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!
:-D
For 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 War
Russia 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 War
Axis 12 objectives at War
Allies 12 objectives at War
or you could go something like this
Germany 3 objectives at War
Japan 3 objectives at War
Italy 3 objectives War
Russia 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 War
Axis 9 objectives at War
Allies 15 objectives at War
depending 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
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
China:
*Burma Road? does China need something more?
Italy:
+1 for Med Allied territories under Axis control
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 US
RUSSIA:
+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 Greece
UK 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 Hawaii
USA
+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 Road
ITALY
+1 for each Allied territory in the Med controlled by Axis.
+5 if no Allied ships in the Med
ANZAC
+5 if at War and Allies control New Guinea.
FRANCE
+10 if Allies control Paris
That 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 Greece
Is it needed to be zero IPC?
+1 for each zero IPC Axis 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 Britain
That 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
Also, if written like this, money Islands will be included (as it was supposed OOB):
+1 for each zero ipc Allied Pacific island under Japanese control
I may goes that far as :
+5 if at War and for each Allied control territory: New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Britain, Malaya
UK ETO:
Why not add Gibraltar (giving another reason for Italy/Germany to conquer:
+5 if at War with Axis and for each Allied control territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Normandy, and Greece
Ok how does this feel?
GERMANY:
+5 if not at War with Russia
+5 for each Axis controlled territory: Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
+5 for control of Norway and Denmark if Sweden is neutral.
+5 for control of Normandy and Holland if at War with US
RUSSIA:
+5 if not at war with Japan
+5 if at War and no Western units in Russia.
+2 for Axis territories under Soviet control.
+3 if at War, for each open supply route: Persia, Far East, Arctic.
UK Europe
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Malta, Greece, Normandy.
UK Pacific
+5 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung
JAPAN
+5 if not at War with West
+5 if not at War with Russia
+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control
+10 for Hawaii
USA
+10 at War
+1 for each 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 Road
ITALY
+1 for each Allied territory in the Med controlled by Axis.
+5 if no Allied ships in the Med
ANZAC
+3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.
FRANCE
+10 if Allies control Paris
Right now that’s…
AXIS 10
ALLIES 13
Reducing the total number of entries by 5 NOs. But increasing the variety and gameplay significance of the NOs in play.
UK Europe
+5 each if Allies control Malta, Greece or Normandy
Written that way, it means you only get +5 IPCs if you control any amongst these three.
In my mind, it will be +5 for each TTy.
Also, ANZAC may be lower like:
+3 if at War and for each Allied control territory: New Guinea, Solomon Islands, New Britain, Malaya
+5 for each Allied control territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Normandy, and Greece
Ok edited the above.
Does that feel cool?
Ok edited the above.
Does that feel cool?
Yep, far better.
What about:
ITALY
+1 for each Allied territory in the Med or Middle-East controlled by Axis.
This depict how all oil field resources were needed.
Is it more historical if Middle-east was included in spreading communism?
+2 for Axis territories under Soviet control (only in Europe or Middle-East proper)
This one need to be defined, what is an open route?
+3 if at War, for each open supply route: Persia, Far East, Arctic.
That one means +10 if both TTys in Axis hands?
+5 for Normandy/Holland if at War with US
For these two I would add: uninterrupted possession
+5 each for uninterrupted possession of Normandy and Holland, if at War with US
Ok I edit again. New draft list in post below.
I just removed the restriction for the Soviets to expand communism. Really seems like if they go through the effort to get to Africa they probably deserve it. It’s gamey but I don’t really like putting a restriction on it anyway. This way it works for Asia too.
For the Mid East I think that is pretty much coveted already by the German NO. Keeping it focused on the Med suggest more the dream of a new Roman Empire.
I removed the backslash and used proper conjunction “and” , for NOs that deal with controlling teo territories, which is what I meant originally.
Ok how does this feel?
GERMANY:
+5 if not at War with Russia
+5 for each Axis controlled territory: England, Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
+5 for control of Norway and Denmark together if Sweden is neutral.
+5 for control of Normandy and Holland together 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.
+3 if at War, for each open supply route: Persia, Far East, Arctic.UK Europe
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.UK Pacific
+5 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Burma, Malaya, Kwangtung.JAPAN
+5 if not at War with West
+5 if not at War with Russia
+1 for each Allied Pacific island under Japanese control
+10 for HawaiiUSA
+10 at War
+1 for each 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
+3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya.FRANCE
+10 if Allies control ParisRight now that’s…
AXIS 10
ALLIES 13Reducing the total number of entries by 5 NOs. But increasing the variety and gameplay significance of the NOs in play.
Seem alright?
I would still like to include all the thematic blurbs for each of these. But I think a simplified wording for the objective itself is better as a mnemonic device, than having a bunch of different names/stories that describe functionally similar bonuses.
I will edit and expand the “supply routes for Russia” description. The one above was just shorthand for stuff already inclouded in HR the package. Basically each has a territory and sz associated with it.
Why do you need that Germany be at war with US to give Normandy NO?
For the Mid East I think that is pretty much coveted already by the German NO. Keeping it focused on the Med suggest more the dream of a new Roman Empire.
+1 for each Allied territory in the Med controlled by Axis.
Does it include all North African TTs like Egypt and, bordering Med TT like Syria?
Do you think adding Gibraltar is too much here?
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.
We talked about it when discussing VCs. (Free Town for a Gibraltar NO)
I would add this one:
+5 for each Axis controlled territory: England , Volgograd, Novgorod, Russia, Caucasus, Egypt, Iraq, Persia.
(Sea Lion is so a pyrrhic victory as it seems.)
I found it far much simpler to follow.
I hope G40 pros will comment.
Maybe ask a revision on G40 Forum once ready.
I threw a line there:
Re: G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37553.msg1642276#msg1642276
I am not interested in giving the USSR consistent free cash, but what do you think about giving Russia more money for the “no Western Allies in USSR territories” NO?
I think the incentive to keep the other Allies out needs to be significant. It may be possible to do this through means other than NOs, but there is one specifically geared for it.
I am not interested in giving the USSR consistent free cash, but what do you think about giving Russia more money for the “no Western Allies in USSR territories” NO?
I think the incentive to keep the other Allies out needs to be significant. It may be possible to do this through means other than NOs, but there is one specifically geared for it.
Do you think 10 IPCs will be a sufficient incentive to not land Allies aircrafts in Russia?
It is enough to built 1 Fg per turn.
