Addressing Global 1940 game balance issues through additional national objective

Its already been done. Is called Balance Mod. Below are the additional objectives that address or touch upon what you’re discussing:

Japan

• 5 PUs if Axis controls Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands. (This modifies Japan’s “Strategic Perimeter” objective).

USA

• 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas.
  5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.
  5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.

ANZAC

• 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese and Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands are controlled by the Allies (other than the Dutch). (This modifies ANZAC’s “Strategic Islands” objective).
  3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese and Solomon Islands, Gilbert Islands, Fiji, and Samoa are Allied controlled.
  3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese, controls all of its original territories, and Malaya is Allied controlled. (This modifies ANZAC’s “Control Original And Malaya” objective).

Marsh, Balance Mod does address the balance through NOs. The other gameplay enhancements (marines, vichy france, doing away without multiple plunders of the same capital’s PUs) are just that enhancements to the gameplay that are not addressed to balance per se. You could easily play Balance Mod with just the NOs and enjoy an extremely balanced experience.

they do slow down japan, but were added for historical interest mostly. in light of stats that show balance mod gives Allies a slight advantage, you could play the game without the insurgents rule and have a very balanced experience (maybe more balanced than balance mod itself. ha). the presence of marines does not make ships immune to kamikazes. again, considerations other than balance motivated the addition of marines (namely, fun!).

I think removing the insurgents would radically adjust the balance of the game in Balance Mod.

There are also many more changes for balance than what Marsh is suggesting. I cannot see Marsh’s changes balancing the game.

Agree; I cannot see Marshmallow’s changes balancing the game. The requirement to leave a US/UK ground unit in each of three French North African territories means that you are “paying” at least 9 IPCs to collect the 5 IPC bonus. You are not going to be in a position to collect that bonus until at least turn 5, even in a game where you put heavy early pressure on Italy. It’s really not that hard for Italy to hold Tunisia in the opening. So if you collect the bonus on turns 5 and 6, now you are breaking even on your 9 IPC investment…and then you’ll profit on turn 7. You can use the profit to build American infantry in the United States on turn 8, which will then reach the European mainland on turn 10, and have a chance of reaching Berlin on turn 14 – way too slow to impact most games. Most games are decided before round 14. In short, the Atlantic NO is too little, too late, with aid going to the wrong player to make a big difference.

The Pacific NO is either a freebie for the USA if it’s limited to the Solomon Islands (really not hard for the USA or ANZAC to trade the Solomon Islands each turn), or a “win more” for the USA if it’s extended to require the Caroline Islands (really not that hard for the Japanese navy to deadzone the Caroline Islands so that it’s not cost-effective for the USA to send transports there).

So really the practical impact of your new NOs is to give the USA 5 more IPCs every turn while the USA is at war. That’s fine, but not really relevant in many types of games. If the Allies go all-in against Germany while Japan is allowed to run wild, then, sure, having a few extra bucks for the USA could be the difference between American forces taking Berlin in time to win vs. taking Berlin one turn after the Japanese get their 6th victory city. But in any other type of game – if you’ve got balanced theaters, or an attempt to defend the Middle East / Moscow, or a Sea Lion, or really any pattern other than just “Allies ignore Japan”, you’re not going to see the 5 IPCs per turn for the USA snowball into anything decisive. The game will be decided by German-Russian battles near Moscow and by British-Italian battles near Egypt and by Japanese-Chinese battles near Yunnan long before those extra American IPCs have a chance to make a difference.

There is mod3… it is fairly balanced…

“And london should be a NO for germany”

Balance Mod gives +5 for German occupation of London.

As for Marines, have had the argument a million times. But people seem to enjoy playing with them and there is ample historical justification for them.

Take, for example, the Battle of Madagascar. From Wikipedia:

“With the French [Vichy] defence highly effective, the deadlock was broken when the old destroyer HMS Anthony dashed straight past the harbour defences of Antisarane and landed fifty Royal Marines amidst the Vichy rear area.[11] The marines created “disturbance in the town out of all proportion to their numbers” taking the French artillery command post along with its barracks and the naval depot. At the same time the troops of the 17th Infantry Brigade had broken through the defences and were soon marching in the town. The Vichy defence was broken and Antisarane surrendered that evening[.]”

Just yesterday I read a chapter on Madagascar in Chruchill’s series, The Second World War: The Hinge of Fate.

I don’t know if you can credit this victory to the effectiveness of marines.  Chruchill considered the operation a great success because of excellent planning and execution.  Using a far superior force against a weak colony composed of Vichy, African natives, and even Frenchmen who disliked Vichy was almost a sure win from the start.

Yes, marines are effective, but they are basically regular troops extensively trained for certain situations.

Any well-trained handful of men could have done the same job given the same circumstances.

I do not want to discredits the marines, but there is no reason why they should be counted separate or special compared to other infantry divisions.