G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[General Veers]

@Baron:

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

I like the idea of putting a minor industrial complex on West India and downgrading the major in India to a minor. As part of this tradeoff in the global game, Bombay can serve as a backup capital for UK Pacific.

Regarding Panama, adding a national objective for both US and Japan makes sense, and a naval base there would reward Japan for making the effort to get there. I still think it can be integrated in a global game as a minor victory city of some kind given it’s strategic importance.

[baron Münchhausen]

@General:

@Baron:

@General:

It would be nice to add a little more importance and flavor to West India, which includes the vital port city of Bombay. Having a naval base there opens up shuttling possibilities with Egypt and Malaya.

I see the merit of adding a naval base to Central America to serve as a target for Japan, but at the start it is a pretty useful way for the US to consolidate and swing everything toward either Germany or Japan. Putting it in the West Indies instead (bases in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, etc) would buff the benefit (only for the European side) while adding flavor.

Instead of a base a case could be made for having Panama serve as a VC for Japan as symbolic control of the gate between the Atlantic & the Pacific.

I agree Bombay NB would increase Indian Ocean mobility for UKPac.
Maybe a minor IC would help too ? It must be on set-up because UKPac have no money for this kind of luxury.

About Panama, if it is to be somewhat attractive for Japan, it needs a NB there because it becomes a death trap for IJN fleet. If Hawaii is Japanese, an invasion force can land on Panama but cannot return.
While USA NB on West Indies still allows to reach WUS SZ10 in 1 move.
Basically adding a US asset while making less interesting for Japan to seize and of no use.
With NB on Panama, it allows to return to Hawaii or to reach Gibraltar too.
I don’t think Panama is a good idea as VC. It is a virtually impossible task for ETO Axis and of mitigated interest for PTO Japan, since not on his map. Adding this a VC ETO, imply stripping a reachable VC for Axis to an unuseful VC.
NO can be a more substantial reward, a 5 or 10 IPCs for Japan or a 5 IPCs bonus for both USA and Japan making a 10 IPCs swing or even 15, if +5 US vs +10 Japan.

I like the idea of putting a minor industrial complex on West India and downgrading the major in India to a minor. As part of this tradeoff in the global game, Bombay can serve as a backup capital for UK Pacific.

Regarding Panama, adding a national objective for both US and Japan makes sense, and a naval base there would reward Japan for making the effort to get there. I still think it can be integrated in a global game as a minor victory city of some kind given it’s strategic importance.

ITALY NOs:
+1 for each Allied territory that touches the Mediterranean Sea controlled by Axis.

+5 for each, if no Allied ships in the Mediterranean OR Gibraltar & Morocco are Axis captured, Axis conquest of Suez Canal (Egypt and Trans-Jordan), Axis conquest of Panama’s Canal.
Theme: Control of Allied waterways and vital communication centers.

JAPAN NOs:
+10 if Japan controls Hawaii AND either Wake or Midway

+5 for each, Japan controls Panama or Aleutian AND Alaska
Theme: capture of vital US PTO intelligence and communication centers.

Does something like this can still suit you?
So both Japan and Italy would benefit from Panama’s canal.

UK EUROPE:
+5 for each Allied controlled territory: Panama, Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, Normandy.

+5 if Allied controlled: Skagerrak-Kategatt strait (Norway and Denmark),
Theme: Capture of vital Axis iron ore trading and communication waterways.

What about this one?
Enough NOs for Canal control?

[Argothair]

I like the proposed changes to India. I’m indifferent on the W. Canada naval base.

I think Panama should have a naval base, and should be part of a major NO for the USA based on tropical naval supremacy, e.g., +10 for USA if Allies control all of Panama, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America and there are no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

[CWO Marc]

Here are a few thoughts about the France / Vichy / Free French subject which has been discussed.

A basic question that would be useful to answer is: should France be made “interesting enough” (for want of a better phrase) to be playable by a single player who isn’t also controlling another power?  Currently, under all the OOB “Number of Players” rules, France is always tacked on to the responsibilities of a player who’s controlling something else: the USSR, or the USSR + US + China, or all of the Allied powers.  This is presumably because OOB France operates under severe restrictions which relegate it to a peripheral status.

If France, in an improved version of A&A, keeps its “not interesting enough for a single player” status, then one possibility after France falls would be for its territories and playing piece assets to be divided into a Free French portion (which would continue to be played by whoever is playing the power or powers that pre-fall France was paired with) and a Vichy portion (which would be played by whoever is playing Germany).  This would be a variation of the idea mentioned earlier by LHoffman: “Ha, that would be interesting if you have a French player. Starts out on the Allies then switches sides to Axis.”

On the other hand, if France, in an improved version of A&A, gets upgraded to a power that’s “interesting enough for a single player,” then the situation becomes more complicated.  If this “interesting enough for a single player” version of France gets fractured into a Vichy part and a Free French part, would these diminished separate parts continue to be “interesting enough for a single player”?  If the answer turns out to be no, then France, in order to remain “interesting enough for a single player,” might need to be kept as a unified power, which in turn raises the question: does it remain a unified Allied-affiliated power or does it become a unified Axis-affiliated power?  (I don’t know the answer; I’m just wondering about the possible implementation scenarios.)

On a related point, one possible way of making France “interesting enough for a single player”, but without changing the way France operates, might be to pair it with Global 1940’s other oddball Allied power, China (which operates under some weird restrictions of its own), and assign both powers to a single player who’d play just them.  Depending on how many players are at the table, a variation of this idea might even be to bundle France, China and ANZAC together and assign them to a dedicated player.

Under the OOB rules, in a six-player game, France is paired with the USSR, China is paired with the US and ANZAC is paired with the UK.  Detaching these three junior partners from the three senior partners and bundling them together, but without changing the way France and China and ANZAC operate, might create an “interesting enough for a single player” three-power block, while allowing the USSR, US and UK players (assuming there are three of them) to concentrate exclusively on their own workload.  This would require four players in the Allied side, in other words.  In principle this would imply a seven-person game, with one player each for Germany, Italy and Japan, but a six-person version could be contrived by applying the Axis configuration that’s used in the OOB rules for five players: one player controlling Germany and Italy, and one player controlling Japan.

[Imperious Leader]

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

[LHoffman]

@Imperious:

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

^ What he said.

Whether in person or otherwise, France is a total drag to play solo. Also slows the game. In practice, UK/US takes control of remaining French units. Vichy rules should exist only to determine what is handed over to the German player and what isn’t.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

I like the proposed changes to India. I’m indifferent on the W. Canada naval base.

**I think Panama should have a naval base, and should be part of a major NO for the USA based on tropical naval supremacy, e.g., +10 for USA if Allies control all of Panama, Mexico, West Indies, and Central America and there are no Axis submarines in Caribbean or Panama Sea Zone.

This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace.** I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

As I see the game, it is hard to make the assumption more land= more money, if we stay strictly on realistic/historical POV. From what I learned about Easter Front, getting more ressources from these war ravaged TTs than what they drag to maintained and protect seems a theoretical POV. Any positive bonus put on a contested TT is not from a realistic economic POV. Even Caucasus Rostov-on-Don oil field was not really able to produce and deliver oil to Germany. Placing 5 IPCs on Leningrad or Stalingrad are not realistic: these VCs would have been reduced to rubble, and how effective can be such labor camp?

All incentive bonus on enemy’s TT as NO should be understood by Industrial and Progress Credit name, and Progress is the more important term. I would aim at giving for the same essential TT NO, an Industrial bonus to the owner while it should be seen as a Progress Bonus for the conquerer POV.
Only keeping the broad POV in NOs as a way to incente more historical kind of play or more dynamic and yet credible strategy.
Such as, giving bonus to Allies when they reach Normandy is more for acquiring an historical goal of opening a western front war (than being able to get resources from this war zone). DD-day and debarkment was not made for a profit. Also choosing Normandy over France also incente Germany to not retreat inner land to escape from Allies direct assault and shorebombardment. That way it better reenact the idea of Atlantic Wall strategy.

It can be positive bonus to get hit (for Allies) and also positive bonus to hold it (for Axis).
That way, it increases IPCs swing value for a given TT making radically and of upmost importance.

I tend to suggest NOs which rather express what is not explicit on map.
What kind of resources and communications ways were very important to one side or the other.
It can certainly put into one side get +10, +5, 0, / to +5, +10 to the other side. Canals can receive more Global attention that way. So, a single 0 IPC TT can still produce a 20 IPCs swing if people think it was that vital for both sides.

Also, we have to consider what resources need to be “wasted/invested” on a given objective to be acquired.
Ocean travelled objectives requiring many turns to prepare, launch and fight need money incentive. Otherwise, easier and nearer objective will mostly be chosen as a more cost effective way to win the game.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

I don’t think a Vichy french idea would be sustainable to maintain interest as a player. Free French forces are a British stooge ( they were financed by the British and coordinated with their activities)

It just serves a historical sensibility and probably makes some benefit for the axis as buffer states. Perhaps if this module took on the shape of a 1939 edition, France would be much more interesting to play.

There is absolutely nothing interesting to do with France IL as an autonomous power?

If the case, why not make a config in which Free France is considered UK, and some Vichy wholly Italian or Germany? It will allows to skip France turn and speed the pace somehow.

I liked the config CWO Marc suggested: letting 1 major power to 1 player, all axis to 1 player and China, France and Anzac to another, allowing a 7 players config, if UK is one player, with enough action for each (maybe less for Italy, but still it is an aggressive minor power.

[Imperious Leader]

I would like to see some NO’s randomized or areas like VC provide some randomized cash bonus.

Like capture Baku get one D6 roll per turn representing oil from this region. Or alternatively, if say Italy closes the Suez, the British player loses random D6 roll of cash per turn. Some captured areas represent not much for the new owner, but a strategic cost to the original owner.

The game only represents “if you take this, you get this” Sometimes if you take this, you gain nothing but the original player loses something.

Rostov-on-Don oil field

You mean Maykop oil center?  Rostov doesn’t have any oil, its just the “gateway to the Caucasus”, so if you control it you can supply any point south or east

[Imperious Leader]

There is absolutely nothing interesting to do with France IL as an autonomous power?

Only if the game starts at an earlier point. The setup makes a French collapse highly likely. If a dumb German player lets it be, its alot tougher on Germany to win.

[CWO Marc]

@Argothair:

This reflects the fact that Panama was useful to American shipping, not to Japanese shipping. The loss of Panama would have seriously weakened the US economy and US morale, but I don’t think it would have boosted Japan’s economy or forced the US to negotiate a separate peace. I’m not dead set against making Panama a VC, but as other commenter have pointed out, it’s awkward to have a Japanese VC target on the ETO gameboard.

This actually raises an interesting point about objectives in general (such as victory cities, national objectives, national advantages and so forth).  The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”, meaning an objective that benefits one specific side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by that side, but that doesn’t benefit the enemy side if it’s controlled (or whatever) by the enemy.  From the enemy’s point of view, therefore, taking control (or whatever) of that objective has what could be called the “single benefit” of depriving the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective.

By contrast, a “symmetrical-benefit objective” would be an objective that benefits whichever side controls (or whatever) the objective.  From the enemy’s point of view, taking control (or whatever) of such an objective has a “double benefit” effect: you not only deprive the other player of the IPCs (or other desirable features) of that objective, you also get to make use of those IPCs (or other desirable features) for your own purposes.

[Argothair]

The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”

That’s very well-put, CWO Marc. In case I wasn’t clear before, I believe that objectives that were historically asymmetrical should always offer an in-game benefit to only one side. If you want to make that benefit more radical, you can do that by increasing the size of the benefit.

For example, suppose you think Panama was just the most important territory in the whole world, and you want a 30 IPC swing, but you agree that Japan would not have been able to make economic use of the territory. So, give the USA 30 IPCs/turn if and only if it controls Panama, and then Japan (or Germany) can try to deny America the use of the canal in order to inflict major pain on the American economy.

Conversely, suppose you think Malta was of only minor importance, so you want no more than a 4 IPC swing, but you agree that Malta would have been symmetrically useful for both the UK and Italy. So, make Malta worth 2 IPCs for Italy if it controls Malta, and 2 IPCs for the UK if it controls Malta, and then you’ll have the right-sized swing while maintaining symmetry.

The examples are just examples – the point is that symmetry and size are two different variables, and we should strive to tailor each of them appropriately for each objective.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks for this concept: symetrical/asymmetrical benefit objective.
Was Suez Canal a symetrical benefit objective if Axis would have reached it historically ?

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

Thanks for this concept: symetrical/asymmetrical benefit objective.
Was Suez Canal a symetrical benefit objective if Axis would have reached it historically ?

No, Suez was an asymmetrical (single-side benefit) canal.  It was valuable to the British because it offered them a shortcut sea route (both for trade and for military purposes) between Britain and the parts of the empire that were located in the Indian Ocean / Pacific / Asia areas.  It also offered a roundabout route (via the Cape of Good Hope) from Britain to the Middle East, if the partially-Axis-controlled Mediterranean was too hazardous for shipping (especially for troop ships, which were very valuable).

Suez was of no direct use to the Axis in WWII (in its historical form) because Germany/Italy in Europe and Japan on the other side of the world were essentially fighting separate wars and had little reason (and no significant means) to send stuff to each other.  Suez might have been marginally useful to the Axis if Germany and Italy had conquered the Middle East (for oil) and had teamed up with Japan to capture India…and even then, from Germany’s point of view, that would mainly have been a land campaign.

[Argothair]

If the case, why not make a config in which Free France is considered UK, and some Vichy wholly Italian or Germany? It will allows to skip France turn and speed the pace somehow.

I strongly agree.

If we want to see a France that makes important decisions during the game, then we need to find a way to give France enough resources to be interesting. The most conservative way to do that is to let France keep its remaining territories after its capital is sacked. The Vichy French rules are a special exception to the ordinary rules that serve to further weaken the French nation, above and beyond the naturally weak position that France occupies because it’s right next door to an expanding Germany. That’s completely wrongheaded if the goal is to create a series of interesting decisions for a French player.

On the other hand, if we want to minimize French resources (whether because we think the Axis need those resources to ensure balance, or in the interest of historical accuracy, or for any other reason), then we need to find a way to avoid pretending that France is an independent nation in our game. If, in over 99% of your games, Paris is going to fall before the French player makes a single move, and as soon as Paris falls, you’re going to use dice, etc. to strip France of five-sixths of its remaining colonies, then there’s no need to go through the rigamarole of assigning someone to play France, calculating a French economy, and giving the tiny remnant of Free French forces their own separate spot in the turn order. All of that work is just a big waste of time relative to the fun that you’re getting out of it.

I do like the suggestion above to roll dice for the “French” territories and assign 1/6 of them to be Allied-aligned, 1/6 of them to be Axis, and 4/6 of them to be pro-Axis neutral. That seems like it would create some interesting variations and uncertainty without requiring too much in the way of rules or delay. But to get those variations, it’s not necessary to conjure up an imaginary “Free French” player. Just give the Allied pieces to the British, and give the Axis pieces to the Germans or Italians.

Was Suez Canal a symetrical benefit objective if Axis would have reached it historically ?

In my opinion, yes, with two qualifiers. First, the Axis would have needed to neutralize British bases in Aden and Port Sudan. It’s not much use getting into the Red Sea if you can’t get out again on the other end. Second, the Axis would have needed somewhere to go. If the Germans penetrated the Caucasus as far as Basra, or if the Italians held onto any part of their colony in Ethiopia, or if the Japanese penetrated into India or Ceylon or Madagascar, then the Suez Canal would have been quite useful for the Axis. If the Axis lost all of those other campaigns, then I don’t see the Canal as being of much logistical/economic use, although it might still be tactically helpful if the Italians and Japanese wanted to coordinate a joint attack on the British Indian fleet.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

The Panama Canal is a good example of what could be called an “asymmetrical-benefit objective”

That’s very well-put, CWO Marc. In case I wasn’t clear before, I believe that objectives that were historically asymmetrical should always offer an in-game benefit to only one side. If you want to make that benefit more radical, you can do that by increasing the size of the benefit.

For example, suppose you think Panama was just the most important territory in the whole world, and you want a 30 IPC swing, but you agree that Japan would not have been able to make economic use of the territory. So, give the USA 30 IPCs/turn if and only if it controls Panama, and then Japan (or Germany) can try to deny America the use of the canal in order to inflict major pain on the American economy.

Conversely, suppose you think Malta was of only minor importance, so you want no more than a 4 IPC swing, but you agree that Malta would have been symmetrically useful for both the UK and Italy. So, make Malta worth 2 IPCs for Italy if it controls Malta, and 2 IPCs for the UK if it controls Malta, and then you’ll have the right-sized swing while maintaining symmetry.

The examples are just examples – the point is that symmetry and size are two different variables, and we should strive to tailor each of them appropriately for each objective.

I still maintained that economical (Industrial in IPC) values and strategic (Progress in IPC) values (such as cutting enemy’s resources access ways) should be rewarded.

As far as I understand balancing working on BMode, NOs bonus play a major part in it.
At the actual development stage, I believe these numbers should not be totally determined and fixed in cold stone. However, I believe major NOs centered around resources and communication ways should be generally described as symetric or asymetric per side as more beneficial  to one or more powers.

That way, it may gives a general guideline to ascribe general values, such as Skageratt strait worth both sides but less to one, so can be +5 Germany vs +3 for Allies, or Normandy could worth a lot to Germany +10 but +5 to UK and US Allies, still making an even exchange. Just for the example.

However, giving a lot to one side and nothing in return, but in an impossible zone to fight for will be like giving a free +10 when at war.
I cannot not insist IPC should mean something like Industrial or Income and Progress Credits.

The real increase in production is on as most as possible peaceful home-land. Destroying assets is never a way to increase production capacity. Engineering can do a lot on productivity but with destroyed equipment it is hard to improve production.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

I would like to see some NO’s randomized or areas like VC provide some randomized cash bonus.

Like capture Baku get one D6 roll per turn representing oil from this region. Or alternatively, if say Italy closes the Suez, the British player loses random D6 roll of cash per turn. Some captured areas represent not much for the new owner, but a strategic cost to the original owner.

The game only represents “if you take this, you get this” Sometimes if you take this, you gain nothing but the original player loses something.

Rostov-on-Don oil field

You mean Maykop oil center?  Rostov doesn’t have any oil, its just the “gateway to the Caucasus”, so if you control it you can supply any point south or east

I’m not against this kind of random bonus/penalty but it introduce a bit more complexity.
Once created on Triple A, it is automatically generated but on tabletop, it is another issue along Convoy Disruption/Raiding rolls.

[Imperious Leader]

along Convoy Disruption/Raiding rolls.

That brings up another point. The map should have by those convoy boxes a value in total IPC that can be removed from the enemy, not unlike the HBG Global 1936 map

It would just make the “juicy” areas that can be raided more currency, because players under appreciate this strategy. Its simple to count the potential rewards, but it speeds up play to know instantly the info

[Black_Elk]

Yeahs its definite a downside that more information isn’t represented directly on the map. We tried to come up with some simplified convoy systems using roundels, or sz with a value marker. Right now in tripleA the convoy and blockade option does offer at least a sz control marker, which I think helps. But yeah this is an area where I think we could do some good.

On the asymmetry/symmetry thing, I think for VCs (and to a certain extent the printed ipc values on the OOB map) you have some suspension of disbelief going on in the OOB game already, where the values are universal for both sides. NO’s on the other hand seem to have been designed from the outset with the idea of trying to somehow get at the asymmetry in a way that feels more realistic. It’s just a little unfortunate that the associated goals don’t have any visual to accompany them on the game map. Not sure there’s a whole lot we can do about that, though I like the idea of keeping the total number of NO’s and number of associated TT’s or SZs a bit easier to memorize/manage.

I think its great when the game rewards players for knowing their history, and that’s where the NO’s really come into play. But the OOB game does require a fair amount of rote memorization or referencing (and has some oddities, even for people who are well studied) so I still see a lot of areas where we could streamline it.

I love the Income and Progress Credit idea that Marc offered up, as a way to make the money in this game more flexible. At least the “Progress” part gives us way to blur the lines a little, if we need to make an NO more symmetrical than it might have been in reality, just so the gameplay doesn’t  skew too hard in a game breaking direction, or as a corrective for those situations where the base economy of a specific nation can’t function without a certain amount of money coming in on the regular. I definitely prefer the idea of NO’s focused on TT’s in contention rather than at the core of a nations home territories, so it can be an incentive for the give and take.

I think I kind of agree with Arg and IL about the approach to Vichy. It seems pretty challenging to make them a full blown player-nation, and would probably lean towards giving control of those TT’s to one side or the other. But I also like the idea of simplified Free France player that works the way China does without a capital. I like the idea that France might behave in a somewhat similar way, once its capital is occupied. A long time back, I suggested the idea of giving China an occupied Capital at Nanking/Shanghai, with the idea that the reason their rules are so peculiar is because they begin play with an occupied capital. Not sure if others liked the idea. In this case the Kiangsu VT would basically be doing double duty, servicing both Shanghai and Nanking. And perhaps if it recovered, maybe it awards China with a more normalized style of gameplay? Don’t know if it would really work, but in any case I do like the idea of giving the Free French something more to work with if they are preserved as a full nation, like a way to spawn units (either with an autospawn, or with a military base) or to collect income somehow.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Black_Elk:

Yeahs its definite a downside that more information isn’t represented directly on the map. We tried to come up with some simplified convoy systems using roundels, or sz with a value marker. Right now in tripleA the convoy and blockade option does offer at least a sz control marker, which I think helps. But yeah this is an area where I think we could do some good.
On the asymmetry/symmetry thing, I think for VCs (and to a certain extent the printed ipc values on the OOB map) you have some suspension of disbelief going on in the OOB game already, where the values are universal for both sides. NO’s on the other hand seem to have been designed from the outset with the idea of trying to somehow get at the asymmetry in a way that feels more realistic. It’s just a little unfortunate that the associated goals don’t have any visual to accompany them on the game map. Not sure there’s a whole lot we can do about that, though I like the idea of keeping the total number of NO’s and number of associated TT’s or SZs a bit easier to memorize/manage.

I think its great when the game rewards players for knowing their history, and that’s where the NO’s really come into play. But the OOB game does require a fair amount of rote memorization or referencing (and has some oddities, even for people who are well studied) so I still see a lot of areas where we could streamline it.

I love the Income and Progress Credit idea that Marc offered up, as a way to make the money in this game more flexible. At least the “Progress” part gives us way to blur the lines a little, if we need to make an NO more symmetrical than it might have been in reality, just so the gameplay doesn’t  skew too hard in a game breaking direction, or as a corrective for those situations where the base economy of a specific nation can’t function without a certain amount of money coming in on the regular. I definitely prefer the idea of NO’s focused on TT’s in contention rather than at the core of a nations home territories, so it can be an incentive for the give and take.

One things which might be helpful, if enough Control Marker available could be, for tabletop, to write bonus number on white side, then let each player put its markers on specific NOs zone or TTy.
If Hawaii worth 10 IPCs for Japan, you place this 10 visible, when captured you flip this token to Japan flag symbol. That way, all players will see which TTs are in contention. And may look under token to see which power it benefits. For Gibraltar, 2 #5$ tokens one from UK and one from Italy can be left on Gibraltar. UK would be upside while Italy NCMarker would be upside down so 5$ would be visible…