Anniversary National Objectives - 1942 Scenario

@barnee Thanks for the replies, the CIS ones sound good, and I like the idea of Gibraltar actually being important in 1914. I might also give the Spanish objectives in North Africa to motivate them to spread out a bit more. Not quite sure what to do with China yet, but they will probably be with the Central Powers (I know they weren’t historically, but it balances the game better). I’m thinking maybe I will give them IPCs for capturing Korea and parts of south Asia.

For info we played twice with this rule and the result is 1/1 … mmm …  
Maybe it’s because we are not much experienced and we donno how to play the allies the best way as all newbies?

Anyway this “Rounded IPCs” option rule seems to balance the game and we’ll keep on testing it! If it comes around 50/50 on the long run = Perfect … But if it comes around 55/45 for the allies (with better allies moves by more experienced players) = Let’s say it’s a more historical tendency and I feel like it’s normal for the Axis player to be the underdog trying the challenge to change history!

And maybe the point is that as a frenchman I’m not too much fan of the Axis … Ha Ha!

This is 1942.2, not Global 1942. The US starts at war.

Flashman, can you be a little more specific about what you mean by “a nation is defeated?” Does that mean all of the nation’s pieces are immediately removed from the map when it loses its last production center? If not, are there any practical consequences to being “defeated” other than not being able to produce new units? And by “nation,” do you have in mind something like “France,” or more like “the Allies?”

If you treat production centers as victory cities, then how many victory cities do you think each side should have to control in order to win? Would you have any victory cities that are not also production centers?

Finally, would you agree that banning the creation of new factories takes some of the variety and surprise out of the game? Off the top of my head, it seems like Japan is more or less required to try to conquer India (since Japan can no longer build a factory in Manchuria or Kazakh), and the USA is more or less required to try to conquer Italy or Tokyo (since the USA can no longer build a factory in France, NW Europe, or Norway). I would also be sad to lose the option of having the UK build a factory in South Africa, having the USA build a factory in Sinkiang, having the UK (or Germans!) build a factory in Egypt, having Japan build a factory in Alaska, and having the USA build a factory in Borneo or the Philippines. No one of these options is really part of ‘orthodox’ play, but collectively they spice the game up quite a bit, and often players will adjust their moves to make sure that these builds don’t become optimal. For example, the US might leave a significant garrison, including a tank and a fighter, in Western USA / Western Canada to guard against a Japanese Alaskan factory, but if Japan can’t build in Alaska, then the USA can make do with a much smaller, cheaper, more passive defense of the homeland.

OK I am going to give that one its own thread in house rules so it doesn’t get lost and forgotten.  Simple fix to a few issues.  Sorry I didn’t mean to hijack this thread, but it seemed to have already switched topic from the Murmansk NO

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35771.0
I also added the phrase “on the Europe map” so Russia can’t get the NO for its cities by declaring war on Japan.

OK please go back to Murmansk

As a huge fan of Imp Games’ East & West, these kinds of games always intrigue me. It’s set in 1948, so there are some similarities to the '46 scenario.

IMHO, 1948 is sort of the high-water mark for NATO (i.e. the European empires) however, East & West is a bit non-historical in this sense.

• NATO was not formed until 1949
• Turkey and Greece did not join NATO until 1952, but are part of the Alliance in-game
• Pakistan, India, and Burma were all independent of Britain in 1948; in E&W they are still part of the empire, and a huge thorn in the side of the USSR
• The breakdown of Indonesia between Dutch-controlled areas and independent(ish) ones is not in line with history

The other high-water mark of the Cold War (based on my research) is around 1975-76. Off the top of my head:

• The Vietnam War was over; Cuba, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia were all ruled by communist regimes. The USSR (or Warsaw Pact) was at the height of its influence
• The Arab League had expanded across all of north Africa; the Islamic Conference also greatly increased its membership around this time
• The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) including Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, as well as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) including Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand were still in existence, supported by the major NATO powers of the US, UK, and France
• China had annexed Tibet and fought a small war with India

I’ve done work on 1975-76 scenarios for both the Original A&A as well as E&W and have done a fair bit of study on the cold war era “map” so to speak. If anyone wants to discuss the subject/games here or in a PM, I’d be very happy to respond. :-)

You’re right, I don’t think Russia and Germany can Fall to any sort of allied attack. Thats why the allied victory conditions are for it to only stop Axis from cliaiming Africa Asia before USA creates a Atom Bomb (by turn X) and forces a treaty/surrender.

As it was, the only ground Axis had gained by turn 4 was Persia, Trans Jordan and 1 territory in China It had lost Libiya. If you had asked my opponet who was Axis, he would say my bid was already high.

I want to make a short game where germany has all the techs and the allies have to kill them both before time runs out… or the allies lose.