To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?
The term “Burma Road” has always ment all the territories that connect it… I don’t see any misunderstanding.
Also, does the the Russia one include just the originally axis territories on mainland Europe, or does it also include originally pro-axis territories, islands, and axis territories outside Europe (e.g. middle east, Africa, Korea)? Just want to clarify because this is similar to the NO
“6 original Axis territories”
great. thanks!
For the UK submarine NO, what sea zones does the Atlantic include? I just want to make sure. I think it’s a good rule, you can’t simply put a sub in the med or in the white sea. plus I like to build subs with germany anyways :)
@Genghis:
For the UK submarine NO, what sea zones does the Atlantic include? I just want to make sure. I think it’s a good rule, you can’t simply put a sub in the med or in the white sea. plus I like to build subs with germany anyways :)
Hey Buddy, great to hear from ya… really enjoyed meeting you at the event… I’ve cleared up the language on this revised UK NO, hope it helps.
UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
@Young:
To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?
The term “Burma Road” has always ment all the territories that connect it… I don’t see any misunderstanding.
I agree that the language is a little confusing more for the Axis Objective than the Allies.
For the Allies to have the road open, they must control the entire road.
But for the Axis to close the road they only need to control one territory within the road.
One might argue that for the Axis, that because holding one territory changes the status of the road for the Allies and closes the entire road, they control the road.
New players don’t know what things have always meant. With having a lesser experienced gaming group, I know there would be discuss at my table with the current language.
That’s why I would favor adding “entire road” to the objective even if it was in parentheses.
YG what is the starting Axis total income ? 66 ? and how did you arrive to 142 icp total for axis to get a token. To get this token axis pretty much control 2/3 territories ?
@Young:
To eliminate any misinterpretation, should the word “entire” be in the Asia one?
The term “Burma Road” has always ment all the territories that connect it… I don’t see any misunderstanding.
I agree that the language is a little confusing more for the Axis Objective than the Allies.
For the Allies to have the road open, they must control the entire road.
But for the Axis to close the road they only need to control one territory within the road.
One might argue that for the Axis, that because holding one territory changes the status of the road for the Allies and closes the entire road, they control the road.New players don’t know what things have always meant. With having a lesser experienced gaming group, I know there would be discuss at my table with the current language.
That’s why I would favor adding “entire road” to the objective even if it was in parentheses.
Understood… so I revised both VOs to read as follows…
Asia
-The Axis control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Hong Kong and Shanghai
(FOW) *Japan
Asia
-The Allies control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Hong Kong and Shanghai
(FOW) *The United Kingdom
I concur with Wildcat6305 that it would be clearer for YG’s Victory Objectives to distinguish between the Allied and Axis objectives pertaining to the Burma Road, because they’re different objectives. The Allied objective is to control the Burma Road, by holding all of it; the Axis objective is to cut off (or block or interdict or shut down) the Burma Road, by holding one or more of the territories it traverses.
The Allies are the only ones who get any economic benefit from controlling the Burma Road, and in order to do so they need to control all of it. As the OOB rules say, “When all of the territories this road passes through are controlled by the Allies during China’s Collect Income phase, China receives a bonus income of 6 IPCs per turn” and “Allied powers must control India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan for this to occur.”
It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China. Saying that the Axis needs to “Axis control all territories connecting the Burma Road” contradicts what the OOB rules say. Moreover, the Axis gains no income from the Burma Road even if it “controls” all of it, so from this perspective too it’s potentially misleading to give the Axis a goal of “controlling” the Burma Road.
@SS:
YGÂ what is the starting Axis total income ? 66 ? and how did you arrive to 142 icp total for axis to get a token. To get this token axis pretty much control 2/3 territories ?
Hey SS,
Starting Axis income is 30 (Germany) + 26 (Japan) + 10 (Italy) = 66 IPCs
How I came to the 142 mark is by adding up all the IPC values of every territory that has an IPC value, and half of that is 142. Therefore, if the Axis controls half of all available territory values… than they get a token.
@CWO:
It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.
Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.
@Young:
@CWO:
It’s clear from the OOB rules that the Axis powers only have to occupy one of those territories to knock the Burma Road out of action, and thus that they don’t need to “control” all of it to achieve their aim of denying income to China.
Yes, That is oob rules… however, with my token achievement system, the Axis must control all territories connecting the Burma road as well as Shanghai and Hong Kong.
I think the main difference is YG’s requirement is for a Victory Objective, not a National Objective. So there needs to be a higher bar. A NO would merely be close the road, but the VO needs to be control all the territories. That keeps the intergrity in the system, because in the European theater it is being slugged out for N. Africa, so you need an equally challenging VO in the Pacific. (Not the those are the only two VOs in the system, just easy examples)
AXIS “ASIA” TOKEN HAS BEEN MODIFIED!
Asia
-The Axis control Hong Kong, Shanghai, Malaya, and Calcutta
(FOW) *Japan
In our group, we are testing a modification to the ANZAC national objective to require Cairo AND Malaya while at war with Germany and Italy to get 5 IPCs. This way if Japan wants to declare war early, they have the option to deny two bonuses by taking Malaya, but they also have to take philippines to deny the american bonus. So they have to choose. They can’t do everything: money islands, philippines, malaya, yunnan etc. If they don’t declare war early, then Anzac will be able to build up better for the inevitable declaration later on.
In the tournament we consistently had over 40 IPCs with anzac with not enough complexes to build units. I find if America gets an extra 5 and they bring everything they have against Japan PLUS anzac consistently gets over 30 in income, it might be too much for the allies.
@Genghis:
In our group, we are testing a modification to the ANZAC national objective to require Cairo AND Malaya while at war with Germany and Italy to get 5 IPCs. This way if Japan wants to declare war early, they have the option to deny two bonuses by taking Malaya, but they also have to take philippines to deny the american bonus. So they have to choose. They can’t do everything: money islands, philippines, malaya, yunnan etc. If they don’t declare war early, then Anzac will be able to build up better for the inevitable declaration later on.
In the tournament we consistently had over 40 IPCs with anzac with not enough complexes to build units. I find if America gets an extra 5 and they bring everything they have against Japan PLUS anzac consistently gets over 30 in income, it might be too much for the allies.
Couldn’t you just buy a minor IC for Queensland?
yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.
@Genghis:
yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.
Sounds like good options… maybe a good problem to have for ANZAC.
@Genghis:
yes I could have done that. Could have also upgraded the IC in sydney. You can also just buy strategic bombers and a transport and pick off lone japanese transports and take back islands.
You can’t upgrade Sydney, New South Wales is only 2 IPCs.
I added the new turn sequence method….
Stage Cards: New Turn Sequence Method
Each player must use the designated Stage Cards during their turn sequence in order to declare which phase they are conducting at any given time. Players entering a turn sequence must first place their Stage #1 card in front of them, they will than place the Mobilization Card to the right of their Stage #1 card.
Once a player has conducted their chosen steps in Stage #1 (including the purchasing of new units which must be placed on the mobilization card), that player will then flip the Stage #1 card and enter Stage #2. Once the Stage #2 card has been revealed, any actions or decisions required during Stage #1 may not be conducted.
New units from the mobilization card are placed on the board as per the last step of Stage #2, at which point the mobilization card is flipped and placed over the Stage #2 card revealing that the player has now entered Stage #3. In Stage #3 players must collect income, have convoys disrupted, and roll for any developments gained during this turn.
Yeah ive always found the paratroopers one worthless. I say everybody should have it at the start. It would certainly add more flavor to the game at the very least.
