National objectives

@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.

@crockett36
What you talkin bout Willis?

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

Thanks for providing this background information, YG.  I now understand better what you’re aiming to accomplish.  I don’t have a specific solution to recommend that might work for your group, but here are a few questions you and the other people in your group might want to consider.  The answers may provide you with guidance on what kind of point-scoring system might best suit your purpose. Fundamentally, the question to consider is: what kind of accomplishments do you want to reward by awarding points?  Here are a couple of aspects of that question:

First: do you want the rewards to be incremental (round-by-round) throughout the game or do you want them to be based only on the final outcome?  Under the first option, it doesn’t matter so much whether a player controls X at the end of the game; all that matters is how often he controlled it during the game.  Under the second option, the reverse would be the case.  Each option has its upside and its downside.  For example, under a final-outcome-only system, a player who controlled X throughout the game but lost it on the last round would be in the same unhappy position as an investor whose stock portfolio did wonderfully for decade after decade but then crashed in value just before he was planning to sell it to finance his retirement.

Second: Assuming you choose an incremental system, do you want to reward consistency more (or less) than changes?  Example: Let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that I manage to hold on to Moscow for the whole game.  Objectively, this is a desirable state of affairs (just think of what Stalin would have done to Zhukov if he’d lost Moscow in late 1941), but if the point system only rewards changes (i.e. the achievement of a defined goal), then my success in holding my capital doesn’t give me any points.  Now let’s say that I’m the Soviet player and that, in an 8-round game, I lose Moscow 4 times and regain it 4 times, and let’s say that the point system rewards gains without penalizing losses.  In that scenario, I’d gain 4 points – so I’d be further ahead point-wise than if I’d managed to successfully defend my capital from capture for the whole game.  That would sound bizarre to me.  One partial way to address this problem is by having both debits and credits: giving points for successes and deleting points for failures.  In such a system, losing Moscow 4 times and regaining it 4 times would have the same zero-sum result as simply holding Moscow.  But here we’d face a new question: should two such different situations really translate into the same number of points (in this case zero)?  Or should the point system reflect the view that one of those scenarios demonstrates superior generalship, and hence should be rewarded?  (Personally, I’d argue that the general who holds Moscow for the whole game is doing a better job than the one who keeps losing and recapturing it.)

Thanks for that report, I will comment on your post in detail when I have more time. I agree with your opinion and I have changed the US NO to include the West Indies. Cheers.

@Imperious:

you AARHE reader you. :-D

I am now - I took those from the LHTR 2.0 - but I’ve just seen you’ve done loads of National Advantages for all the countries, so I feel like I’m at a rules buffet now!

Excellent - there are some really good ones in there. I like the Amerika bomber!

Your Italian ones are good - I like how the obvious ones people first think of are the Gustav Line and mountain terrain - it was always a problem for me that it was easy to do in Axis and Allies what it was not easy to do historically - get to Germany through italy.

For Japan I’ve got one new one which is ‘elite naval air’ - I like how in some Pacific wargames the Japanese start with amazing units, which are non replaceable - representing their elite air arm. I use the red A&A Pacific Japanese fighters for these and give them a 4/4 rating. My rule is that fighters that start on carriers are ‘elite’ they are non replaceable.

This rule is linked to the Kamikaze rule in that, once all elite air units have been destoryed - the Japanese may then convert one normal fighter to 2 kamikaze planes - these have no attack value and can only move 2 - but their ability is they work like an AA gun for ships, so it’s basically the AAR national advantage.

But it makes use of the red Japanese planes I have… I use the red infantry to denote those that are ‘dug’ in on islands.

Your Iwoa ships are good - the US did put lots of AA defence on their ships.

Ok - great stuff, and plenty of food for thought!

ok ill make a third version with the changes you asked for. Tonight.