• Many of the experienced players thinks that Axis have a small advantage over the allies (about 60/40).
    I think the best way to balance things would be to bring one of the old NO’s back, it seems strage that Italy would have 4 NO’s (quite easy ones) and London only 1 (which is realy hard to get after round 1). Most games i’ve playd in alpha+3 Itlay get richer than UK in the end.

    Thats why i propose to bring back this NO:
    UK london collect 5 IPCs per turn if there are no German submarines on the Europe map with the following exceptions: The Baltic Sea (113 -114 -115). The Black Sea (100) and of course the Caspian Sea. Theme: Being an island nation the UK gains a strategic advantage with low German submarine activities directed against its merchant fleet.

    Mostly because its realy fun NO! 2ndly because it makes it more profitable for US to get involved in Europe and gives UK somewhat more punch against Germany.


  • I agree. I like the challenge of trying to keep the Atlantic free of German subs.


  • I like that NO idea! But maybe an exception for 127? It’s not really hurting the Brits…


  • I still think there should be no exeptions for that zone, its vital for trade with Soviet. Still combined with axis subs that convoy raide at 3 I think this opens for more naval combat in the atlantic.


  • I thought all subs convoyed raided that number of damage at 3 or less? And all subs had 2 rolls…

  • Customizer

    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.

  • '10

    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.


  • @knp7765:

    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.

  • Customizer

    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:


  • @knp7765:

    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.

  • '10

    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.

    North atlantic 2.jpg

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 7
  • 15
  • 7
  • 32
  • 5
  • 2
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

43

Online

17.4k

Users

39.9k

Topics

1.7m

Posts