National objectives

@GigaSmoot Hey, since no one has answered yet, I figured I could leave you some feedback… Although take it with a grain of salt, because I am not that experienced in Global 1940.

First, I really like the idea of simplified National Objectives! It is true that the basic Axis and Allies is already complicated and Global 1940 tops that.

However, I think the NOs favor the Axis too much in Europe. Germany will push the Soviets to Moscow and occupy so many allied-territories that it will drown in IPCs. Russis however wont get any additional income through NOs until Germany has already been pushed out of its territory. I think with your NOs, Germany will snowball pretty hard.

But again, I am not an expert in Global 1940, but that’s my first inpression.

Thanks for Dagon81 National Advantage cards that he designed for AA50. I took the liberty to put in additional cards to input more fun and challenges for the game with Bloodbath rules. Not for the purists but hopefully it will be helpful for the other players. Cheers!

The 6 main powers will starts with the “Base card that comes with red star” plus 2 random drawn NA cards. Every turn, continue to draw 1 NA card from the deck into your hand. China will be much simpler…Just the “Base card” plus 2-3 random NA cards before the start of the game.

There’s total 20 cards for each Power and 10 cards for China…Total 130 cards.
*do pardon my English grammar in it.

Please feel free to take and change to whatever you want.

image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
5.jpg
speciald-Jap2.jpg speciald-Jap.jpg
6 - Copy.jpg
speciald-3.jpg speciald-1.jpg 8.jpg 7.jpg
speciald-Ita2.jpg speciald-Ita.jpg speciald-Axis.jpg speciald-Allies.jpg

@Wise:

Thanks SS for the Oil rules you sent to me. I’ll think we will go with those instead of dice. I’ll be back with a review when we have played with them.

Sweet. Looking  forward to some results.

Sub: (Classic) National Advantages - A new way to help balance Classic

Here is 7 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

Here are my optional rules for national advantages for the different national powers in the Milton Bradley edition of A&A. These rules are not completely developed and need more play testing. These rules are meant for two purposes - to add some flavor to the various powers and to give a boost to a less-experienced player. A veteran player can give a new player a boost by letting them pick a couple of these advantages before play begins.

I don’t recommend using National Advantages and Research in the same game as that can lead to some wonky results.

Soviet Union
Penal Battalions: Gives a +1 to defense rolls of Infantry, Paratrooper, and Trooper units in the second round of combat (not the first round, the second).

Treaty of Non-Aggression with Japan: If Japan attacks, it will have blood on its hands. If this happens, the Soviet Union will receive three infantry units, to be placed in Yakut, Soviet Far East, or the territory under attack if it is not one of the proceeding two, as the Soviet Union sees fit. The advantage Penal Battalions will not be usable against Japan on the first turn of defense against Japanese aggression. The treaty expires on the turn after Germany is conquered by the Allies. (To be paired with Japan’s “Treaty of Non-Aggression with the Soviet Union”.)

Germany
Panzers and Panzergrenadiers: The elite armored troops of the Wehrmacht - Panzers (Attack 4, Defend 3, Move 2, Cost 6); Panzergrenadiers (Attack 3, Defend 4, Move 2, Cost 6). Not more than a combined total of 5 Panzers and Panzergrenadiers may be active at one time. The German player may re-designate up to 3 Armor and up to 2 Troopers, of player’s choice, as Panzers and Panzergrenadiers before the start of play.

Stuka Dive Bombers: German Fighters are especially potent in the attack. For each attacking German Fighter that rolls a 1 for its attack roll, 2 enemy defenders are destroyed.

Wolf Packs: German Subs cost 6 IPC and whenever two or more are attacking in the same sea zone, they each attack on a +1.

United Kingdom
Commonwealth of Nations: UK may place purchased infantry units in the Commonwealth Nations (Eastern Canada, South Africa, India, Australia and New Zealand) without needing a factory to be built. One infantry placed per territory per turn, UK must have current ownership of the receiving territory, not more than three infantry total per turn. If a factory has already been built in the target territory, then the one infantry placed in that territory due to Commonwealth of Nations will not count against that territories normal placement limits.

RADAR: UK Anti-Aircraft fire defending the United Kingdom territory hits on a roll of a 1 or a 2.

Empire of Japan
Banzai Charge: Gives a +1 to Infantry, Paratrooper, or Trooper attacks for the first round of combat.

Long Lance Torpedoes: Gives a +1 to Cruiser and Submarine attacks for the first round of combat.

Treaty of Non-Aggression with the Soviet Union: If the Soviet Union attacks, it will have blood on its hands. If this happens, Japan will receive three infantry units, to be placed in Manchuria, Kwangtung, Japan, or the territory under attack if it is not one of the proceeding three, as Japan sees fit. The treaty expires on the turn after the last of the United Kingdom and the United States are conquered by the Axis. (To be paired with Soviet Union’s “Treaty of Non-Aggression with Japan”.)

Unites States of America
Legacy of Kitty Hawk: Gives a +1 to all regular combat rolls (attack and defense) by US air units, and a +2 per bomber to IPC damage inflicted by successful US Strategic Bombing raids.

Old China Hands: US may place purchased infantry units in Chinese territories (Sinkiang, China, Kwangtung, Manchuria, and Indo-China) without needing a factory to be built. One infantry placed per territory per turn, US must have current ownership of the receiving territory, not more than three infantry total per turn.

The original idea for these dates to from before A&A Revised produced its own version of National Advantages. The intent with these rules is not to rewrite the Milton Bradley edition of the rule book into the Avalon Hill edition of the rule book but to discuss a modern version of my rules from 2003. Some of these are similar to Avalon Hill’s ideas for National Advantages and some are quite different. If players prefer an admixture of the A&A Revised National Advantages and this list, there’s no reason why those National Advantages that are not similar to each other couldn’t be compiled into a larger list of National Advantages.

-Midnight_Reaper

About Pacific islands NO.
Why not require 3 amongst 4 or 4 amongst 5 Island TTs?
That way this can be an incentive to fight for one more to get some buffer TT before loosing the NO.

@barney:

Looks like you’ve got it tuned in pretty good to me YG. Those all look good and equally obtainable for each side. Good work!

Thanks Barney… I agree, a couple are easy for both sides but they get really hard after that. Using it tomorrow in a game where it’s the only house rule.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)