G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@Black_Elk:

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.

@Black_Elk:

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.

@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.

@LHoffman:

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.

+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).

@Black_Elk:

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 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

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

@Black_Elk:

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