National objectives

Daaang, how’d you get 18 players?
I can barely get 4 including me. :(

Just yesterday I read a chapter on Madagascar in Chruchill’s series, The Second World War: The Hinge of Fate.

I don’t know if you can credit this victory to the effectiveness of marines.  Chruchill considered the operation a great success because of excellent planning and execution.  Using a far superior force against a weak colony composed of Vichy, African natives, and even Frenchmen who disliked Vichy was almost a sure win from the start.

Yes, marines are effective, but they are basically regular troops extensively trained for certain situations.

Any well-trained handful of men could have done the same job given the same circumstances.

I do not want to discredits the marines, but there is no reason why they should be counted separate or special compared to other infantry divisions.

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.

@CWO:

@Young:

The problem as it is right now (if it actually is a problem) is that the Axis powers (Japan in particular) will absolutely profit the most for capturing enemy cities (Japan will essentially claim up to $9 for cities that are easy to take and hold), so to add a Chinese capital city for no reason but to give Japan yet another target to profit from may unbalance the game.

Fair enough.  As I said, it was just an idea that I tossed in for fun in case it it turned out to be worth considering.  It arose from the discussion of the player capitals versus the cities, and I didn’t scrutinize it in any detail because I wanted to leave it up to you to decide if it worked or not in the context of your house rules.  So I have no problem with the idea turning out to be problematic.

No problem, I greatly appreciate all your suggestions and there have been some great modifications because of them, I guess my problem is that I have played over in my head a lot of angles to these objectives, and it’s very easy to tip the scales of balance when restructuring an entire game mechanic like this.

Ya I agree. You still need the T-34’s.

I think these would work for mounting the P40 airbase and naval base tokens so you can actually pick them up…
http://boardgamebits.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_44_50&products_id=436

I don’t like $10 NO’s, too all or nothing
Russia should have 3 NO’s, each wirth $5
first as normal (red territorries is interesting)
2nd for allies controlling nor/fin
third for euro territorries

USA should have another $5 NO in pacific

sorry I am short on details, perhaps I will post my ideas better when I don’t have house guests  :-P

I like the thread Jen, +1 karma!

Ok let me clarify my thoughts on that… They wouldn’t necessarily have to pursue a historic goal, but rather go for completing a certain amount of techs (3 for example)…

GG