@general-6-stars Yes, I would like to see that.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
Well Athens and Helsinki both have the advantage of being starting German territories in 1942.2 that wouldn’t overlap, with other territories already covered.
I dig Yakut, it looks somehow good to me to have 1 VC up there for the Russians to really care about haha. Keep grounded if at war with Japan.
Still think it’s between Helsinki or Arch, and Athens or Kiev.
Each is a coastal TT, but Arch and Kiev are slightly further afield.
With the bosphorus closed, Kiev is less of an option for the West than Athens would be.
Finland vs Arch is more of a toss up. It’s easier for Germany to reach, but also the West. Either one can be reached by the Allies by sea, though Arch stretches further north.They seem equally interesting to me, so hard to say which is best.
1 pro side neutral for each, Axis Finland and Allies Greece in G40, and 2 for Germany in 1942.2.Or 2 to Russia in G40, and 1 to Russia 1 to Germany in 1942.2?
Giving a nod to the Finnish and Greeks (which suggests also Yugoslavia/Croatia etc in 42), as more independent belligerents, might recommend them over 2 more VTs in areas clearly in Soviet sphere of influence. Not sure which is best. But on the whole feels pretty nice to me. This is excitingSC
-
While moving the VC image off center, I noticed Holland gets one. I haven’t been following this close. Is Holland just to even out some numbers ? The reason I mention it is, if it was Normandy instead, that might help the not conquering Normandy thing. Holland is already worth 3 bucks, so this would boost Normandy to 3 as well. Also since it’s a NO bonus, the extra buck isn’t susceptible too blockade damage.
-
I can easily agree with Balkans / Greece in both G40 and 1942.2.
But, about Archangel or Helsinki, it can break the simmetrical between Japan and Germany in 1942.2.
With Archangel, it makes Germany 6 VCs and Japan 6 VCs
China (US): 1 VC
USA: 4 VCs
Russia: 4 VCs
UK: 9 VCsETO VCs: 16�
PTO VCs: 14�
With Helsinki VC, it is 7 for Germany (still needing 11 VCs).
And Russia only 3 VCs.
Is it better? IDK.
Clearly, Germany will have to fight with TP in Baltic to reach both Oslo and Helsinki.
But Russia have 1 less point.
Probably easier for Germany to fight over these 3 contiguous TTs Norway, Finland and Karelia.
Than reaching Archangel which is a stretch and only 1 TT away from Moscow.For 2 Neutral VCs simmetrical is in G40, one pro-axis, the other pro-Allies.
You don’t get it with Archangel vs Athens. -
While moving the VC image off center, I noticed Holland gets one. I haven’t been following this close. Is Holland just to even out some numbers ? The reason I mention it is, if it was Normandy instead, that might help the not conquering Normandy thing. Holland is already worth 3 bucks, so this would boost Normandy to 3 as well. Also since it’s a NO bonus, the extra buck isn’t susceptible too blockade damage.
I suppose Caen (Normandy) is possible, but I personally don’t see the need for it. The city itself was not as important as others on our list and only became tactically important because of where the Allies chose to land. Overall, I don’t think the territory merits a VC, despite its historic significance.
-
While moving the VC image off center, I noticed Holland gets one. I haven’t been following this close. Is Holland just to even out some numbers ? The reason I mention it is, if it was Normandy instead, that might help the not conquering Normandy thing. Holland is already worth 3 bucks, so this would boost Normandy to 3 as well. Also since it’s a NO bonus, the extra buck isn’t susceptible too blockade damage.
I suppose Caen (Normandy) is possible, but I personally don’t see the need for it. The city itself was not as important as others on our list and only became tactically important because of where the Allies chose to land. Overall, I don’t think the territory merits a VC, despite its historic significance.
In addition, 1942.2 only have North Western Europe TTy.
So, I’m OK with Amsterdam/Antwerpen -
I still think the best approach for Normandy (and every other similar situation) is a liberation rule that basically turns all a nation’s territories into pro-side neutrals when their capital falls.
Such a rule will clean up the game quite a bit, and address all the weirdness around leftover territories after a capital is captured (like Paris). It has the benefit of being pretty simple to understand, and near universal (at least for all regular player nations, though the Dutch and Chinese still have their own weird ‘no capital’ thing going on.)
I think that change to pro-side neutral solution is probably the easiest to manage.
Alternative propositions, like giving each player nation a secondary capital, strike me as more involved and potentially still problematic for a nation like France, that has no factory outside Europe, no real income to speak of, and no purchasing location for a new one even if they did. I suppose the inclusion of a Military Base would make secondary capitals more viable (and certainly there are enough VCs now to support the idea.) But any secondary capital system is bound to be more rigid and more complicated, than the changing to pro-neutral idea.
I think the idea would also work well in 42.2, when a capital falls that nations territories may be claimed by a teammate.
-
I just always wanted to see Germans take over French ships at the beginning of the game. Or more accurately have the chance to.
-
I still think the best approach for Normandy (and every other similar situation) is a liberation rule that basically turns all a nation’s territories into pro-side neutrals when their capital falls.
Such a rule will clean up the game quite a bit, and address all the weirdness around leftover territories after a capital is captured (like Paris). It has the benefit of being pretty simple to understand, and near universal (at least for all regular player nations, though the Dutch and Chinese still have their own weird ‘no capital’ thing going on.)
I think that change to pro-side neutral solution is probably the easiest to manage.
Alternative propositions, like giving each player nation a secondary capital, strike me as more involved and potentially still problematic for a nation like France, that has no factory outside Europe, no real income to speak of, and no purchasing location for a new one even if they did. I suppose the inclusion of a Military Base would make secondary capitals more viable (and certainly there are enough VCs now to support the idea.) But any secondary capital system is bound to be more rigid and more complicatet, than the changing to pro-neutral idea.
I think the idea would also work well in 42.2, when a capital falls that nations territories may be claimed by a teammate.
Do you imply that all Russian units (Moscow captured, 1942.2) or french units (Paris captured G40) become immediately pro-side neutral?
-
I don’t think it’s necessary to treat with the units, just territory possession.
If units from the fallen nation still occupy a territory, then they should be treated as friendly or hostile based on their initial team/political affiliation.
For specialized Vichy rules, which were discussed many pages back and included in regular kids mod, it would be relatively simple to just port those rules as a specific toggle option, so players could use them if they want to explore the Franco-German armistice in more detail.
But I was speaking more generally about a rule that could apply to any Nation, such as Russia, Britain, Anzac, Italy etc and of course France too, if one wanted to just keep the treatment as universal as possible. For use in both games.
-
I just always wanted to see Germans take over French ships at the beginning of the game. Or more accurately have the chance to.
Yea that’s something I’d like to see too. The old Xeno games mod gave ya a chance. I think after France fell you rolled one die. If 1-2 they turned British, 3-5 scuttled and 6 turned German. I was thinking using BMs vich rules, you could have 1 = Free French, 2-5 scuttle and 6 = German. That way they have the chance of going German. Also if they stay Free French they won’t OP the way they would going British.
-
I just always wanted to see Germans take over French ships at the beginning of the game. Or more accurately have the chance to.
Yea that’s something I’d like to see too. The old Xeno games mod gave ya a chance. I think after France fell you rolled one die. If 1-2 they turned British, 3-5 scuttled and 6 turned German. I was thinking using BMs vich rules, you could have 1 = Free French, 2-5 scuttle and 6 = German. That way they have the chance of going German. Also if they stay Free French they won’t OP the way they would going British.
Exactly! I think something to that effect was talked about here a while back. It is a one-time event, so I am not surprised that it didn’t receive much attention.
Instituting such a rule now can only benefit the Germans and introduces a chance issue that the more scientific players may not like. OOB Germany will always have to fight French ships no matter what. In this case, Germany has a 2/3 chance that they now don’t have to risk air and naval resources to fight them.
Changing it to 1-3 = Free French or British control and 4-5 = scuttle, 6 = convert to German would alter the chance to favor OOB configuration… but honestly I like your initial proposal better Barney. Historically, virtually none of the French ships actually fought. They were either forcibly scuttled by the British, sunk in port or kept in British ports for the war.
Either way, I think it would be interesting to have.
-
*edited in some more commentary. I also agree with LHoffman below, about a good ballpark for the average amount of cash that enters play in a given turn.
:-DYeah I think that’s an excellent idea. For a tech section, something focused on “Politics and Neutrality” could easy fill out with a half a dozen options in this game. Vichy rules. Russian Japanese NAP rules. The change to pro-side after a capital falls. Those could certainly make the grade. Maybe the commonwealth too? I’m sure there is plenty to draw from here. I like the roll, it makes for a fun level of randomization, similar to regular battles but with a fun specific theme.
Not to shift gears again, but I’ve just been thinking once more about Objectives. This was discussed a lot early on, and I was happy to see the Russian objective tweaks included. But there are are still quite a few of these that leave a lot to be desired. 28 total objectives, 14 for each side, but how many are really doing the trick? I’ll post the full OOB list below (tripleA wording), but I just want to single out some of the NOs related to France right now to pick on them.
Instead of a thematically boring objective for UK like “+5 for control of ALL starting territories” (which is framed more around Axis doing stuff to deny the NO, rather than UK doing stuff to achieve it) why not give UK +5 if Allies control Normandy? This would immediately take care of the issue with Germany ignoring that tile.
Similarly why not give the Americans +5 for having units in Normandy instead of France? Then you’d have a potential +10 swing for D-Day. Something like that would actually motivate the Allies to really make a serious landing (not just Dunkirk’ng around) and would similarly give Germany a reason to develop a serious Atlantic wall.
Further, the Objective which grants France 12 ipcs in free units, once Paris is liberated, just seems like a waste of space to me. A one time bonus for 4 infantry units is pretty paltry. There is no windfall here for the Allies at that late stage in the game. Why not give the Allies something for taking France, that actually offsets the loss of production that occurs when Paris is restored? Under OOB liberation rules, the Allies are basically penalized for reclaiming Paris, meaning they’re not going to do it until they already have such an overwhelming advantage that the loss of Normandy or Southern France (together worth more than France itself, both in production and income) no longer matters.
Instead of 1 time bonus, why not just give the French +10 for control of France, so they can actually function in the endgame? This would motivate Allies to liberate Paris, or Germany to reclaim it via counter offensive, because the bonus would be recurring, not just a one off.
Getting right down to it, I propose we reduce the total number of NO’s for each team from 14 each to 12 each.
From 28 total objectives down to 24, with the dual aim of both simplify the tracking and making them more impact-full.
Which others should get sub’d out, and what do we replace them with?
Now is the time for specifics, because we are on the cusp.Lets get a list to replace the one below. I highlighted the NO’s that I think could be sub’d out for something more focused, or with more thematic historical weight. Edited in a quick commentary in brackets for each nation.
OOB Objectives:
National Objectives Germany
5 PUs if not yet at war with Russia.
5 PUs for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia.
5 PUs if Axis controls the Caucasus.
5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan.
5 PUs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway and Sweden is not allied-controlled or pro-allied.
2 PUs for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.[A lower value bonus for control of far flung territories, seems less interesting to me than one themed around the final defense. Perhaps a bonus relating to Italy itself or the Balkans or France?]
Russia
5 PUs if Russia is at war, sz125 has no Axis warships (all sea units except transports), Archangel is Russia-controlled, and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories.
3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls.
10 PUs one time only, the first time Russia conquers Germany (Berlin).[All three are problematic. sz125 bonus too wordy and insignificant. +3 bonuses are gamey in bizarre ways (Africa mid east weidness for example) Berlin bonus seems redundant. Already somewhat address in HR package, but could perhaps still use something. Possibly NAP related.]
Japan
10 PUs if not yet at war with USA, has not yet attacked French Indo-China, and has not declared war on UK or ANZAC.
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
5 PUs for each Axis controlled territory: Hawaii, India, New South Wales, and Western United States.
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.[Outer perimeter needs work. Also NAP]
UK
5 PUs for UK Europe if UK Europe controls of its original territories.
5 PUs for UK Pacific if UK Pacific controls both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.I think both of these could be reworked, to be more interesting. Perhaps with D-Day theme for Europe. Burma theme for UK Pacific.
ANZAC
5 PUs if the Allies control Malaya, and ANZAC controls all of their original territories, and is at war with Japan.
5 PUs 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.[This one and the UK Pac objective above, put’s huge emphasis on Malaya, at the expense of other possibilities]
Italy
5 PUs if no Allied ships are in the Med: sz92,…,sz99.
5 PUs if Axis control at least 3 of: Gibraltar, Egypt, Southern France and Greece.
5 PUs if Axis controll all of: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria.
2 PUs for each Italian controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.[having a VC for Persia/Iraq seems less interesting to me than one that was more sand and sea Med oriented]
USA
10 PUs if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and the Philippines is American-controlled.
5 PUs each turn the USA has one land unit in France.[Having an objective bonus for control of the continental US and West Indies seems kind of redundant. Would be better to have another Pacific or Europe themed objective. Or make the zero island thing in the Med/Pac more a feature of US objectives here]
China
6 PUs and may build artillery if the Allies control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan.French
12 PUs worth of free units in France the first time France is Liberated (The engine will give you 4 infantry automatically. Use edit mode if you want something other than 4 infantry by deleting the infantry and replacing them with what you really want).[Needs more to be compelling, I like a flat +10 for Paris, recurring instead of a one time bonus]
Here is a quick example of an approach from a while back that adds many more objectives, with ideals compiled/drafted by Oztea
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=7408
I like some of the wordings in there. Though I would prefer less total objectives to manage. I think fewer objectives at higher values in some case would be better than many more objectives at lower values. With 24, we could at least say with simplified it by the raw numbers. The game is already pretty complex, but this is one area we could maybe streamline. -
OOB Objectives:
National Objectives Germany
5 PUs if not yet at war with Russia.
5 PUs for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia.
5 PUs if Axis controls the Caucasus.
5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan.
5 PUs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway and Sweden is not allied-controlled or pro-allied.
2 PUs for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.Germany possible Total OOB: 27
Russia
5 PUs if Russia is at war, sz125 has no Axis warships (all sea units except transports), Archangel is Russia-controlled, and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories.
3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls.
10 PUs one time only, the first time Russia conquers Germany (Berlin).USSR possible Total OOB: 5+3x? (about 17 avg?)
Japan
10 PUs if not yet at war with USA, has not yet attacked French Indo-China, and has not declared war on UK or ANZAC.
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
5 PUs for each Axis controlled territory: Hawaii, India, New South Wales, and Western United States.
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.Japan possible Total OOB: 30
UK
5 PUs for UK Europe if UK Europe controls of its original territories.
5 PUs for UK Pacific if UK Pacific controls both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan.I think both of these could be reworked, to be more interesting. Perhaps with D-Day theme for Europe. Burma theme for UK Pacific.
UK possible Total OOB: 5
India possible Total OOB: 5
ANZAC
5 PUs if the Allies control Malaya, and ANZAC controls all of their original territories, and is at war with Japan.
5 PUs 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.[This one and the UK Pac objective above, put’s huge emphasis on Malaya, at the expense of other possibilities]
ANZAC possible Total OOB: 10
Italy
5 PUs if no Allied ships are in the Med: sz92,…,sz99.
5 PUs if Axis control at least 3 of: Gibraltar, Egypt, Southern France and Greece.
5 PUs if Axis controll all of: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria.
2 PUs for each Italian controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.[having a VC for Persia/Iraq seems less interesting to me than one that was more sand and sea Med oriented]
Italy possible Total OOB: 21
USA
10 PUs if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled.
5 PUs if USA is at war and the Philippines is American-controlled.
5 PUs each turn the USA has one land unit in France.[Having an objective bonus for control of the continental US and West Indies seems kind of redundant. Would be better to have another Pacific or Europe themed objective.
[color=green]USA possible Total OOB: 30
China
6 PUs and may build artillery if the Allies control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan.China Possible Total OOB: 6
French
12 PUs worth of free units in France the first time France is Liberated (The engine will give you 4 infantry automatically. Use edit mode if you want something other than 4 infantry by deleting the infantry and replacing them with what you really want).[Needs more to be compelling, I like a flat +10 for Paris, recurring instead of a one time bonus]
France Possible Total OOB: 12
I went back and just totaled up possible bonus amounts for each. It seems like the usual max bonus amounts hover at 30 IPCs. Most People aren’t going to get that per turn, but it may serve as a good cap for us to consider. Especially if even more cash is going to be floating around with VCs.
Looking at these again, some of them are laughably weak. Particularly the UK. It’s like they didn’t even care to get creative with it.
-
Here’s another example of redunancy
National Objectives Germany
5 PUs for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia.
5 PUs if Axis controls the Caucasus.
5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan.
2 PUs for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.These four entries could easily be reduced to a single general objective if wanted to.
+5 for each Axis controlled Territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia or Caucasus or Egypt or Iraq or Persia.
Do we really need a separate objective for Caucasus? Do we really need the infantry requirement to make the wording of Egypt different? If we want Mid East objectives can’t they just be worth 5, so it can all be made into a single list objective? Call it German Domination or whatever, but put all these +5s into one space.
That’s three total objectives eliminated right there. Down from 28 total to 25.
-
Here’s another example of redunancy
National Objectives Germany
5 PUs for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia.
5 PUs if Axis controls the Caucasus.
5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan.
2 PUs for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.These four entries could easily be reduced to a single general objective if wanted to.
+5 for each Axis controlled Territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia or Caucasus or Egypt or Iraq or Persia.
Do we really need a separate objective for Caucasus? Do we really need the infantry requirement to make the wording of Egypt different? If we want Mid East objectives can’t they just be worth 5, so it can all be made into a single list objective? Call it German Domination or whatever, but put all these +5s into one space.
That’s three total objectives eliminated right there. Down from 28 total to 25.
Very true. I think the only reason they separated them was to highlight the historical strategic reason (rule book calls it “theme”) for having each. Ex: Volgograd and Novgorod for propaganda value, Caucasus for oil, Egypt for propaganda, Persia etc, for oil.
-
Yes. It was too much and pretty little distinctions: axis here, German there, an infantry over there.
+5 is simpler.
And if seems a lot, then gives Allies, especially UK more IPCs bonus.You are probably right Hoffman, oil resources access and propaganda can still be combined in the explanation NOs text.
No need to be that far in subtilities.
Anyone which want to know which is what can easily learned it. -
I was thinking about Germany and one NO can be more defensive in nature.
Something about Atlantic Wall, a big +12 IPCs if such and such TTs are in Axis hands, this will include Normandy-Bordeaux. But only if it is unbreached.Once Allies get a foot hold for first time, then Atlantic Wall is broken till the end of game.
So, at least, Germany will not retreat inland when things getting hot in ATO.
-
Here’s another example of redunancy
National Objectives Germany
5 PUs for each German controlled territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia.
5 PUs if Axis controls the Caucasus.
5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in Egypt, whether or not it is controlled by Italy or Germany or Japan.
2 PUs for each German controlled territory: Iraq or Persia or Northwest Persia.These four entries could easily be reduced to a single general objective if wanted to.
+5 for each Axis controlled Territory: Volgograd or Novgorod or Russia or Caucasus or Egypt or Iraq or Persia.
Do we really need a separate objective for Caucasus? Do we really need the infantry requirement to make the wording of Egypt different? If we want Mid East objectives can’t they just be worth 5, so it can all be made into a single list objective? Call it German Domination or whatever, but put all these +5s into one space.
That’s three total objectives eliminated right there. Down from 28 total to 25.
Very true. I think the only reason they separated them was to highlight the historical strategic reason (rule book calls it “theme”) for having each. Ex: Volgograd and Novgorod for propaganda value, Caucasus for oil, Egypt for propaganda, Persia etc, for oil.
Here’s another attempt at consolidation.
Japan
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Gilbert Islands, and Solomon Islands.
5 PUs if Axis controls all of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes.Why not just “+1 for each Allied island on the Pacific side of the Map under Axis control.”
Now you are down to 24 total Objectives.
Italy
5 PUs if Axis control at least 3 of: Gibraltar, Egypt, Southern France and Greece.
5 PUs if Axis controll all of: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria.How about “+1 for each Allied or Pro Allied Neutral territory under Axis control inside or adjacent to the Mediterranean.”
This activates several otherwise uninteresting territories, including all the Allied islands, French North Africa, the Balkans, Syria, Egypt. It gives Italy a potential total bonus of +13 (if Axis managed to control every tile inside/adjacent to the Med) for their New Roman Empire. But at least here the objective would be based on control of individual TTs, instead of an All or Nothing read for the NO. That way Italy can be an interesting player again, instead of either a monster, or a non-factor as OOB, depending almost entirely on the outcome of initial naval battles in the Med.
Now you are down to 23 total NOs.
At this point we can still substitute any remaining NO’s, or add new one!
:-DFor each of the Consolidated NO’s, you could easily include all the Thematic wording and exposition of the OOB objectives. Just put them all in the same paragraph for the New NO. But the bonus mechanic is simplified (since everything is basically +X for control of Y), and by bringing them together into a single NO line, we simplify the overall concept, while freeing up space for other more focused Objectives.
-
@Baron:
I was thinking about Germany and one NO can be more defensive in nature.
Something about Atlantic Wall, a big +12 IPCs if such and such TTs are in Axis hands, this will include Normandy-Bordeaux. But only if it is unbreached.Once Allies get a foot hold for first time, then Atlantic Wall is broken till the end of game.
This actually has a lot of merit. The Atlantic Wall was a big deal to Hitler. Ended up being more hollow than advertised, but prior to D-Day there was a lot of focus on building it (by the Germans) and fear at having to face it (from the Allies). Having an IPC bonus like that will force Germany to defend in a more than respectable manner if they want to keep the bonus.
-
At the very least, by freeing up these NO slots, if desired we can maintain the total number of Objectives as OOB once you include the “not at War” objectives. I was just being kind of hard line in wanting to somehow reduce the total number involved. Having the same number for each team is less important I think, then having objectives that make the gameplay more interesting. Every NO is after all, an objective for both teams (since the opponent has the implicit objective of denying objectives to the enemy.) So there are ways that having more Allied NOs, still gives Axis things to do, even if the total numbers by teams are weighted differently. Here are two possibilities.
Since I just showed how we can get rid of 5 Axis OOB objectives. It would be fairly easy to go down to 12 or even 9 total for Axis. (Not including the objectives “when not at war” since those aren’t tracked in the same way.)
Germany 4 objectives at War
Japan 4 objectives at War
Italy 4 objectives WarRussia 3 objectives at War
UK Europe 2 objectives at War
UK Pacific 1 Objective at War
USA 3 objectives at War
China 1 objective at War
Anzac 1 objective at War
France 1 objective at WarAxis 12 objectives at War
Allies 12 objectives at Waror you could go something like this
Germany 3 objectives at War
Japan 3 objectives at War
Italy 3 objectives WarRussia 4 objectives at War
UK Europe 3 objectives at War
UK Pacific 1 Objective at War
USA 4 objectives at War
China 1 objective at War
Anzac 1 objective at War
France 1 objective at WarAxis 9 objectives at War
Allies 15 objectives at Wardepending on whether you think the extra NO’s would be most interesting for Allies or Axis.
Suggested Topics
