A&A 2nd Edition OOB National Objectives
GERMANY
1. SCANDINAVIAN RESOURCES = 5 IPCs
2. TRADE WITH RUSSIA = 5 IPCs
3. AFRIKA KORPS = 5 IPCs
4. CAUCASUS OIL FIELDS = 5 IPCs
5. LENINGRAD = 5 IPCs
6. STALINGRAD = 5 IPCs
7. MOSCOW = 5 IPCs
8. IRAQ = 2 IPCs
9. PERSIA = 2 IPCs
10. NORTHWEST PERSIA = 2 IPCs
SOVIET UNION
11. NATIONAL PRESTIGE = 5 IPCs
12. SPREAD OF COMMUNISM = 3 IPCs
13. BERLIN = 10 IPCs (one time)
JAPAN
14. TRADE WITH AMERICA = 10 IPCs
15. THE OUTER PERIMETER = 5 IPCs
16. SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS = 5 IPCs
17. CALCUTTA = 5 IPCs
18. SYDNEY = 5 IPCs
19. HONOLULU = 5 IPCs
20. SAN FRANCISCO = 5 IPCs
UNITED STATES
21. AMERICA = 10 IPCs
22. CENTRAL AMERICA = 5 IPCs
23. ALASKA & THE ISLANDS = 5IPCs
24. THE PHILIPPINES = 5 IPCs
25. FRENCH LIBERATION = 5 IPCs
CHINA
26. THE BURMA ROAD = 6 IPCs (can build artillery)
THE UNITED KINGDOM
27. ORIGINAL TERRITORIES = 5 IPCs
28. KWANGTUNG & MALAYA = 5 IPCs
ITALY
29. THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA = 5 IPCs
30. THE MEDITERRANEAN COAST = 5 IPCs
31. NORTH AFRICA = 5 IPCs
32. IRAQ = 2 IPCs
33. PERSIA = 2 IPCs
34. NORTHWEST PERSIA = 2 IPCs
ANZAC
35. ORIGINAL TERRITORIES & MALAYA = 5 IPCs
36. THE OUTER ISLANDS = 5 IPCs
FRANCE
37. FRENCH FORCES LIBERATED = 12 IPCs (worth of French units / one time)
House Rule National Objectives
UNITED KINGDOM
38. GIBRALTAR, MALTA, EGYPT = 5 IPCs
39. OPERATION ULTRA = 5 IPCs
40. INDIA, MALAYA, NEW SOUTH WALES = 5 IPCs
41. SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS = 5 IPCs
GERMANY
42. LONDON = 5 IPCs
43. LONDON = 10 IPCS
SOVIET UNION
44. LEND LEASE ACT = 5 IPCs
45. NATIONAL PRESTIGE = 5 IPCs
JAPAN
46. CHINESE CAPITULATION = 5 IPCs
47. OUTER PERIMETER = 5 IPCs
CHINA
48. THE BURMA ROAD = 2 Free artillery units
@Young:
A&A 2nd Edition OOB National Objectives
GERMANY
1. DENMARK STRAIT
Maybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t see any such NO in the OOB rules. There’s one which says “5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neither pro-Allies nor Allies-controlled,” but that has nothing to do with the Denmark Strait, which is the strait between Iceland and Greenland (in A&A terms, Sea Zone 122).
@CWO:
@Young:
A&A 2nd Edition OOB National Objectives
GERMANY
1. DENMARK STRAITMaybe I’m just missing it, but I don’t see any such NO in the OOB rules. There’s one which says “5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neither pro-Allies nor Allies-controlled,” but that has nothing to do with the Denmark Strait, which is the strait between Iceland and Greenland (in A&A terms, Sea Zone 122).
Only a few people are aware of this, but the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland was in fact a secret German convoy route to the South American trade marked, so yes it is definitely worth a 5 IPC no
Only a few people are aware of this, but the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland was in fact a secret German convoy route to the South American trade marked, so yes it is definitely worth a 5 IPC no
The Denmark Straight was also a breakout route used by German raiders to get into the Atlantic; Admiral Lutjens, notably, used it twice, the first time with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and the second time with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. It’s where the battle with Hood and Prince of Wales was fought. But my point was simply that (to my knowledge) the Denmark Straight isn’t an OOB national objective. The narrow sea passage between Norway, Denmark and Sweden is called the Kattegat at its southern end and the Skagerrak at its northen end, if that’s what YG was referring to.
Here is a few we used in our gaming group.
I’m curious about something. Isn’t a bonus of 5 IPCs for shooting down a fighter (admittedly representing a whole squadron) kind of high in contrast with a bonus IPC of just 3 (in most cases) for controling whole blocks of territories?
Here is a few we used in our gaming group.
All of your suggestions except the first have been represented in one way or another.
I would also suggest separating each NO idea into their own post so that individuals can give a +1 for the ones they like.
That’s a good Idea YG.
Marc we actually have a gamer in our group that expressed the exact same concern that it should be 3 instead of 5.
I would love to include one that Japan and USA could benefit from relating to destroying carriers. That was the main reason why Pearl Harbor and Midway took place. It was a showdown to dominate in carriers. Kinda like the sub rule in the Atlantic.
5 - IPC
If Japan or USA destroy all carriers in the Pacific.
5 - IPC
If Japan or USA destroy all carriers in the Pacific.
This would read better if it said…
Japan
5 IPCs if Japan has at least 1 aircraft carrier in the Pacific, and the United States has none
United States
5 IPCs if the United States has at least 1 aircraft carrier in the Pacific, and Japan has none
Remember, each nation should be able to hold their own card for each objective achieved, so a generic NO like “Japan or United States” won’t work.
Well said YG and I agree should be separate cards for each nation.
@CWO:
Only a few people are aware of this, but the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland was in fact a secret German convoy route to the South American trade marked, so yes it is definitely worth a 5 IPC no
The Denmark Straight was also a breakout route used by German raiders to get into the Atlantic; Admiral Lutjens, notably, used it twice, the first time with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau and the second time with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. It’s where the battle with Hood and Prince of Wales was fought. But my point was simply that (to my knowledge) the Denmark Straight isn’t an OOB national objective. The narrow sea passage between Norway, Denmark and Sweden is called the Kattegat at its southern end and the Skagerrak at its northen end, if that’s what YG was referring to.
This is one of those catch titles that should allow laymen players to identify the OOB German NO for control of Denmark and Norway while Sweden is niether pro-allied, or allied controlled. If there’s an equal or simpler term to use different than what has been provided, I will consider it… but our group always calls it the Denmark Straight NO. I also believe that’s what the OOB rule book calls that passage as well, even though the NO theme is different.
@Young:
This is one of those catch titles that should allow laymen players to identify the OOB German NO for control of Denmark and Norway while Sweden is niether pro-allied, or allied controlled. If there’s an equal or simpler term to use different than what has been provided, I will consider it… but our group always calls it the Denmark Straight NO. I also believe that’s what the OOB rule book calls that passage as well, even though the NO theme is different.
The rulebook actually uses the phrase “Danish Straits”. But anyway, it’s entirely up to you what you choose to call this passage. I was just trying to figure out if you were referring to some sort of rule that applied to SZ122, or if it was simply a geographic terminology issue.
@CWO:
@Young:
This is one of those catch titles that should allow laymen players to identify the OOB German NO for control of Denmark and Norway while Sweden is niether pro-allied, or allied controlled. If there’s an equal or simpler term to use different than what has been provided, I will consider it… but our group always calls it the Denmark Straight NO. I also believe that’s what the OOB rule book calls that passage as well, even though the NO theme is different.
The rulebook actually uses the phrase “Danish Straits”. But anyway, it’s entirely up to you what you choose to call this passage. I was just trying to figure out if you were referring to some sort of rule that applied to SZ122, or if it was simply a geographic terminology issue.
AAAHHH… my bad, Danish Straits it shall be. hope you don’t think I was bieng an A55, I respect and look forward to all your input, as you are my favorite A&A.org historian.
@Young:
AAAHHH… my bad, Danish Straits it shall be. hope you don’t think I was bieng an A55, I respect and look forward to all your input, as you are my favorite A&A.org historian.
No problem. I’ve seen enough war movies to understand the principle that artistic license sometimes has to take priority over strict historical accuracy, and I respect that. When I point out (potential) issues that have caught my attention, it’s not with the aim of convincing you to change a particular house rule detail (after all, your rules are yours to do with as you please) but just to make sure you’re aware of something that might simply be an oversight rather than an intentional artistic compromise. If it bothered me to have some of these sugggestions turned down, I wouldn’t be taking the trouble to make them in the first place.
Amusing footnote: I once head a military historian complain that it can negatively impact one’s career to agree to be a consultant for a movie because the following happens frequently: Professor So-and-so agrees to be the historical consultant for a military-themed movie. He reviews the script, finds a bunch of errors (both subtle and outrageous) and points them out to the director. The director replies, “Well, yes, you’re right, but cinematically it would be more effective and exciting to leave the script as it is.” The movie gets shot according to the script, and then gets released. All the historians and history buffs in the audience groan at the mistakes, then notice that the end credits say “Historical Consultant: Professor So-and-so”, and they conclude that Professor So-and-so is an incompetent historian.
Could use Scandinavian Peninsula NO
I’ve gotten lots of requests lately for my NO deck, so I had to bump this thread for easy reference.
Cheers
Trying to finish this deck, so I had to bump the thread… appologies.
Hi,
We use these. I made them after I saw one of your videos and couldn’t find any NO-cards for the second edition for download. www#mediafire#com/download/7dtxrwxnbe0n2pe/A&A_NO_pdf.tar.gz
We also use War Cards to show whos in war with who: www#mediafire#com/download/oeby87i8esm122e/A&A_G40_War_Cards_-_pdf.tar.gz (replace the #s with dots (.))
Also since we haven’t played the game much, I wanted to create a “briefing file” for every country, with a overview/list of the National objectives which is a bit more visual than the lists in the manual.
chrz
2 Londons?
