WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

@CraigViau

Hi Craig, you are correct that there is another game that the Balanced Mod uses for its baseline objectives, that would be Global 1940 so you were starting in a good spot on your search. And I’m not sure there is a handy comprehensive list of the National Objectives listed on the rules since they used Balanced mod to build off of.

However I quickly summarized them here, let us know if you have more questions!

Germans

5 IPCs if not yet at war with Russia. 5 IPCs for each German controlled territory: Leningrad or Stalingrad or Russia. 5 IPCs if Axis controls Southern Caucasus. 5 IPCs if there is at least one German land unit in either Egypt or United Kingdom. 5 IPCs if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway and Sweden is not allied-controlled or pro-allied. 3 IPCs if Normandy and Holland Belgium are both Axis controlled at the beginning of Germany’s turn and each garrisoned with at least one German land unit at the end of Germany’s turn. 2 IPCs for each German controlled territory: Iraq, Southern Persia, or Northwest Persia. 3 IPCs if Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Crete are Axis or Pro-Axis controlled.

Russians

2 IPCs if Russia is at war with European Axis beyond Round 2, Archangel is Russian-controlled, and sz128 has no enemy warships (“Northern Route”). 2 IPCs if Russia is at war with European Axis beyond Round 2, Southern Persia is Allied-controlled, and sz82 has no enemy warships (“Persian Corridor”). 2 IPCs if Russia is at war with European Axis beyond Round 2, Amur is Russian-controlled, and sz5 has no enemy warships (“Pacific Route”). 3 IPCs if Russia is at war with European Axis and there are no allied units in any originally Russian territories. 3 IPCs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory in mainland Europe that Russia controls.

Japanese

10 IPCs if not yet at war with USA, has not yet attacked or taken control of French Indo-China, and has not declared war on UK or ANZAC. 5 IPCs if Axis controls Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and Solomon Islands. 5 IPCs for each Japanese controlled territory: Hawaii, Eastern India, New South Wales, and Western United States. 5 IPCs if Axis controls all of Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and Celebes. 5 IPCs if Midway, Wake Island, and Guam are Axis-controlled. 3 IPCs if Japan controls Kyushu, Hokkaido, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. 5 IPCs if Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau Island, Marianas, and Gilbert Islands are Axis-controlled.

Americans

10 IPCs if USA is at war and EUS, WUS, and CUS are American-controlled. 5 IPCs if USA is at war and Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and Johnston Island, and Line Islands are American-controlled. 5 IPCs if USA is at war and Mexico, South Eastern Mexico, Central America, and West Indies are American-controlled. 5 IPCs if USA is at war and Manilla and Davao are American-controlled. 5 IPCs each turn the USA has one land unit in France. 5 IPCs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories. 5 IPCs if Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are Allied-Control and the USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories. 5 IPCs if Midway, Wake Island, and Guam are Allied-controlled. 5 IPCs if Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau Island, Marianas, and Gilbert Islands are Allied-controlled. 5 IPCs if Americans have a land unit in at least one Axis capital.

Chinese

3 IPCs and may build artillery if the Allies control Eastern India, Burma, Yunnan, and Szechwan.

British

3 IPCs for UK Europe if UK Europe controls all of its original territories. 3 IPCs for UK Europe if Allies control two of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece, Southern Italy, and Allies have at least one land unit in any of these territories. 3 IPCs for UK Europe if there are no enemy submarines in any Atlantic Ocean Sea Zones, excluding sz115 and sz128,…,sz130. 3 IPCs for UK Europe if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Allied or pro-Allied controlled.

UK_Pacific

3 IPCs for UK Pacific if UK Pacific controls both Kwangtung and Malaya, and is at war with Japan. 3 IPCs for UK Pacific if UK Pacific controls Western India, and either Egypt or Union of South Africa is Allied-controlled, and there are no enemy submarines in the western half of the Indian Ocean: sz73,…,83.

Italians

5 IPCs if no Allied ships are in the Med: sz94,…,sz101. 5 IPCs if Axis control at least 3 of: Gibraltar, Egypt, Southern France, and Greece. 5 IPCs if Axis controls all of: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Tobruk, and Alexandria. 2 IPCs for each Italian controlled territory: Iraq, Southern Persia, or Northwest Persia. 3 IPCs if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Axis controlled.

ANZAC

3 IPCs if the Allies control Malaya, and ANZAC controls all of their original territories, and is at war with Japan. 3 IPCs if the Allies (not including Dutch) control all of Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands, and ANZAC is at war with Japan. 3 IPCs if the Allies control all of Gilbert Islands, Fiji, and Samoa, Solomon Islands, and ANZAC is at war with Japan.

@sergio here is the lite version of AARHE 4.0

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/38409969/combat-move

Part Five:

Errata & Optional Rules: Discussion

Upon reviewing the rules a bit, naturally the ones that stick out and cause problems are the ones that don’t pertain to RISK’s core combat mechanics.

Indonesia

Let’s say the USSR attacks the Arab League: Indonesia is supposed to stay neutral in this case, but can NATO still influence them, somehow? Does WE have to be the one to do it, or could it be UK? The ‘quick and dirty’ solution would just be to reverse the rule treating Indonesia as a separate entity, and say that the territory sides with NATO, if the Arab League is attacked by the USSR. Since they are aligned with WE, their troops should be replaced with WE (blue) troops, if/when this happens.

An obvious optional rule in this situation might be that Arab League territories join WE but Indonesia joins the UK; chalk this up to representing Singapore, Malaya, etc. or just with the continent of Australia being aligned with UK, in this game.

The alternate solution is to clarify the rule to be “an attack on Indonesia is not treated as an attack on the Arab League, but an attack on the Arab League DOES count as an attack on Indonesia.” I think this probably most closely reflects the intention of the mechanics.

Possibly a better (albeit more complicated) solution would be to allow NATO to use their influence roll towards their affiliated neutral alliance OR towards Indonesia. If they successfully influence Indonesia, they would replace Indonesia’s troops with their own. This treats Indonesia more like a “minor neutral” such as they would be in E&W; the reason I don’t like this is that it creates a new set of rules around a single territory, instead of just conforming to the existing/general rules.

Since the USSR has the option to ATTACK Indonesia, they can always gain the territory that way; this rule would simply address the fact that NATO does not have such a mechanism to gain the territory.
I should probably mention in this space that allowing NATO to use its influence roll to gain Indonesia, would allow for the possibility of the US gaining the territory. This would be an interesting wrinkle, as I’ve often said that in classic E&W the US needs to be able to gain Thailand in the event that the USSR goes nuclear; this would sort of serve to simulate that scenario, of the US needing to use its influence to try and gain a base of operations on mainland Eurasia.

Influence

Since the opening-game balance is presupposed around the OAS being at +1 to US and China being at +1 to the USSR, the obvious optional rule to include would be one not allowing diplomacy until the 2nd round of play. This would reflect the mechanical realities in E&W, of everybody starting the game with no spies in play (barring the USSR spending their “round zero” mobilization cash on spies.)

The rule limiting NATO to influencing only their affiliated neutral could also be changed… Although it might have to be limited to “once you’re already receiving +2 from them” to prevent dogpiling.
The intention of the limitation is to keep the game simple and fast; it’s also meant to avoid some of the pitfalls of E&W’s system, whereby there’s really only one correct choice, so just hammer that option as early and often as possible.

Nukes vs. Capitols

An interesting thing with the mechanic of nuclear weapons being added to a RISK game, is that it creates the possibility of a territory being cleared of armies. Since armies are used to denote territory ownership (serving the function performed by control markers, in A&A-type games) it stands to reason that a territory with no armies on it is controlled by no one. But what if the territory has a capitol on it?

This is an interesting thing, because the existence of a capitol implies ownership of the territory, corresponding to a specific faction, without there being troops in the territory (i.e. which would be the normal way to denote ownership of the territory.)

Obviously, a territory with a city but no armies is not controlled by anyone; this makes targeting cities with nukes more appealing, since it doubles the loss in “income” – similar to how targeting Industrial Complexes with nukes in E&W effectively doubles the reduction in infantry production, on that territory.

So the questions seem to be:

Can you place troops on your capitol, if there are currently no troops there? Do you get credit for “controlling” your capitol, if there are no troops in its territory? Does your capitol allow you to get credit for “controlling” the territory it resides in (including the bonus for a city)?

I think my answers to these would be: yes, maybe, and no (respectively.)

If a nuke wipes all of the armies off of a territory without a capitol, my general assumption was that this works the same as if a nuke in E&W reduced the IPC value of the territory to zero – meaning it cannot produce any infantry. The question then is, do capitols provide some immunity to this? Does not providing this immunity make nuking capitols (exclusively) too powerful in the overall meta? Again, these would have to be born out with more playtesting.

Totaly agree with you Turtle!!!

Here is my changes to the rules for a free for all version.

[attachment deleted by admin]

we play alot of 3 person games with one person as allies and one as germans, the other japan. games usually last around 6 hours or so.It sounds alot more complicated than it really is, if overwhelmed then just try some of it.such as random turnd or pregame spending,or just event cards.