ps. ok so lets take another look at the UK Pacific and Anzac NOs from the OOB game, if they were all taken together it might read something like
5 if the British Pacific control both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.
5 if Allies control Malaya, and all of the original Anzac territories, and is at war with Japan.
5 if the Allies (not including Dutch) control all of Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands, and is at war with Japan.
The first two are fairly weak, and both dependent on control of Malaya, with an added condition tacked on that is very hard to maintain. They are unlikely to be achieved unless Japan is losing badly. These are what we might call endgame resolution NOs, because they award money that can only be consistently achieved once the player is already winning. Japan can shut down both fairly easily at the outset, almost as soon as they are at war, all they have to do to deny the Allies 10 ipcs is take Malaya.
Why not simplify this NO and just say British Empire Pacific gets +5 if they control Malaya?
This would mean that both Japan and British Empire Pacific would contest this territory directly. It wouldn’t be off the table just because Kwangtung is under Japanese control (very likely) or because the Japanese managed to take a single Anzac territory (fairly simple). If you want to drive fighting over Malaya, then just put the focus on the single territory, and not saddle it with a bunch of extra requirements that make the focus territory irrelevant. Malaya +5 is simple, and such an NO has the benefit of also being relatively easy to remember. Here we’ve taken 2 unlikely NOs and replaced them with 1 NO that is much more likely to be contested.
Now lets look at the final OOB NO. How about something more straightforward, like +5 for control of New Zealand. Since this is one of the more remote territories which Japan might take, and which in the war, it was a major strategic objective for the Allies to keep this supply route open. I mean that’s why Solomons and all the rest were so significant after all, right? So why not just be more direct, and boost the territory with a NO bonus, to give both sides a reason to fight over it.
Or what if, instead of saying you need control of “such and such” you simplified it and made it more universal?
Like +1 ipc for every pair of valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific, or maybe +1 ipc for every 3 valueless islands controlled in the Pacific, (once at war with Japan of course). This would put about a dozen ipcs up for grabs and activate all the islands where conflict never occurs, making them relevant to the gameplay. Instead of NOs for Japan and America, what if we used the NOs for the British Empire Pacific to encourage fighting over all these valueless islands? This makes a kind of sense historically, since Japan wanted to cut off the British Pacific and seperate them from their American Allies. The NO could reflect this in a general way, to provide interest for the gameplay.
Just musing on ideas. I just think, if you’re going to go through the effort of removing a nation from the game, and bringing the British Empire Pacific into being, then why not take the same opportunity to make the Pacific NOs as interesting to the gameplay as possible. Not something that is so challenging to achieve, as to be practically irrelevant, but something that really puts the gameplay onto the islands. Because that is what everyone wants, and which the Pacific fails to deliver on most A&A boards.
Otherwise I just don’t even see the point of having NOs in A&A, if they only become a factor in exceptionally rare instances, then they might as well not even exist. We should instead try to make them critical to the balance of power on the gameboard. Something that can swing back and forth. Don’t you think? I mean, since we have the opportunity here with this overhaul of the British Pacific.
Why not simplify this NO and just say British Empire Pacific gets +5 if they control Malaya?
This would mean that both Japan and British Empire Pacific would contest this territory directly. It wouldn’t be off the table just because Kwangtung is under Japanese control (very likely) or because the Japanese managed to take a single Anzac territory (fairly simple). If you want to drive fighting over Malaya, then just put the focus on the single territory, and not saddle it with a bunch of extra requirements that make the focus territory irrelevant. Malaya +5 is simple, and such an NO has the benefit of also being relatively easy to remember. Here we’ve taken 2 unlikely NOs and replaced them with 1 NO that is much more likely to be contested.
Now lets look at the final OOB NO. How about something more straightforward, like +5 for control of New Zealand. Since this is one of the more remote territories which Japan might take, and which in the war, it was a major strategic objective for the Allies to keep this supply route open. I mean that’s why Solomons and all the rest were so significant after all, right? So why not just be more direct, and boost the territory with a NO bonus, to give both sides a reason to fight over it.
Or what if, instead of saying you need control of “such and such” you simplified it and made it more universal?
Like +1 ipc for every pair of valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific, or maybe +1 ipc for every 3 valueless islands controlled in the Pacific, (once at war with Japan of course). This would put about a dozen ipcs up for grabs and activate all the islands where conflict never occurs, making them relevant to the gameplay. Instead of NOs for Japan and America, what if we used the NOs for the British Empire Pacific to encourage fighting over all these valueless islands? This makes a kind of sense historically, since Japan wanted to cut off the British Pacific and seperate them from their American Allies. The NO could reflect this in a general way, to provide interest for the gameplay.
I really find these NOs much better.
Such NO " Like +1 ipc for every pair of valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific" should be even simplified to “1 ipc for every valueless islands that Allies control in the Pacific”.
This will make IJN in the mood to take those Islands. This will better reenact their WWII strategy.
However Japan will need some IPCs to make it valable strat.
Maybe revised the Outer perimeter defense to 4 islands out of 5?
I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.
New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)
When at war with Japan…
5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls Malaya.
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories conecting the Burma road.
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories.
Now we’re cookin’ :-D
I dig it! Going to slate a game for this weekend
Now we’re cookin’Â :-D
I dig it! Going to slate a game for this weekend
Yep, my group will be playing this Saturday.
Gonna go back to regular 2ndE production rules, but we’ll modify a couple of Russian NOs in addition to these house rule ideas.
Just spit balling here, but imagine if all the Axis peices in G40 we’re one color, and all the Allied units one color. No national objectives (maybe 5 IPCs per victory city), both sides at war, and the Axis side going first.
HHMMMMM!
@Young:
I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.
New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)
When at war with Japan…
5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls Malaya.
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories connecting the Burma road.
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories.
And what about this slightly different ones, YG?
5 IPCs per territory if Pacific British Empire controls Kwangtung and/or Malaya.
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.
Why did you let aside this ANZAC OOB NO which promotes combat over islands ?
5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.
Shouldn’t you add Dutch New Guinea to this one:
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories and Dutch New Guinea.
Theme: Strategic southern defense zone.
@Baron:
@Young:
I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.
New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)
When at war with Japan…
5 IPCs if the United Kingdom controls Malaya.
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories connecting the Burma road.
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories.
And what about this slightly different ones, YG?
5 IPCs per territory if Pacific British Empire controls Kwangtung and/or Malaya. ?
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.
Is this a house rule? because the oob NO I believe says " 5IPCs for control of both Kwangtung and Malaya".
@Young:
@Baron:
And what about this slightly different ones, YG?
5 IPCs per territory if Pacific British Empire controls Kwangtung and/or Malaya. ?
Theme: Maintenance of the empire considered vital national objective.Is this a house rule? because the oob NO I believe says " 5IPCs for control of both Kwangtung and Malaya".
Yes and No (not in spirit).
In the original NO both territories were required to get the 5 IPCs bonus.
I just think Kwantung can be still part of it, but it gives another 5 IPCs (as it is the most difficult part of the NO to achieve, as Black Elk told).
So, by keeping Kwantung in this NO, you keep the general direction given by the OOB NO.
I also edit the previous post:
@Baron:
Why did you let aside this ANZAC OOB NO which promotes combat over islands ?
5 IPCs if the Allies (not including the Dutch) control Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
Theme: Strategic outer defense perimeter.Shouldn’t you add Dutch New Guinea to this one:
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all original ANZAC territories and Dutch New Guinea.
Theme: Strategic southern defense zone.
@Young:
I changed it to 3 equally obtainable NOs… others can be house ruled.
New National Objectives for the United Kingdom (Pacific)
When at war with Japan…
5 IPCs if the Allied powers control all territories conecting connecting the Burma road.
This one, was it only part of the Chinese’s NO?
@Young:
Just spit balling here, but imagine if all the Axis peices in G40 we’re one color, and all the Allied units one color. No national objectives (maybe 5 IPCs per victory city), both sides at war, and the Axis side going first.
HHMMMMM!
Well you know I’m all for ditching NOs in favor of a VC bonus haha, but this one would require a lot of rehashing, and probably another box purchased, as I’m not sure I’d have enough of any two color sets to try it out. Since the DoW would be out, I’d guess you’d want to try it under total war conditions and no China rules? In this case Axis would be much stronger in the Med I’d guess, but a lot weaker in the Pacific. Interesting thought experiment though.
As to the current discussion on NOs, my approach would be to see what it looks like without the NOs, then add them based on what the balance looks like.
So for example, if the British are getting screwed then give them an easy NO, if the British are too strong then give them a more challenging one. Or similarly, if Japan totally ignores the Pacific in favor of India, then give the British an NO that is more focused on the islands. Things like that. I think the difficulty with G40, is trying to put the NOs, before we know what the balance is. I think its better when the NOs respond to some need in the initital balance.
What Ruskie NOs would you adopt?
What Ruskie NOs would you adopt?
Well, Germany benefits from keeping Russia out of the war while they take care of the Royal navy and gain territories in the Balkans… but they also get an NO for “trade” with Russia? Why doesn’t Russia benefit from this “trading” between future enemies?
Therefore… Russia collects an NO while not at war with Germany
5 IPCs for trade with Germany
I also split the “National Prestige” NO into 2 separate bonuses when Russia is at war with the European Axis powers.
**5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships is sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel.
5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any originally controlled Russian territory.**
…plus we use the original “spread of communism” and the “Berlin” NOs as well, I know it’s not much… but it’s something extra for Russia. Also thinking about giving the US a 2 dice war bonds roll during each collect income phase when at war.
Sounds ideal. I will try using this set up in my next face to face gamd, to see how it feels.
I have not read all the details in this thread but I like what I see in my cursory reading of the thread.
Hey YG and Black Elk,
I know this thread is mainly about UK Pacific, but a while back I came up with new NOs for UK Europe. See what you think about these:
First, we simply eliminated the $5 NO for the "UK control of ALL original territories on the Europe board (including Canada). We just felt this one was near impossible after Round 2 and too easy for the Axis to interrupt.
Then we added the following:
$5 = No German subs in the Med or Atlantic (Excluding sea zones 100, 113, 114 and 115)
$3 = UK control of all Canadian territories
$3 = UK control of ALL following territories: Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and Trans-Jordan
$3 = Allied control of Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland and no Axis units in Africa south of Egypt and the Sahara.
$3 = Allied control of ALL following territories: Iraq, NW Persia, Persia and Western Persia
I figured these gave England a few more obtainable NOs with varying degrees of difficulty. Also, I figured making most of them $3 made them not so overpowering but still gives England some extra cash. If nothing else, they can cancel out convoy raiding or SBR damage caused by Germany.
The Canada NO they will almost always get every round.
The Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt, Trans-Jordan NO makes sense because those were historically very strategic areas and UK can get that one with some defensive effort.
The Africa NO will require a little effort killing the Italians there. Somewhat easy to obtain but not terribly so.
The Middle-East NO requires a little more effort, especially attacking Iraq. Russia can help with this one since it is “Allied” control, not just UK because all the Allies would benefit from the oil reserves there.
The German Sub NO is the best one for the UK, and hardest for them to achieve. When I play Germany, I almost always have a sub or two out there somewhere.
Hey KNP,
I like some of these ideas and I would like to address them more after the weekend, however… my test game is tommorow and I don’t have to time to overhaul the NOs, so I’m just gonna go with what I have right now. I want to look at them in depth because I also feel that the UK Europe NOs need work.
Here are some other house rules I’m working on to compliment those in post #1 of this thread.
1. The Russian “National Prestige” NO is now split into 2 separate bonuses when Russia is at war with the European Axis powers.
5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships is sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel.
5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any originally controlled Russian territory.
2. During their place new units phase of each turn, Russia receives free infantry unit/s in the amount equal to which ever game round it is. These free units may be placed on any original Russian territories of their choice.
example: During the place new units phase of their 3rd turn, Russia places 2 free infantry units in Amur, and 1 in Archangel. On their 4th turn, they will receive 4 more free infantry units etc…
3. During their collect income phase of each turn, America may roll 1 die and collect the amount shown in bonus IPCs, plus IPC/s in the amount equal to which ever game round it is.
example: During the collect income phase of their 3rd turn, America rolls 1 die and scores a 2, therefore they will collect 5 IPCs, on their next turn it will be 1d6+4.
4. During their purchase new units phase of each turn, the United Kingdom may attempt to roll a 6 in order to replace all French units on London with their own.
5. The side that controls Greece while Turkey is a strict neutral may enter the black sea. However, If the strict neutrals are attacked, the side that controls Turkey will take back the strait.
6. The following new Japanese NO will replace “outer perimeter”
and in addition to all other Japanese NOs
7. Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase.
4. During their purchase new units phase of every turn, the United Kingdom may attempt to roll a 6 in order to replace all French units on London with their own.
Make it a more simple NO such as when all three France, Southern France & Normandy has been captured for the first time by Axis, then all French units (keeping their color) can work as a UK unit (on UK’s turn) until Paris is liberated.
Theme: Anglo-French joint command effort
7. Strategic Bombers only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an operational airbase.
This will help Calcutta against japanese SBR.
You should provide something for poor Italy against all Convoy Raids.
Something like:
+5 IPCs if any Russian territory is controled by Italy.
Theme: National Prestige of Fascist superiority over communist power
@Baron:
4. During their purchase new units phase of every turn, the United Kingdom may attempt to roll a 6 in order to replace all French units on London with their own.
Make it a more simple NO such as when all three France, Southern France & Normandy has been captured for the first time by Axis, then all French units (keeping their color) can work as a UK unit (on UK’s turn) until Paris is liberated.
Theme: Anglo-French joint command effort
I’ve thought about that, but there are some who don’t attack Normandy in order to deny the Allies an IC if they land… and that NO would give the Axis more reason not to attack all three. Also, I wanted the UK to at least have an oportunity to use the French fighter as their own on UK1. This would help them take out a damaged German battleship as well as the Taranto raid… they could even threaten the German navy.
You should provide something for poor Italy against all Convoy Raids.
Something like:
+5 IPCs if any Russian territory is controled by Italy.
Theme: National Prestige of Fascist superiority over communist power.Might be to powerful considering #5 in my list
