The updated OPERATION FELIX-HEINRICH includes the revised SetUp of units in Spain that are described in the G40 Strict Neutral Expansion rulebook.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
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.
-
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).
Here are a couple of sections from Cornelius Ryan’s book The Longest Day which illustrate Hitler’s obsession with the Atlantic Wall, and the scepticism of his generals about it. What’s interesting about the positions of Von Rundstedt and Rommel is that they were both partly right and both partly wrong, a problem compounded by the fact that Hitler decided on a compromise which used the worst rather than the best of the two options. Rommel was right that Allied air superiority would hinder the deployment of German reserves from the rear to the front, and Von Rundstedt was right that the wall would spread out the German forces too much and nail them in fixed positions, thus allowing the Allies to punch through at a point of their choosing without being bothered by the German forces elsewhere along the wall.
By the fall of 1941 he began talking to his generals about making Europe an “impregnable fortress.” And in December, after the U.S. had entered the war, the Führer ranted to the world that “a belt of strongpoints and gigantic fortifications runs from Kirkenes [on the Norwegian-Finnish frontier]…to the Pyrenees [on the Franco-Spanish border]…and it is my unshakable decision to make this front impregnable against every enemy.” It was a wild, impossible boast. Discounting the indentations, this coastline running from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the Bay of Biscay in the south stretched almost three thousand miles. […] Hitler had become obsessed with the fortress concept. […] Hitler dashed across the room to a table on which there was a large map and for a full five minutes threw an unforgettable tantrum. Pounding the map with his clenched fist he screamed, “Bombs and shells will fall here…here…here…and here…in front of the wall, behind it and on it…but the troops will be safe in the wall! Then they’ll come out and fight!” […] Thousands of slave laborers worked night and day to build the fortifications. Millions of tons of concrete were poured; so much was used that all over Hitler’s Europe it became impossible to get concrete for anything else. Staggering quantities of steel were ordered, but this commodity was in such short supply that the engineers were forced to do without it. As a result few of the bunkers or blockhouses had swiveling cupolas, which required steel for the turrets, and the arc of fire from the guns was thereby restricted. So great was the demand for materials and equipment that parts of the old French Maginot Line and Germany’s frontier fortifications (the Siegfried Line) were cannibalized for the Atlantic Wall. By the end of 1943, although the wall was far from finished, over half a million men were working on it and the fortifications had become a menacing reality.
[…]
The wise old Von Rundstedt had never believed in fixed defenses. He had masterminded the successful outflanking of the Maginot Line in 1940 that had led to the collapse of France. To him Hitler’s Atlantic Wall was nothing more than an “enormous bluff…more for the German people than for the enemy…and the enemy, through his agents, knows more about it than we do.” It would “temporarily obstruct” the Allied attack, but it would not stop it. Nothing, Von Rundstedt was convinced, could prevent the initial landings from being successful. His plan to defeat the invasion was to hold the great mass of his troops back from the coast and to attack after the Allied troops had landed. That would be the moment to strike, he believed – when the enemy was still weak, without adequate supply lines and struggling to organize in isolated bridgeheads. With this theory Rommel disagreed completely. He was positive that there was only one way to smash the attack: meet it head on. There would be no time to bring up reinforcements from the rear; he was certain that they would be destroyed by incessant air attacks or the massive weight of naval or artillery bombardment. Everything, in his view, from troops to panzer divisions, had to be held ready at the coast or just behind it.
-
Thanks for this transcript CWO Marc,
I never thought it drags so much resources.From a game POV, what can recreate this somehow seems Allies need to get a big NOs for the first time they land in Europe mainland.
Instead of Germany NOs, breaking Atlantic Wall NOs / opening Western Front:
it can be like +10 IPCs for the first Allies to conquer a land TTy in Europe.
This bonus will apply to this allied power, even after all its units been destroyed in TTy.So, this will happen sooner or later but in Germany’s interest the later the better.
That way, Axis will need to keep many Infantry along Atlantic Coast to deter invasion.
This will drag resources in similar way. -
Just spitballing…
Germany:
+5 for each Axis controlled Territory: Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
+5 for Norway/Denmark if Sweden is neutral.
*Fortress Europa?
*Battle of the Atlantic?
(NAP with Russia)Russia:
*Spread of Communism?
*Xenophobia?
*Supply Routes?
(with Naps for Germany, and Japan)Japan:
+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Axis control
*Hawaii?
*China?
*Final Defense? something to do with Kamikazi islands?
(DoW with West, and Nap with Russia)UK Europe:
+5 for Allied control of Normandy- Balkans? something sand and sea in the Med?
UK Pacific:
*Burma? so its closer to home base? Or what if we switched the dynamic and made it more related to the Mid East/Africa?USA:
+5 for Allied control of Normandy- for Pacific Islands vs Japan?
*Torch, North Africa, Med Islands vs Italy?
China:
*Burma Road? does China need something more?Italy:
+1 for Med Allied territories under Axis control- Regia Marina?
- Something for Sub-Saharan Africa, or the final defense of Italy?
Anzac:
*New Guinea? Solomon Is? I think its better for Anzac to have 1 realistic objective, rather than 2 that Japan will never allow.France:
+10 for Paris -
Ok just trying for something that might click. Here each major power has 4 objectives.
GERMANY:
+5 if not at War with Russia
+5 for each Axis controlled territory: Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
+5 for Norway/Denmark if Sweden is neutral.
+5 for Normandy/Holland if at War with USRUSSIA:
+5 if not at war with Japan
+5 if at War and no Western units in Russia
+2 for Axis territories under Soviet control (only in Europe proper)
+3 if at War, for each open supply route: Persia, Far East, Arctic.UK Europe
+5 if Allies control Normandy
+5 if Allies control GreeceUK Pacific
+5 if at War with Japan and Allies control Burma.
+5 if at War with Japan and Allies control Malaya.JAPAN
+5 if not at War with West
+5 if not at War with Russia
+1 for each zero ipc Allied Pacific island under Japanese control
+10 for HawaiiUSA
+10 at War
+1 for each zero IPC Axis island under US control (Med/Pac).
+5 if at War and Allies control Normandy
+5 one time bonus for each Kamakazi island captured by Allies.CHINA
+6 Burma RoadITALY
+1 for each Allied territory in the Med controlled by Axis.
+5 if no Allied ships in the MedANZAC
+5 if at War and Allies control New Guinea.FRANCE
+10 if Allies control ParisThat list has 25 altogether.
Axis 10 vs Allies 15. Seemed reasonable.
Could add a few more to the minor powers, or somewhere else, if that makes sense.Any thoughts?
Ps.
Russia is basically the same as current, except added the NAP, and made the no Western units thing a bit more compelling.For the Japanese, seemed like they need some kind of large bonus for Hawaii. Perhaps a one time bonus is better than a recurring one? Or extend this to include a large one time bonus for any of Hawaii, New South Wales, or India? They also get an island incentive and the NAP.
For UK Europe you got a second front incentive for Normandy and the Balkans. I felt like Burma and Malaya made for better UK Pac objectives, since it encourages them to stay and fight in Burma (which helps China), and to press on for Malaya if possible. The jungle war in these places pretty iconic, so seemed like they’d make good ones to focus the war in South East Asia.
For US tried to get something in there to address both zero IPC islands generally (in both theaters), and Kamakazi islands specifically. Also to get the D Day thing going.
Tried to streamline Italy, Anzac, and France to make them a bit more attractive. Italy and Anzac are less do or die here. France is mainly for endgame dynamism in Europe.
-
+5 if at War and for each Allied control territory: New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Britain
And why not add Malaya to this package?I believe ANZAC need more bonus to have some significance it PTO.
Why not write it the same for UK both ETO and PTO?
UK PAC
+5 if at War with Japan and for each Allied control territory: Burma, Malaya and Kwangtung.UK Europe
+5 if at War with Axis and for each Allied control territory: Malta, Normandy and GreeceIs it needed to be zero IPC?
+1 for each
zero IPCAxis island under US control (Med/Pac). -
Yeah I think you’re right, but when the Objectives are multifaceted, it makes them harder to achieve.
Is the goal is to give Anzac some easy cash to fight more independently? The idea below would make them more powerful than OOB. OOB they are only effective once the US has rocked the money islands away from Japan (and the fight in the Pacific is already more or less determined.)
ANZAC
+5 each, if at War with Japan and Allies control: Solomons or New Guinea/New BritainThat would give Anzac a relatively easy 10, if Japan does nothing to put a wedge between them and the Americans. New Guinea/New Britain is easier for Japan to disrupt, Solomons a bit harder. So +5 is more likely.
Ps. Yeah that wording Baron just posted is better. Reduces the total number of objectives.
Good calls!Let’s go with that
:-D -
Yeah I think you’re right, but when the Objectives are multifaceted, it makes them harder to achieve.
Is the goal is to give Anzac some easy cash to fight more independently? The idea below would make them more powerful than OOB. OOB they are only effective once the US has rocked the money islands away from Japan (and the fight in the Pacific is already more or less determined.)
ANZAC
+5 each, if at War with Japan and Allies control: Solomons or New Guinea/New BritainThat would give Anzac a relatively easy 10, if Japan does nothing to put a wedge between them and the Americans. New Guinea is easier for Japan to disrupt, Solomons a bit harder.
Hence, it explained why these Islands were important to capture for Japan. To disrupt shipping between USA and ANZAC.
This somehow explained how it can radically affect ANZAC. Just a +1 for Japan but a big -5 for ANZAC for each Island
Suggested Topics
