Hello, all! I’m seeking feedback for a simplified national objective (NO) system.
Motivation
Although I’d love to try Global 1940 one day, its rules are pretty intimidating even by A&A standards. In my opinion, the NO system is its most conspicuous case of overly complicated rules.
The NO system contains nearly thirty rules. Most of them have multiple conditions. Many of the them are very idiosyncratic, with several requiring players to memorize lists of territories. Moreover, some of the effects are very large relative to their respective territories, and it’s easy to confuse effects with one-another (e.g. misremember +2 IPCs as +5). For all of these reasons, it takes a lot of cognitive effort merely to identify the true income value of territories. Not only are the computations tedious, but getting them wrong can lead to serious strategic errors.
Consequently, I believe that a simplified NO system would lead to a game that’s faster to learn, faster to play, and more fun to play.
Design Goals
Here are the design goals in their approximate priority:
- Have simple conditions. Absolutely no lists of territories.
- Have only one objective per nation.
- Maintain or improve the balance between the two sides.
- Be historically sensible. (…not necessarily accurate.)
- Resemble the original rules.
- Maintain or improve large-scale play patterns.
- Make rewards commensurate with territory values.
Rules
Without further ado, here are the simplified national objectives:
Germany: with respect to each originally non-Axis territory that Germany controls, +2 IPCs or double its value—whichever is less. Themes: industrialization and exploitation of its people.
Soviet Union: +2 IPCs for each territory or victory city it controls that was originally German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral. Themes: propaganda value, spread of communism.
Japan: +1 IPC per island territory in the Pacific hemisphere that it controls. Themes: ancestral proficiency with island geographies and economies.
United States: +2 IPCs per victory city controlled by the Allies. Themes: political isolationism, geographic isolation.
China: unchanged.
United Kingdom: with respect to each economy, +5 IPCs if all of its original IPC-yielding territories remain under its control. Themes: maintenance of the British Empire.
Italy: +1 IPC for each territory in or along the Mediterranean Sea (sea zones 92-99) that it occupies. Themes: restoration of the Roman Empire.
ANZAC: +2 IPCs for each territory within 3 spaces of mainland Australia that it controls or occupies. Themes: defensive perimeter.
France: unchanged.
Balance Analysis
I tallied the IPC bonuses that each nation begins with and can reasonably hope to achieve, both for OOB and house rules. The numerical results look encouraging.
This analysis doesn’t account for changes of how easily these bonuses can be achieved. For example, Germany now has immediate access to multiple territories that provide IPC bonuses. For qualitative reasons like these, I expect these rules to mildly favor the Axis in the western hemisphere and mildly favor the Allies in the eastern hemisphere.
Feedback
Do you think that this would both fun and helpful to new players? Do you think it’s balanced? Do you have any suggestions for tweaking or substituting specific NOs?
I welcome criticism, but please be clear about whether you’re criticizing A) the design goals themselves, or B) how well these rules achieve these design goals.
