AA50 1941 New National Objectives/ Historical Frontlines

NOTE:
This thread is mostly a compilation of thoughts now that show my thinking process when starting the “New Historical Objectives” Scenario for the 1941 setup. If you are interested, you can read it, but the pages shown here are OUTDATED - if you want to check out the more balanced new sheets, you can have a look at the “FINAL New Historical Objectives” thread. I hope you enjoy them as much as I do!
NOTE END

Historical National Objectives balancing attempt

Hey guys, I wanted to do (yet another) balancing attempt at Axis & Allies Anniversary 1941 scenario. You might ask “Why? It is already fairly balanced without National Objectives” and that is true, it really is! However, it creates frontlines that are not very historical and a game that usually leads to a “Kill Germany First” approach if the Allies really want to be successful. Here are some bullet points of things that I want to balance out:

• There is no real incentive for the US to go to the Pacific. It is much more rewarding helping the SU out in Europe, shoo away the Axis from Africa, liberate the Scandinavian territories, get France if you are playing with NO etc.
• The game often ends in a situation in which you fight an overly huge Japan because of the reasons outlined in the first part
• China’s addition to the game was such a nice idea… except that it is usually destroyed in the first round and all its territories taken in round 3 or 4
• Britain cannot reinforce its colonies and is doomed to lose them all unless they focus 100% on retaking them (which will probably lead to a collapse of the Eastern Front sooner or later) or the US has to help out, especially in Africa
• Front lines between the US and Japan are usually established around Persia (assuming the US landed in Northern Africa and Japan took India, which is the case in almost all of the games)

As from personal experience, I can tell that I am very skeptical of house rules or alternative setups that want to “reinvent the wheel” and change so many things that you basically have a new game. I also want to create a whole new playing experience with historical frontlines, but I also want to change as little as possible so that it is rather excepted by people and the threshold to actually try this new scenario is as little as possible. Therefore, I want to follow this principle:

Change as little of the original setup as possible but create incentives to encourage a historical play

In my opinion, the key to creating something like this is the following: Adjust the National Objectives. Why would I want to do that? Here are my main arguments:

• National objectives are very easy to gain for the Axis and harder to get for the Allies
• They often encourage an ahistorical play and seem arbitrary in general
So what are my aims for new National Objectives?

• National Objectives should encourage historical play that lead to accurate frontlines.
• It shouldn’t let you snowball (Just take Germany’s NO “+5 if Axis control Karelia or Caucasus -> Germany already has a huge advantage from taking the IC in Karelia and as soon as Germany starts trading or even stacking Caucasus, the SU is already in a dire situation…and this will only speed up their defeat – The same is true for the Soviet Union’s National Objective worth 10 IPCs: If they can successfully secure Scandinavia and even conquer former German territory, the game is already over, there is no need to reward them with 10 IPCs).
• They should encourage alternative plays (since the most optimal Allied strategy is abandoning the Pacific, there should be more incentives for the US to actually conquer Islands but also for Japan to focus on Islands like Midway or Hawaii
• There shouldn’t be a side whose NOs are more easily attainable
• They should be “antagonists”, meaning: The US gets 5 IPCs if they hold Midway, the Japanese get 5 IPCs if they control Midway.
• They should be easy to understand: No more “control 5 out of these 8 territories: …” (Yes, this is an exaggeration, but the original NOs are a bit too convoluted for my taste.)

Here is also some visualization for the NOs, first let’s start with Japan:

And these are the NOs for the US:

The implications of these changes and some maths

As you can see, the new National Objectives are all based on real war events or objectives. Germany wants to gain “Lebensraum” in the East and also wants to secure “Fortress Europe”. Although its African Campaign was mostly due to Italian defeats in Africa, they also wanted to gain something they had lost after WWI, namely colonies. To make a G1 attack on Egypt also less rewarding and maybe even encourage a permanent supply of German troops to Africa, they now need two units left in Africa to get 5 IPCs from the “German Colonial Ambitions” objective. Since Romanian Oil played such an important part in its supply, I also included this objective.

Britain’s objectives are now much more focused on its core island because that is where Britain will fight most of the time. They want to secure their threshold in the Mediterranean Sea and also gain or keep naval and air superiority.

Italy underwent some significant changes, the first is its reward for meeting an objective. They only gain 3 IPCs and their objectives are strictly focused on Africa. I wanted Italy to stay a minor Axis power (although it still has potential to become very strong!).

The Soviet Union gets objectives that represent its industrial capabilities even after losing a huge chunk of its western territories. Many factories were moved to the Urals or beyond. They also got a very interesting new objective which is “No step back”. It is very important to note that you only get these 3 IPCs if you control Caucasus at the beginning of your turn, not if you conquer it. This represents Stalin’s order that the Soviet Union wasn’t allowed to retreat from Stalingrad. Since they will most likely secure all their objectives in the first round or two, they are only worth 3 IPCs – Else, I figured it would be too hard for Germany to win against the Soviet Union if the UK helps out.

The US and Japan underwent changes that will hopefully change the whole dynamic of the game. So far, Japan mostly expanded westwards, claiming of course all the money islands, India, Persia, contesting Caucasus and also advanced through Siberia. Their new objectives also reward keeping their “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”, but two of their objectives reward going east in the Pacific and contest the otherwise insignificant islands. To represent that taking the US main Pacific base in Pearl Harbor, there is a separate objective that rewards taking only this one territory. If Japan decides to go west only and ignore the Pacific Naval War, they not only lose out on 10 potential IPCs, but they also allow the US to snowball into a giant…

…Which leads me to their objectives. Since to US has to rebuild their fleet in the early stage of the war, they got more defensive objectives in which they have to keep their Pacific islands. However, they are also rewarded for expanding and do island hopping: They first have to secure Guadalcanal/ Solomon Islands and if they even succeed in taking a formerly Japanese island, they gain another 5 IPCs. These wins represent psychological wins at the home front to avoid war-weariness (just think of the impact of raising the American flag on Iwo Jima). However, the US is also encouraged to split its income and invest into the Atlantic: If they manage to take Morocco Algeria, they secure another objective.

The Maths

Let me do the maths on how the additional IPCs could look like after round 1 and 2 for the Axis and the Allies:

Germany will definitely get 5 for holding Romania Bulgaria and likely another 5 if they put some units into France. If they attack Egypt, they could miss out on these 5 IPCs (although they could land a bomber there and still have the Infantry from Morocco, which would secure this objective as well). In the first round, they will probably not get “Lebensraum” however.
So Germany will likely get something between 5 and 15… Since it is rather likely to secure all three (but not certain) and for the sake of simplicity, let us go with an average of 12. (hopefully this makes sense for you). In R2, they will definitely secure lebensraum, so let’s add 5 IPCs to that initial number.

The Soviet Union will likely secure all their objectives, totaling 11 IPCs. They will probably also do so in R2. Although, after this, it becomes harder for them the longer the game goes on and the Allies are not able to pressure Germany hard enough in Western Europe.

Italy might score one objective if Germany took Egypt or reduced its strength so much, that Italy can take it and land in Trans-Jordan. They will probably not likely get their second objective in the first two rounds though. Let’s go with an average of 2. The longer the game goes on, the more likely securing those objective and the second one get, of course assuming the Allies do not strike back fast enough.

Great Britain’s assessment is a bit tricky. It really depends on how successful Germany was with their Atlantic attack. Most of the time, they could secure Gibraltar even if it was taken by the Axis, but if it’s really worth it endangering a transport there with little protection is another question. So securing this objectives could in the long run even be detrimental to the UK. They might also lose fighters or their bomber on R1 when trying to get superiority of the Atlantic. Maybe one German sub remains that cannot be attacked because Germany successfully destroyed all their destroyers. It is really hard to tell, so I will go with a rather low assessment of 5 IPCs, although there is a strong tendency that they will secure all objectives the longer the game goes on. Let’s go with 10 in R2, but with a tendency towards 15 in the later rounds.

The US and Japan has to be examined simultaneously because they often have to secure the same territory. Japan could secure “Prosperity Sphere” in R1, but it would also mean sending a transport rather unprotected to New Guinea. Let’s assume it is not certain and go with an average of 3 IPCs. Maybe they will also go with a sneaky Midway/ Wake Island attack, although they would be target to a quick counter attack there. It really depends on how invested Japan is to the Pacific War. Let’s assume they do confront the US heads-on, which will likely result in very unpredictable gains via objectives, both for Japan and the US.
It is rather likely however, that the US will keep their initial islands in R1 and also secure their Solomon Islands objective. If the Japanese player doesn’t defend the Pacific Islands and goes west, the US player could potentially snowball into a monster, getting at least 20 IPCs through objectives. So there is a huge incentive for Japan to try to contain the US.

Let’s put all this into a chart and compare:

So as you can see, the Allies rather benefit from the new objectives in R1. However, the longer the game goes on, the more they should match. It is very difficult though to assess a definite number for the Pacific War because there will be a lot of contention. I deem the initial surplus of Allies income necessary though, because the US will probably do something that is rather described as a suboptimal path: They have to spend money on building a fleet in the Pacific, something that is rather unrewarding in the original game since Japan is so strong. In fact, I still deem Japan too strong and I will likely adjust the setup a bit in Asia to make it more difficult for Japan to dominate China, Eastern Russia, India AND the Pacific islands. This is due to their enormous air force and transports with which they can rush India in R2. I still want them to be able to do it if they really put their resources into it, but doing so secures no objectives and leaving the US alone in the Pacific will only create an American giant.

I will do some test games and see which adjustments have to be made. My intuition tells me to use my former setup changes (basically adding more Infantry to China, placing a British IC in India and reducing Japan’s transports by 2 and remove one fighter), but we will see if this is too detrimental for Japan or if they can still manage. Maybe it also makes sense to only remove one transport and some other minor adjustments, but again, we will see. 😊

Thanks for reading this HUGE post and I appreciate all kind of feedback. If the tests go well, I will also think about doing a TripleA scenario, although I will probably need some time to learn how to implement new National Objectives.

So guys, i did some test games… did a lot of maths YET AGAIN and I think I did the necessary adjustments for the final changes. First of all, here are the objectives and the setup changes in its final forms. I will also give you some elaborate explanation, especially when it comes to one especially huge change, namely these +4 Infantry in India. But first things first, the Scenario:

You could basically just take these two pages and try the scenario out yourself! However, if you are interested in my tests and how I came to the conclusion that this setup is now balanced, read on. I did actually do more games than these, but those might be the most crucial ones:

Game 1: Japan tries to pump as many troops into Asia as possible, then tries to block the US off. Still try to use their transport to exert as much pressure on Asia as possible.

After the attack, US crippled, lost more units in China than expected though

End of turn 1, no way to keep India as the British, let’s see if the additional units in China can make an impact. I bought 2 transports + 1 Inf to ship as much as possible to mainland Asia.
Japan gets 0 IPCs from NO, Us lost their transport, so they won’t be able to snag a Japanese Island

After the US turn: China’s attack on Suiyuan failed (makes up for their hit back luck on the Japanese’s turn, US built a Pacific fleet, pushed forward it’s fighters. The US went pretty hard on defending India and sent its fighter from Egypt (assuming it survived with the additional two Infantry there). Although Japan advanced into mainland China, China still has 8 infantry now. Let’s see how the other turns turn out. The US meets 3 objectives, getting +15 IPCs.

There I saw that I might have made a mistake as the US player: Japan can attack Midway with its carriers and destroy the two bombers stationed there. Japan can send two carrier there with 4 fighters, so they can consolidate there. HOWEVER, after doing the maths, the US has a 84.4% chance of sinking the Japanese fleet there and destroying two carriers.
When I saw this, I almost cried tears (maybe an exaggeration) because this situation resembles an actual attack on Midway so much. The Japanese get one NO if they control Midway, they put their aircraft carriers in a dangerous situation and the US player will take advantage of this. This seems as historically accurate as an abstract board game can be!

I think on turn 2, it gets really interesting: I do another purchase to exert pressure on Asia:

This is what a t2 attack on India would look like:

The odds are 85.5% in Japan’s favor. Without a British fighter, they would be 97.2%, so a crushing victory. If the Russians sent down 2 Inf, and no fighter from the British, they would be 81.9% in favor of the Japanese… These are not good odds for the Allied player. I am thinking about altering the setup even more, but assuming Britain gets 3 additional Inf there, this is a pretty heavy change.

The Russian front looks more interesting:

Here, Japan has to decide whether they want to push North with all their Infantry or send more into China (which I did here, therefore the 4 Infantry in Manchuria

This is how the map looks like at the end of the Japanese’s turn:

As expected, India fell and the Japanese player is free to attack Africa. Maybe there has to be an IC in India after all (like in all following editions of Axis and Allies). It might sounds overpowered, but then keep in mind that Britain can only build 3 units there. And since the US goes Pacific, there is only Britain that has to help out the Russians against Germany and Italy. And every IPC they spend against Japan instead of the European theater makes Germany happy.

My conclusion so far: Japan can still press very far into India and even Africa. There is like no to little air force at that stage in this area to interrupt even unprotected Japanese transports. China’s and Russia’s front seem interesting. Japan could ignore China and push pretty hard into Russia, but it means having to continuously deal with a strong China, which is something that would be very historical and also cool – because so far, China posed no real threat and was just a speed bump for Japan for its way to Moscow. The US could move out to take a Japanese island, but it also means encountering a strong Japanese naval force. In total, Japan’s naval force is still stronger, but due to getting more Nos, the US could outproduce Japan (again very historical), but it means committing to the Pacific. I think historical frontlines cannot be fully achieved here, Japan will stretch out further than in reality, but that is okay for the reason that the Axis has to gain some ground in order not to be at a total disadvantage IPC-wise.

Idea: Give India an IC: The British can opt to produce units there but it will take away pressure from Europe. That way, there is a chance to protect India, but it comes at a high cost. In addition to that, an IC there could also be of use for Japan if they conquer it. So this IC could be a double-edged sword (as opposed to the OOB setup and a British IC bid placement there which is actually a gift for Japan because Britain cannot defend it)

So my next game will test an IC in India and its potential influence on the game. It is my aim to give both sides a fair chance at defending or taking India respectively.

This is a screenshot after Japan’s attack. For the sake of simplicity, I didn’t do any attacks in China and just moved all planes into position. Let’s see what the odds are in specific situations.

Situation 1: British reinforcement with 3 Infantry.

I call this the conservative approach. I also thought about sending two American fighters to Australia, but since Japan goes before Japan, they won’t be able to reach India in time.
Even with a 2 Infantry setup change + IC, the fight would look as follows:

The odds for a Japanese success are at 98.8%. In addition to that, Japan could move its aircraft carriers in SZ 60 in position and their new transports in the SZ. That means, even if they do not attack this round, they’ll be able to send 3 more Infantry, 1 Artillery and 4 more fighters to India for a R3 attack. This is devastating. How can I possibly create a balance here without nerfing Japan too much?

Let’s assume Japan wasn’t that lucky in R1 and a plane and Russia reinforced India with two infantry. In addition to that, Britain kept their fighter in Egypt.

Situation 2: Reinforcements from Russia + fighter + fighter loss from Japan

In this scenario, the fight would look like this:
The odds for a successful attack are still 95%… This is still devastating. How can this be solved? Yes, Japan focuses on India only here and neglects China Russia and the US, but what could they possibly do? The US could make a lot of income because of its Nos, but they cannot (yet) attack Japan’s navy. Russia can mostly only block and since Japan can still use its fighters to keep China busy, there is also no major offensive by the Chinese in sight. So Japan doesn’t really miss out on a lot if they chose to rush India. And after that, they can produce 3 units a turn there.

However, I still think an IC in India is necessary to allow the British player reinforcements there and make the pacific Theatre more dynamic. So how can we even out this situation? There is one last attempt.

Situation 3: Russian reinforcements + British fighter alive + Japan lost 1 fighter + 4 infantry bid in India

Okay, this situation assumes the British got lucky and Japan lost a fighter against their destroyer. It also means that Russia invested in India and Britain spend 9 IPCs on the Pacific. If all of this happened, the odds for a Japanese attack would be as follows:

The odds for a Japanese win are now only at 45.9%. Finally there is a way to stop Japan’s India rush, but there are also many factors that both sides have to take into account:
Japan neglects all other attacks, although, as we have seen, this is not that detrimental for them as one might think
Russia has to dedicate infantry to the Pacific – Infantry that they will sorely miss against Germany.
Britain has to dedicate their fighter from Egypt and have to spend 9 IPCs… also something they will sorely miss when they start rebuilding their fleet.
The good thing for the Allies is though that the US is in a better shape in the Pacific with each passing round.

So for now, I will go with a setup change as high as giving the British 4 additional Infantry in India. It sounds like a lot, and it certainly is, but hopefully my experiments made clear that this is the least one can do to stop an India rush and give the Allies a chance to fight against the Japanese in the Pacific.

However, there is one more scenario I have to consider: What if the US player still goes Germany first and ignores Japan? Wouldn’t the additional forces in Asia not slow down Japan too much now? Let’s do a final experiment:

Situation 4: Heavily reinforced Allied Asia but US goes KGF

I will do this without starting a new game. The US will still start with 15 IPCs because of their Nos, however, Japan will only collect 5 (or even less if they decide on going for an India rush). But if they see that the US withdraws from the Pacific, they can start in R2 to achieve all their Nos, giving them 10 IPCs and eventually even 15 through their NOs once they control Hawaiian Islands. The US on the other hand will only get 5 IPCs and 10 once they secured Morocco Algeria. So Japan is given an IPC advantage over time that will hopefully compensate for the fact that their initial expansions are limited.

So, all in all, I will go for the following and final setup changes until someone proves me wrong and points out something that I have missed:

• New National Objectives
• Added 2 British Infantry to Egypt
• Added 4 British infantry to India
• Added Industrial Complex to India
• China starts with 1 Infantry in each of their starting territories, except from Yunnan, which starts with 3 Infantry and 1 Fighter

So guys, this Thread might get a bit convoluted, but I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this that I will do more test and maybe adjust the setup one final time… Since what bothers me so far is the unusual high number of Infantry in India that has to counter the unusual high number of Japanese transports. :D

I might do something that will reduce both the number of Infantry in India but also the amount transports (and maybe fighters) that Japan starts with. Because of this, Japan can expand in the East at will and because of all the fighters, it can both attack and defend wherever it wants to.

So stay tuned! I might create a new thread once all this tests and considerations come to a close for a final setup!