Need ideas for secret objectives

Probably because its based on a time frame. If you have inf with these landings then they have established a landing. Maybe both sides suck at hitting.
I like where attacking art and tanks get no 1st round attacks and attacking ships bombardment hit art and or a motorized unit first. If non then a inf.
Also when there is a landing most Inf won’t be on the beachhead. They’ll be dug in further back.

@Wise:

Thanks SS for the Oil rules you sent to me. I’ll think we will go with those instead of dice. I’ll be back with a review when we have played with them.

Sweet. Looking  forward to some results.

No, the first one is not Italian. It is a Romanian I.A.R. over the Ploesti oil fields.

The second is a Hawker Typhoon.

The third is definitely Italian per the roundel, which can just be made out on the starboard wing.

@Young:

@BadassMooseSWE:

Hey man,

Did you sack the UK Pacific Nation rule or is this Delta just a light version?

Didn’t sack it, just ironing out some final details… the 4th and last video in my house rules series will cover everything about UK Pacific nation.

Ok nice!

What about the American War Production and Political Exile house rules?

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

Page 16 and 17

Self-propelled Artillery (optional unit) You may build Self-propelled Artillery for 5 IPC. They attack
at 3, defend at 2, and move 2. They increase Infantry’s attack by 1 on a 1-to-1 basis.

Its a technology. Germany has 3 boxes developed and Soviets one.

One thing that could be fun would be to play this version, but have a non aggression pact between Russia and Japan. So Japan could attack the US in Asia and Africa, but could not hurt Russia in the East. Might make for some fun naval battle in the pacific. Otherwise don_riggins is right, Russia gets stomped.