National Objectives Proposed Changes

@SS-GEN
Your welcome :)

I know that 1942 Second Edition doesn’t come with National Advantages (NA) out of the box but I’d like to experiment playing with a few. I grabbed the list of NAs from the Larry Harris Tournament Rules PDF (https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/AAR_LHTR_v2.0.pdf) but a few of them reference specific spaces/zones. I am wondering how to modify them for the 1942 Second Edition game board.

Trans-Siberian Railway (U.S.S.R NA) previously mentioned that certain land units can move two spaces along Russia, Novosibirsk, Yakut S.S.R., and Buryatia S.S.R territories. However, on the 1942 Second Edition game board, Evenki National Okrug is in the way along with Vologda as well. How should this be modified?

Kamikaze (Japan NA) references sea zones 58, 59, 60, 61. In the 1942 Second Edition game board, are those still valid?

Chinese Divisions (U.S. NA) references China, Sinkiang, and Kwangtung territories. Which territories should it be on the 1942 Second Edition game board?

We played Global 40 today (6 player game) with the following turn order.

Russia non com far east forces
All Axis go except Italy)
All allies go except France
All Axis go
All Allies go
Then switch off from then on. 
All the normal rules applies as to who can can-opener for whom and order of non com etc.

On the plus side, we found that it did not change the game play or balance which we wanted to avoid.  It was also fun from the standpoint of the whole team being “on” together and “off” together.   
On the down side, however, it also did not speed up play much.  Of course, we had a couple of new players, and I think it would might have saved significant time with more experienced player.  So, it is something we might do again, but not because it saved all that much time.

Combine Venezuela/Colombia/Ecuador, Chile/Bolivia/Peru, and Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay together. No need to change IPC values.

From a playability standpoint it makes no sense to have 9 little countries across the continent.

I play it like this and things can get interesting.

Other than the Russian bomber added to the setup, I highly doubt any of my group will want house rules for a game that we just started playing… especially with my history of changing the Global rules… LOL. Nice idea, but I probably won’t be able to introduce house rules until my group gets board of the game in a year or 2 (maybe even 3).

@Gargantua:

By adding the dutch capital… you add them to the GAME.

if amsterdam falls, we can put their(our, i am dutch) in either the DEI or suriname.

Anyone tinker with the setup, in order to make the game less linear?

We’re finding  that G1 and J1 pretty much open the exact same every game, decimating allied navies then G going heavy armor.

My buddy has come up with an interesting house rule which we are going to try out next time.  Its a bit complex, but in a nutshell the setup is kinda “Risklike,” in that you alternate unit placement.  Each county has so many IPC’s to spend and you can purchase and place what/where you want; with limitations of course.  You cant just place crap randomly all over the place.  You’ll need to start in countries controlled a the start and adjacent sea zones.  This gives players the option to go heaveir navy or air, or whatever.

I know, it pretty much takes away from historical accuracies, but thats alright.  The idea was to change the opening setup, allow for new strategies and make the game a bit less linear for us.

I think the Revised NA would be a better idea.  Yes, a lot of tweaking would have to be done, but it’s doable.

I think a lot of the old NAs blend perfectly with the new game.  Here are some examples:

1. Lend Lease lets USSR convert US and UK pieces to USSR pieces.  This means you won’t loose IPCs when your allies try to help you.

2. Japan is now an “island” on the new board, which means Dug-In Defenders now apply.  Didn’t it seem dumb in AAR that Japanese infantry would put up a better fight on Iceland or Greenland than Japan?

Examples of needed tweaks:

1. Siberian Railway would obviously be extended to include the two new territories.

2. The Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe NA would be weakened if the wording “all gray territories” were kept as is.  At least it should be extended to “all gray and brown territories”.  Basically, German Infantry and Artillery get a bonus fighting in Italy, but Italian Infantry and Artillery don’t.  It seems paradoxical, but that’s the way it happened.  Germany fought to the teeth while Italy surrendered.

I don’t think Italy should get a national “advantage.”  Really, was their anything special or unique about Italy in WWII to warrant a NA?  Personally, I think no NAs add to Italy’s character.  It’s small, poor, and has only 2 NOs.  Yet, it’s probably my favorite.  As the old saying goes, “Small is beautiful.”