National objectives

It sounds like you might enjoy Risk: Europe! It’s available for only about $30, and it features free-for-all battles across the old world of europe with a more complicated economy and army structure than classic Risk.

I don’t think the A&A 1914 board is well-suited to a random objective deck…you’d be investing a lot of time in fiddly setup, beancounting, etc. only to have someone win all of a sudden because they had an easier-than-expected objective card that they drew at random, or because you guessed wrong about what their objective card was and blocked them out of the wrong territory.

@wittmann:

I agree that the Leningrad NO should go. Germany can�  easily capture the city and start building there. Why give it 5 bonus too?

I think that capture a city, or a Capital, should give you a one time bonus. You can plunder a city once, not every day year after year. Now that should put a stop to the back and forth  trading of capitals too.

Iron trade with Sweden and Lend Lease convoys should of course give you NO money every turn

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.

I have always been in favour of the incremental research system whereby each Power begins the game at some point along a ‘ladder’ in achieving a given tech. When they reach the end of that ladder, they have achieved the tech. Each tech lader would be say, 10 points (or steps) long and it would cost 5 IPCs to move your Power’s control marker one step further - but perhaps you could only attain one point per tech, per turn.

So for example, Germany may be at 7 or 8 towards Super Submarines, and maybe 6 towards Rockets, but only 3 for Heavy Bombers. And this would be based on the historical situation.

I’m sure this system has been proposed before by people but I think it needs to be raised, now and again, as a possible house rule.

Thanks for that report, I will comment on your post in detail when I have more time. I agree with your opinion and I have changed the US NO to include the West Indies. Cheers.

Italy is sure taking a pounding, and Germany not getting that extra money to use against a fully-powered USSR is hurting them.  This should offset any USA/China/ANZAC loss in a Global game.  We’ll see what happens.

ok ill make a third version with the changes you asked for. Tonight.