 if they control Guam, Wake, Midway, Gilbert and Solomons

Agreed!  If Russia controls Berlin the game is over.  How about an NO that actually affects the game?

And we’ve never played a game where Japan even attempts the outer perimeter NO.  All that for $5?  Giant waste of time.

[Young Grasshopper]

The only issue I have with all this is, how will Russia be spending this new found income?…against Germany!

Yes… the balance problem is the German advance to crush Moscow, however, the Pacific dominance of Japan is a bigger issue in our games. Is there anything here that will prevent Japan from doing what it does?

[IKE]

@Young:

The only issue I have with all this is, how will Russia be spending this new found income?…against Germany!

Yes… the balance problem is the German advance to crush Moscow, however, the Pacific dominance of Japan is a bigger issue in our games. Is there anything here that will prevent Japan from doing what it does?

Tanks/mechs into China or thru the middle east to India?

[cyanight]

Russia could support China now with some troops without weakening the capital.

USA can play more of a Pacific role since Russia is more secure.

[Black_Elk]

In almost every game Russia has been the weak link, going back to the earliest days. Russia just doesn’t start with a sufficient unit roster or collect enough income to stand on its own through normal purchasing. Instead what usually happens, is a drive on Moscow in one form or another as the principle means by which Axis achieve victory. This is because the competent Axis player will realize that the center around Eurasia is ultimately the key to everything, since it has the most income, production, and factories. It also has the strongest strategic significance (since it is where all three Axis players can potentially converge on the enemy at a capital.) It provides a straightforward objective that the Axis player can rely upon… throw everything at the center! link your Axis forces! and then use the turn order advantage! to can open the core, or rush defense with tanks and fighter shifting, with the aim of eventually breaking the Russians on a 1-2 punch! You guys have seen this play out I’m sure. Its enough in the history and foundation of A&A that we see it happen in practically every WW2 game.

Now I understanding the dilemma in the Pacific is this, Japan is a monster at the outset! and this puts the US player in a bind, since they are the only player that can really affect the outcome in the Pacific. If they abandon the Atlantic and throw everything against Japan, even then, its still hard to overcome them over multiple rounds of purchase. All the while you know, if you don’t send anything against Germany, then Russia could very well fold before anything in the Pacific even matters. What are the Allies to do? Well they often default to the simple strategy of rush aid to the center to try and stabilize an unstable Russia.

But imagine, if the Allied player can count on Russia being a bit more stable, it then becomes easier to use your UK and US units in other ways. Like dedicating the necessary resources to a stall on Japan, or fight Italy or Germany, rather than just propping up Russia. Likewise for the Russians themselves. When you give Russia enough to purchase additional tanks or artillery or stack a little deeper for defense, they can then afford to put up a stronger resistance against Japan.

So far we’ve seen at least 3 NOs, that nobody here seems to enjoy, and which feel rather irrelevant to the gameplay. The first OOB Russian NO mentioned at the head of this thread. The +10 the first time Russia takes Berlin, which is just extraneous. And the Japanese Outer Perimeter, which is too onerous to achieve. Why not just ditch all 3 and try to come up with something better? I have suggested a few ways to get Russia a reasonable +5 ipcs.I like to award a +5 for no Allied units on red land. But you know that NO alone will not be sufficient, for all the reasons mentioned above about the Axis players aims at the center. Especially when you consider the double bombing threat that G and J can bring down on the Russians. They need at least another reliable +5 to maintain.

I have been considering a way to simplify the supply route idea into just a single NO. I wonder what people might think of this?

+5 ipcs if Russia controls any one of the following three territories: Archangel, Caucasus, Amur.

Theme: Access to Lend-Lease Materials, via Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, the Pacific Route etc.

So long as the Russians control at least one of those three territories, they get +5, so its fairly simple for the Soviets to achieve (Axis must deny all three territories to lock out the Russian NO), but its purchasing power and TUV scope is also fairly limited (the most you can get is +5 for it.) This gives you basically two decent Russian NOs, to replace 2 rather impossible Russian NOs. Putting the Russians into a reasonable +10 ipcs range once at war, and a likely +5 ipcs into the endgame. Now if the Russians accept direct western aid in the form of units, then their potential bonus will drop by -5. But if they can at least manage to hold 1 of the 3 listed routes into the Soviet Union, they will still get their +5. I think it would do a lot to ease the pressure of the other Allies to manage the center crush. Basically what we give Russia here, the other Allies can then afford to divert in other directions.

2 russian NOs ditched, and 2 gained, to fix the Center. Or you could try some of the other combinations of Russian NO tweaks suggested above. Depending on where you’re comfortable range is. Whether 5-10, 10 + ipcs awarded. I tend to favor the later, especially when I play in groups where the skill level of all players is not necessarily matched up to perfection. 10+ allows more room for Allied mistakes, or terrible roll recoveries, or first round breaks. But +5 may be enough to for the most diehard.

But now that you guys brought up the “Next worse” NO hehe. Seriously, what are we going to do with the Japanese Outer Perimeter Islands! It really would be nice to see something done with this. If you eliminate this NO, and replace it with another you could open up some more options. A Soviet Japanese NAP objective, that gives a +5 to Russia and Japan so long as they are not at War with each other? (a way for it to work, where both sides have something to gain from it, as well to lose?) Or perhaps an additional US objective or Anzac objective that draws the fight against Japan. It seems like we could do better than the perimeter NO. I don’t really see Japan needed much more money than they already have access to, so I’d probably kill the NO, and give another power an extra one instead.

[KaLeu]

Russia certainly needs help, but I’m not sure about simplifying the original three routes into one NO. It would probably lead to a situation where contesting the NO would be pointless for the Axis until Germany gets as far as to threaten the Caucasus. Germany still may take Archangel as a side effect of taking Novgorod, but I don’t see any reason for Japan to consider Amur early if it doesn’t break a Russian NO. The separate NO creates a tactical possibility for Japan at a time when their normal strategic objectives lie elsewhere (China, the Dutch East Indies, India, Hawaii, Australia), so Japan now needs to consider whether or not it’s a good idea to dedicate resources to an attack from which it has little to gain for itself, but that helps Germany by taking Russian money. I like that as an idea to do something about the Japanese “monster” (LOL… when I read “Japanese monster” I can’t help thinking about Godzilla).

As for the Japanese Outer Islands NO - I agree that it can be abolished. If Japan is doing so great that it can afford to spend time and resources on taking those mostly useless isles, then they’re probably already winning anyway and really don’t need another 5 IPC a round. But I don’t think we need anything to replace that NO. I like the thought of some Soviet-Japanese-not-at-war reward, but I’m not sure what it would symbolize, historically speaking. Soviet-Japanese relations had been declining since the mid 1930’s, so it would be hard to name such an NO “trade with Russia” or so.

[CWO Marc]

@IKE:

If Russia controls Berlin the game is over.

And that’s actually a pretty good description of what happened historically.  The overall Allied strategy was “Germany first” – so once Germany was knocked out, the war’s primary strategic objective was accomplished, and the Americans and Russians were free to shift their resources towards the defeat of Japan, which was already close to the breaking point in May 1945.

[WILD BILL]

I’ve been following this thread, and like where it is heading. I think you’re right that the Russians are underpowered, and also about the axis converging on the center (Moscow). I don’t like the fact that the allies (UK mostly) need to fly fighters to Moscow, and/or have a good size ground force come up from Egypt/India. The job of the western allies was and should be to open up a separate front, not station troops and fighters deep inside Russian territory to defend it (although there is some evidence that the allies did fly some missions from Russian bases). The Russians excepted tons of war materials from the allies through lend lease, but not the man power to operate such materials.

I have long thought that a better lend lease system would help balance things. The allies should be able to either send a certain number of unis that convert to Russian (like the old days), or give them a certain amount of at risk IPCs that they can use to build their own units keeping the western allies out of Russia territory. A lend lease system would be difficult to bring about in game terms though, and bring another level of complication, so doing something w/NOs is a good compromise IMO.

I think you were on the right track with the three separate NOs (lend lease routes) proposed, and I wouldn’t blend them into just one NO for reasons given (too hard for the axis to shut them down). I think you should make them 3 IPC NO’s each though which would allow for 9 IPCs in bonuses. I like how you have linked 2 territories and a sz for each NO. The Arctic and Persian routes proposed are very nice, and both sides already have reasons to fight in those area’s. The Northern Trace (Pacific Route) is troublesome because of the delicate NAP (linked to Amur).

The Japanese allowed this route to exist because they wanted to keep the NAP in tact (plus the materials sent weren’t directed at them). The convoy’s flew under Russian flags to be safe from the Japanese, and I understand that the US mistakenly sank more goods then the Japanese. I also understand the Pacific route accounted for about half of the lend lease sent to Russia because it was safer or shorter then the Arctic or Persian Route’s, and obviously much closer  to the Western US. The goods sent VIA the Pacific route was supposed to be food and raw materials, not war materials (but I think that line was blurred). I like the historic aspect of linking it to Amur, but in game terms would it cause the Japanese to break the Nap and attack Amur?

I think the Pacific route should be opened once the Russians go to war w/Euro’s like proposed, but I don’t think the Japanese should be able to cut it off unless they break the NAP, and are at war w/Russia. I also think that Alaska shouldn’t be part of it, because the Japanese being at war w/US shouldn’t be restricted from taking Alaska (plus the origin of the resources aren’t part of the other lend lease NO’s, and the US would still be able to send stuff from WUS). I think sz 5 would be more logical then sz 1 as well. If the Japanese and Russians are at war, then they would easily cut off the lend lease route IMO basically being in their home waters. I also think that you will need to offer an NO to Japan to honor the NAP as well because as you know the Mongolians aren’t much of a incentive to stay out (but money talks). The Japanese might be inclined to allow a 3 IPC NO to Russia if they where getting a 3 IPC NO themselves for not attacking Amur (would be beneficial to both powers). The 3 IPCs could be thought of as Japanese resources redistributed from the Manchurian border.

Other NOs for Russia:

“The Great Patriotic War” - I like separating this NO from the lend lease, and it should help to keep the Western Allie out of Russian territory.

“Red Advance” -  I think the 3 IPC NO for any German, Italian, or Pro axis neutral should at the very least be be limited to the Euro continent and Mid East (no more African safari’s, or island hoping in the Med). I would prefer any German, Pro Axis, or Balkan territory (this NO would include all orig German land like the orig NO, along with Finland, Iraq, Bulgaria, Yugo, Albania, and Greece). I might look at making it a 2 IPC NO so that a successful Sea Lion doesn’t cost you the game.

“Final Offensive” - The 10 IPCs for Berlin is over kill IMO, and being an original German territory for 3 IPCs is double dipping too. With that said I wouldn’t mind an NO that allowed for a 5 IPC NO to any power that captures an enemy capital (maybe any enemy VC) for every round you have it, because most of them are in play anyway, but that is another debate.

If the Russians are still too weak then maybe once at war give them a 5 IPC NO for being in possession of all 3 of their VCs (Corner Stones of the Empire). This might keep them fighting for them, because if they lose one they don’t get paid. This NO (short lived as it might be) and the lend lease NOs could give them the resources to actually fight instead of backing down and waiting for the final assault.

BTW, the Japanese perimeter island NO is joke, and I would reinstate the 5/7 island NO that was given to both the US and Japan in Alpha+2. I liked when those two powers actually fought for something (even if it was somewhat of a side show).

[variance]

Once again, WILD BILL offers great ideas and insight.

I agree that the Eastern front is messed up.  The Soviet Union properly won the great patriotic war with a little help from the Western allies.  Its true that the USA and western powers beat Japan, but A&A grossly exaggerates their role in the fight against Germany.  For instance the USSR lost more casualties at the battle of Kursk than the USA lost in the entire war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Soviet_losses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
(and that’s just one battle; let’s not forget Finland, Barbarossa, Moscow, Leningrad, Rzhev, Ukraine, Stalingrad, Bagration)

So I am going to throw out a really off the wall house rule idea.  Suppose Russia were to have a special rule where it is only defeated if it loses both Moscow AND Stalingrad.  If Moscow is taken (or evacuated to Samara) but they still have Stalingrad, they keep their money and can mobilize units next turn if they still hold an IC (likely Stalingrad).  Germany taking and holding both cities would be very difficult and might come close to representing Russia’s ability to take losses and continue the fight.  This change might actually unbalance the game toward the allies advantage.

[Black_Elk]

To shadowhawk, just looking at IPCs per round is insufficient because it does not take into account the sizeable starting TUV disparity (which is concentrated in Air for Axis, allowing a considerable movement advantage), and also the fact that the Russian defense is split across more territories/factories in G40 than in any previous version of A&A. I agree that under the OOB circumstances, some Allied strategies are going to be more effective than others, but the experience of most players suggests that the gap between Axis and Allies cannot be overcome by sound strategy alone. Instead what is happening is that Allies are being bid out. Consider that even a conservative bid of 12, can allow UK to bid a pair of subs and swing the first round TUV trade by value 3 to 4 times that amount, more in subsequent rounds if they use this trade to effectively raid Italy out of the game in the process. This is not a satisfactory solution,  because it breaks the game in the other direction (not to mention starting with an unofficial opening position.) I have proposed here that a better solution is to increase the average income that Russia collects, because it can achieve a similar balance but without as much distortion, since units can only enter play through the normal purchasing and placement mechanics, and not on pre-placement the way it works with a bid.

Now it is entirely possible that the situation with your game group has not yet required a bid, this could be for many reasons; relative player experience, skewed dice, frequency of games or rotation by side among the same players. That said however, many people who’ve been settling in to G40 for a few years now are consistently seeing Axis victories. And it’s not even in the best 2 out of 3 range, we’re seeing results like Axis winning 9 times out of 10! That is at a level where it’s simply not enjoyable to play Allies OOB. And virtually impossible to switch sides in a rotation if the less skilled player wants to take Allies. Basically Allies need more than a lucky break once in a blue moon, more than just a chance to draw things out and stalemate the endgame, what they need is a reasonable chance to actually win, at least half the time. Right now Axis have more than a chance to win, they will win, with opponents matched at even skill, and the only thing that can throw it the other direction is a savage dicing, or a fairly sizeable bid. We need another way.

I say the best/simplest way to do this, absent the bid, is to revise Russian income up by at least 5 ipcs consistently with a shot at +10 total if they achieve key objectives.

To Wild Bill et al, I’m interested mainly in the ends, the means are of course open for refinement :)

For me the goal is a fairly secure +5 ipcs to Russia baseline (to compensate for the lack of a bid), and then another potential +5 that Axis can contest, as a gameplay driver. How exactly to get there is the question of the moment. I made some suggestions which I believe are workable, but they could surely be tweaked to satisfy individual tastes.

I think the most interesting question beyond this, on balance, is how to handle Japan, because it is reasonable to assume that Russia will use most of its extra cash to survive the initial German onslaught. My question then is, would an extra 5 to 10 ipcs a round to Russia (directly) open up enough options for the Americans to viably contest the Pacific? I think it would, but again, it is probably worth considering how the Outer Perimeter NO could be changed to make that even more likely.

In other words, the ideal situation is one where the Americans will have a strong incentive to spend in the Pacific (the extra units the US saves, by not having to prop up UK, since UK doesn’t have to spend as much to prop up Russia). Ideally we want the ‘the breathing room’ allies get in Russia to translate into balance against the Japanese, rather than throwing all of it at Germany, on a familiar KGF dynamic, where speed on Europe is the only thing that matters. I think a replacement to the Outer Perimeter should focus on promoting Allied activity against Japan the Pacific.

YG, Shadowhawk, and others have been highlighting the Pacific aspect (e.g trying to avoid an all one theater show.) I am pretty sure that Russia balance is the first step for pacific balance, because in order for USA to have a chance here they need that breathing room for UK/Russia in Europe that the extra +5 to Russia provides. But once you have it, what would be nice is a Pacific NO that is actually contested (e.g. one that has enough value for/against that both sides will commit resources to contest it, rather than just ignoring it and trying to make up the income somewhere else on the game map. I think America is the prime condidate, though I suppose Anzac might be doable, since they really have no where else to go but the Pac. I don’t know though, without a strong US commitment there isn’t a whole lot Anzac could really do to change the situation against Japan, which why I lean towards making the NO something that American and Japan would both see as critical.

[EnoughSaid]

Well, I was just going to give my shoutout to the “Strategic outer defense perimeter” NO, but Black Elk here has set me up for this perfectly:

If you remove Gilbert Islands and Solomon Islands from that NO, not only does it reduce the total from 5 territories down to 3, but it eliminates the two with a severe distance from Japan. This makes it exceptionally more reachable. But, are 3 territories (now worth almost 2 each) worth the time to go after them?

Go to the US NO for “National sovereignty issues.”
“5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Island, and Line Islands.”
To note, Wake Island, Midway, and Johnston Island are the only American territories in this game without civilian populations. Having Johnston Island in a “National sovereignty issues.” NO is off.
If you replace Johnston Island with Guam, then all the territories fit better with the NO theme, and apan and USA have an objective with a shared territory. Japan might well likely take Guam for the real estate and to remove the American bonus. After that, what’s 2 more islands, right? Suddenly, we’ve brought impact to the NO, and hopefully achieved Black Elk’s goal of incentivizing the U.S. a bit more in the Pacific and giving them a territory to fight for.

So that leaves us with these two modified NOs:

Japan

5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Guam, Midway, and Wake Island.  Theme: Control of strategic Pacific airfields.

United States

5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Guam, Hawaiian Islands, and Line Islands.  Theme: National sovereignty issues.

Now obviously this is a change benefiting the Axis, which I know wasn’t your overall goal. So it would still go hand-in-hand with your +5/+10 Russia NOs.

[Black_Elk]

I actually like that a lot EnoughSaid! And it is serendipitous too, as I was just typing this massive wall, when your post came through. And it basically falls exactly in line with some ideas I was kicking around.  :-D

I have just been taking some notes, trying to determine in very specific terms why I dislike the current OOB NOs…
So that I can describe in general terms why I dislike how NOs have been approached. Not sure if any of this is helpful, or might be of use in thinking about a different approach to this aspect of the game

Along general lines, I see two trends present themselves. In the first, the NO awards a bonus for the ‘regular’ behavior of the Nation (according to traditional A&A moves and strategic norms), for things the Player/Nation wants to do naturally, regardless of whether the NO gave them extra money to achieve it. These are basically the safe NOs, dependable income for doing things that already make sense just from the production spread, and the strategic position of factories and VCs, and just generally the NOs that are actually ‘in play.’

In the second type, the NO awards a bonus for divergent gameplay, or something unlikely to occur given the normal moves and trajectories out of A&A, based on the production/income/VC spread. Basically an NO “in the unlikely event” that the stars align, and several challenging conditions can be met at a go. These are the NOs that have basically too many conditions to fulfill and which get ignored, or which only come into play once the game is basically decided already. The NOs which are very hard to contest. In this class of NO, I think the values are consistently too low, to encourage the kind of gameplay which the NO would award for. An example of this would be the sort of NO which awards +5, for doing something that basically costs the player more in TotalUnitValue (and by putting this TUV out of position strategically) than its worth. On this last point, probably worth considering… It is entirely possible that if the value of some those NOs was say +10, or +15, or even +20 ipcs, then perhaps there is a chance  such objectives would be contested, but at a mere +5 they usually aren’t.

So what follows is a list of what I think of each NO. Using the tripleA wording since I find it simpler to parse.

In addition there are the DoW NO, and then there are of course a few NOs, which award well for the standard gameplay and which are considered dependably achievable income. Basically the NOs highlighted in red, seem to me the most problematic, or inconsequential and might be worth revisiting.

Germans
5 if not yet at war with Russia. DoW stall, potential game play driver in the early rounds.
5 for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia. achievable, awards bonus for the normal strategic position aims (Center), VC/income/production goals.
5 if Axis controls the Caucasus. achievable, awards bonus for the normal strategic position aims (Center) and income goals.
5 if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan. Problematic, mainly because of the German starting position in the Med and on Suez. Endgame achievable, but by the time G collects this the center or med have probably already collapsed, and Axis are probably already winning.
5 if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway and Sweden is not allied-controlled or pro-allied. achievable, awards bonus for the normal strategic position (Kattegat Straits) and income goals.
2 for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia. achievable, again after center collapse.

Basic thrust, Center Crush. The majority of NOs (and the weightiest) reinforce Germany’s pre-existing aims on the center, for income/production/VCs strategic position etc. Norway is peripheral, worth holding for as long as possible on account of the Baltic and the straits, but still outclassed by the NOs that put G at the center.
–------------------
Russians
5 if Russia is at war, sz125 has no Axis warships (all sea units except transports), Archangel is Russia-controlled, and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories. Problematic, for all the reasons outlined earlier in this thread.
3 for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls. reaching endgame.
10 one time only, the first time Russia conquers Germany (Berlin). largely irrelevant to the gameplay

Overall assessment, pretty worthless.
–------------------
Japanese
10 if not yet at war with USA, has not yet attacked French Indo-China, and has not declared war on UK or ANZAC. Problematic, mainly because advantage of the DoW
5 if Axis controls all of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.Problematic, the cost in TUV to achieve this objective is too high for the amount awarded by the NO. Generally ignored.
5 for each Axis controlled territory: Hawaii, India, New South Wales, and Western United States.achievable, with the exception of W. US, pretty much in line with already existing VC aims
5 if Axis controls all of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes. achievable, in line with existing income and strategic position aims.

Overall assessment. Japan has little incentive to contest the valueless pacific islands, and little incentive to remain neutral for very long. Most of their NOs favor a drive on the center via the south pacific/India, rather than against allied positions out of north America, Australia or the islands.
–------------------
Americans
10 if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled. totally uncontested, basically a given.
5 if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled. its possible for Japan to contest this one, but the relative value for US is pretty low compared to what Japan needs to invest to lock it off. Kind of a throw away. If its value was higher it might be more significant as a gameplay driver.
5 if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled. unlikely to be contested, basically a given
5 if USA is at war and the Philippines is American-controlled. aspirational endgame, in line with the VC if the Pacific is already the plan
5 each turn the USA has one land unit in France. same deal as above, except for Europe. Cool for the endgame, if you can get there.

Basically, the total amount USA receives in secure income and secure NO bonuses, are enough to trump what it can collect on the contested NOs. I think there was real missed opportunity here with the American NOs. The lions share of their NO loot is awarded for doing nothing in particular, beyond holding north america. Something which they are guaranteed to do anyway. This might be sound from a historical perspective, but its also rather boring from a gameplay standpoint. The American income/production spread already supports the idea that they’re essentially untouchable. Dropping a big pile of NO cash on top of this, just as a given doesn’t serve as much of a gameplay driver. It gives the money with basically no strings attached. Given that the US strategic position is already what it is, it would have been a lot more interesting if their NOs were awarded for doing more specific things in contested areas of the game map. I mean, in the abstract sense (and I do believe that all NOs are already pretty abstract) if the Americans were awarded 10 ipcs for holding pacific islands, or for invading north Africa, or for basically anywhere other than North America, then you’d have a gameplay driver… eg. Something that the US would want to do, and which the Axis might be able to deny. But instead, all the NO cash is awarded for just holding the core, which seems a kind of unfortunate use of the NO money, since its totally out of reach for the Axis.
–------------------
Chinese
6 and may build artillery if the Allies control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan. meh, everything about China annoys me, including its NO, but given the situation the Chinese are in, at least its something.
–------------------
British
5 for UK Europe if UK Europe controls all of its original territories.
5 for UK Pacific if UK Pacific controls both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.

Both the British NOs seem pretty irrelevant in all my games.
–------------------
Italians
5 if no Allied ships are in the Med: sz92,…,sz99.
5 if Axis control at least 3 of: Gibraltar, Egypt, Southern France and Greece.
5 if Axis controll all of: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria.
2 for each Italian controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.

Pretty onerus. Its just a lot for Italy to do. In my experience the Italian NOs don’t have a huge influence on the course of the gameplay.
–------------------
ANZAC
5  if the Allies control Malaya, and ANZAC controls all of their original territories, and is at war with Japan.The Malaya requirement is what shuts this down, driving it into the realm of the inconsequential, outside the first couple rounds at best.
5 if the Allies (not including Dutch) control all of Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands, and is at war with Japan.

Anzac would have probably benefited from an NO that forced Japan further out of position against it, or which didn’t require so many territories to achieve, to focus the action somewhere further afield.
–------------------
French
12 worth of free units in France the first time France is Liberated. Token nod to the Resistence, I guess its alright.
–------------------
Victory_Conditions
Axis Victory: 8 European Victory Cities OR 6 Pacific Victory Cities where at least one is Rome/Berlin/Japan.

Allied Victory: Berlin and Rome and Japan are under allied control and allies maintain control of one of their own capitals. Requires a rather masochistic Axis player. I wish the conditions of Allied Victory where more in line with the Axis conditions of Victory

My thoughts, at the moment anyway. :-D I still don’t like NOs, from a memorization and ease of use standpoint, but I can’t help but think that part of the reason I’ve been soured on them, is because they don’t really push the game enough, for all the tracking they require. If some of these NOs were eliminated, or replaced, or drafted in a way that offered more contest between sides, maybe I’d be more amenable towards them. For the most part I’ve tried to get around NOs, by using other bonus mechanisms, but I know many people would find this system hard to give up, now that it’s in place. Given the situation, and the OOB balance, I think the best solution would be to alter as few as possible. I wonder for example, how much could be achieved just by altering the amounts awarded, on the existing NOs? Less for the ones that are always achieved, more for the ones that are infrequent, or just eliminated if irrelevant and replaced by something that works in more interesting ways.

These ideas, just suggested above, intrigue me…

@EnoughSaid:

Japan
5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Guam, Midway, and Wake Island.  Theme: Control of strategic Pacific airfields.

United States
5 IPCs if the United States controls all of the following territories: Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Guam, Hawaiian Islands, and Line Islands.  Theme: National sovereignty issues.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@Herr:

@gtg21:

@Herr:

I’m not sure why it should be a requirement for an NO that it can be easily contested. For example, the US has several NO’s that are difficult to reach for the Axis, too.

I didn’t mean to imply that a NO had to be easily contested.  Just that this one - in the context of how its currently written - seems to me to be beyond the reach of being reasonably contested.    Perhaps adding Allied control of Caucasus would improve it?Â

I like all the others.  And I like the Persian Corridor NO in principle - but it does seem off to me.  In part because I can envision a board scenario where the USSR is collecting it but any objective person would look at the board and think “That’s nuts!”.   Axis control of the Caucasus is probably the best example.  Afterall, there are Russian territory control corollaries in both of the other Lend Lease NOs.  Why not this one?  Seems reasonable to factor in the fact that the supplies need to reach Russian territory somewhere, and the Caucasus is undeniably the entry point for this NO.

Agreed. Adding ownership of the Caucasus as a requirement seems quite reasonable, for the reasons you mention.

@gtg21:

A separate question I have is what is the basis for making the 3 Lend Lease objectives collectively worth 15 IPCS?  And not 6 or 9?   It doesn’t seem like anyone is too concerned with the idea of Russia dropping an extra 5 infantry per turn (assuming all NOs are collected).  Do people really think the game is that tilted in favor of the European Axis on an average player level?   Seems to me splitting the baby and going with 9 total IPCs would be the more prudent approach rather than risking an unintended consequence of a different kind of imbalance.

I’ve been wondering the same…. it all depends on what the NO’s would precisely be in the end. Maybe I’ll do some scenario analysis, but I seem to have more plans than time these days.

From what I have seen, Russia should be able to survive with 15-24IPCs total.
So assuming Italy, Germany and Japan make sure not 1 of the current NO’s can be made I’d go for an achievable +10 somewhere.