National objectives

About Pacific islands NO.
Why not require 3 amongst 4 or 4 amongst 5 Island TTs?
That way this can be an incentive to fight for one more to get some buffer TT before loosing the NO.

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

One method to regulate commanders is to roll at the beginning of the game to assign each leader a level. That level would be how many rerolls they get.

@wittmann:

I agree that the Leningrad NO should go. Germany can�  easily capture the city and start building there. Why give it 5 bonus too?

I think that capture a city, or a Capital, should give you a one time bonus. You can plunder a city once, not every day year after year. Now that should put a stop to the back and forth  trading of capitals too.

Iron trade with Sweden and Lend Lease convoys should of course give you NO money every turn

@Gargantua:

By adding the dutch capital… you add them to the GAME.

if amsterdam falls, we can put their(our, i am dutch) in either the DEI or suriname.

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!

@Flashman:

Remember too that the autumn rains bogged German tanks down in the mud, while the Russian tanks had wider tracks which coped much better with this.

Germany is hardly likely to blitz through Russia; perhaps tanks simply can’t move in winter (frozen fuel).

i think more of the autumn/spring rains that hurt the tanks and the winters that hurt the infantry.  certainly the fuel freezing was a winter thing, but the tanks could move at least when started, as compared to autumn when no one moved anywhere on the german side…

I think the Revised NA would be a better idea.  Yes, a lot of tweaking would have to be done, but it’s doable.

I think a lot of the old NAs blend perfectly with the new game.  Here are some examples:

1. Lend Lease lets USSR convert US and UK pieces to USSR pieces.  This means you won’t loose IPCs when your allies try to help you.

2. Japan is now an “island” on the new board, which means Dug-In Defenders now apply.  Didn’t it seem dumb in AAR that Japanese infantry would put up a better fight on Iceland or Greenland than Japan?

Examples of needed tweaks:

1. Siberian Railway would obviously be extended to include the two new territories.

2. The Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europe NA would be weakened if the wording “all gray territories” were kept as is.  At least it should be extended to “all gray and brown territories”.  Basically, German Infantry and Artillery get a bonus fighting in Italy, but Italian Infantry and Artillery don’t.  It seems paradoxical, but that’s the way it happened.  Germany fought to the teeth while Italy surrendered.

I don’t think Italy should get a national “advantage.”  Really, was their anything special or unique about Italy in WWII to warrant a NA?  Personally, I think no NAs add to Italy’s character.  It’s small, poor, and has only 2 NOs.  Yet, it’s probably my favorite.  As the old saying goes, “Small is beautiful.”