Need ideas for secret objectives

Hi, Taamvan.  thanks for the comments.

Sorry, the values are all 4 IPCs for National Objectives.  The NOs came from Argothair, but with some tweaks by our group (I think originally came from a different A&A version).  More money on the board makes the game a little more fun, but in theory it should last longer (which is not desirable), but I feel like we get to the climactic battles faster than we would with minuses…

I do feel like the board is still tilted for the Axis, but Russia having an extra 8 IPCs per turn is a bigger impact than Germany having an extra 8 IPCs.  We maybe could nerf the values down for the Axis, maybe.  I feel like the paratroop rules and the Russian fighter conversion support the Allies.  We’re trying to steady the board without tilting it to the Allies; and meanwhile trying to make some other strategies playable.

Lets be honest, if you’re playing USSR or a minor nation, all you are really doing is stalling the Axis powers.

Yup! Scale was perfect for the map…the infantry are too large to fit comfortably in Belorussia or West Russia, but they fit great in France, Italy, Africa, and China! Quality is 3.5/5 stars. Some of the infantry didn’t detach cleanly from the sprue, and the modeling is slightly chunky, but overall the pieces are durable, handsome, and clearly distinguishable.

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.

France paratrooper can also simulate commandos  along european shore.

Also, you can identify special infantry or Marines with a Control Marker below the sculp.
That way, you can increase their cost without having to buy 1914 or 1941 to get different Infantry sculpt.
I still wonder if a 3 IPCs unit can be a balanced cost for a weaker Marines unit able to move with Cruiser and BB.
As written elsewhere:

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

About Infantry moving NCM only with Cruiser or Battleship, it cannot simulate the initiative and offensive role being taken by Marines such as Guadalcanal.
As far as I understand, Marines were first almost everywhere in PTO while regular army troopers were mopping behind Marines and garrisoning conquered islands. Maybe the exception is Peleliu in Palau islands.

I really like the idea of 1 IPC per valueless allied pacific island. I am going to propose that to the group I play with, because we are always looking for a way to balance the game, but at the same time try to keep it as close to OOB as possible.

What we have been doing for several games, and it is working well, is this:

Play “cry uncle” - so no Victory City win condition for Axis.
Germany not allowed to build factories in original German controlled territories.
USA can do whatever they want in the European theater only, right away in turn one.

All these problems are solved if you remove the extra movement and instead allow naval bases to shelter ships in harbour.
The ships can still be targeted by bombing raids; altogether this creates the mechanics for a much more realistic depiction of both the Taranto raid (and the copycat Pearl Harbor operation), and the general usefulness of Gibraltar (which by the way should not be a tt but a UK NB in Southern Spain).

@Imperious:

subs only fire preemtive when a ship other than a DD or CA ( and sub) is not present as they have no ASW capability. this has not changed. In this case if you have a CA or DD then they fire back.

Thats not my interpertation of the OOB.
I think SS always fire in opening-fire. Presence of DD only allows your casualties to stay and be removed later rather than in opening-fire.

Secondly, I was talking about realism not how it works in the proposed rule. Surely the defending destroyers have more to worry about than the attacking destroyers and can’t fight as well.
+++ what would be better?

My quick solution, pulled out of thin air, is a -1 modifer for DDs wishing to perform ASW rolls. Screening, a relative passive job, however does not cause -1 modifier.
FTR and BMB could also say get -1 modifier for wishing to perform ASW rolls.

Its already generous when you think about it.

If not then when 1 DD + 1 SS attacks 1 DD….the defending DD would basically get to shoot twice while the attacking ships shoot once each. A bit strange.

1 DD provides early warning against submarine attack for whole fleet so casualties are not removed in opening-fire.
Is that realistic?

Air supremacy
When only one side has air units, those air units fire preemptively.
          Land Combat                   Naval Combat
FTR    opening-fire, selective?    opening-fire, selective?
BMR   opening-fire?                   opening-fire?

What about hit allocations?