National Objectives:

Marking the 50th anniversary of Avalon Hill, Wizards of the Coast published this very special version of A&A. I hope you enjoy it.
User avatar
elbowmaster
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:20 am
Location: "western boogerland"
Contact:

National Objectives:

Post by elbowmaster » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:54 pm

Larry wrote:National Objectives: This system is totally new to the game. Now each player has an objective related to its historic objectives. These objectives, if achieved will grant bonus income to the players achieving his stated objectives.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:55 pm

I think each bonus should include a sea zone, to represent the benefit from international trade and shipping lanes, since there are no convoy zones on the map.

User avatar
hakan
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by hakan » Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:41 am

Soviet Gain 5 IPC if no other Allied force are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union and if the Soviets control Archangel, right?

Can some one explain the thoughts behind this? I understand Archangel, that's the Lend-Lease rout, right? But what about the Allied forces. Is that just to make it less favourable to defend Russia with Allied units? If so, wouldn't it be logic to have the same rule when Soviet defend UK and China?

I.e: Soviet Gain 5 IPC if no other Allied force are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union and if no Soviet forces are present in any other Allied territories and if the Soviets control Archangel.

In A&A you may for example defend India with Soviet forces, but in most other strategy games, it is forbidden for Soviet to ender UK territories. And after have read Winston Churchill's "The Second World War" from 1953, UK would never had let Soviet in to their territories. UK actually was planning to defend Finland against the communists.

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:17 pm

yeah... and he (Churchill) was ready to pass through neutral Sweden to do it if he had to. At that point in time it was getting harder and harder to figure out who posed the biggest problem for the allies... Stalin or Hitler.

User avatar
hakan
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by hakan » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:55 am

Larry wrote:yeah... and he (Churchill) was ready to pass through neutral Sweden to do it if he had to. At that point in time it was getting harder and harder to figure out who posed the biggest problem for the allies... Stalin or Hitler.
Yes, for sure. After Barbarossa the enemy (Stalin) of the enemy (Hitler) became Churchills friends. But you see what I mean with my question? During the end of the war, Churchill writes that Stalin refuced UK to enter Poland. Hence, the Patriotic War seems very realistic. However, don't you think that I have a point with Soviet forces defending India? Perhaps not... hmmm.. anyways, this is how we solved, and balanced, the new NO:

House Rule Soviet National Objective
Despite the Lend Lease route (symbolized with the 5 IPC gain if Soviet control Archangels), UK and USA only cooperated with the Soviet Union because they had a common enemy; the Nazi Germany. Churchill would never allow the communist entering their territories, and Stalin would never sacrifice Soviet forces to defend them. Hence, you may add the following line in the Soviet National Objective:

- Gain 5 IPCs if no other Allied forces are present in a territory controlled by the Soviet Union, and if no Soviet forces are present in any other Allied territory, and if the Soviets control Archangels.

House Rule Japanese National Objective
Until the very last days of the war, there existed a Non-Aggression Pact between Soviet and Japan. To simulate this, House Rule 8 above actually gives a 5 IPC penalty if Soviet attack Japanese territories in China (i.e. entering an Allied territory). To also make it less favorable for Japan to attack Soviet, you may add this line in the Japanese National Objective:

- Gain 5 IPCs if Axis powers control all of the following territories: Manchuria, Kiangsu, French Indo-China/Thailand, and if no Japanese forces are present in any Soviet territory.


Anyway: I suppose you are all quite fed-up with all this House Rule questions. I must underline that A&A50 is the best thing that has happen since A&A was invented. I am a so happy I got the game before it was sold out!

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:20 pm

Larry wrote:yeah... and he (Churchill) was ready to pass through neutral Sweden to do it if he had to.
Just belive me in this, sir, Sweden was never neutral. Sweden was pro-Axis, and if Churchill had been a real man, he would have cut Sweden down. I sure miss the classic MB 2 ed, with neutrals in play.

My House rules:

You got a 5 IPC bonus if you controll Sweden and sea zone 7.

You got a 10 IPC bonus if you SBR Sweden just for fun.

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:44 pm

Ok adlertag... you've crossed the line. SBR Sweden? Where would all those damaged B-17's have landed. Oh, and by the way... Why was Norway being so neutral until they got invaded? Case in point I hear that German merchant ships were flouting Norwegian neutrality to bring Swedish iron-ore, vital for the German war effort from the railhead at Narvik to the German North Sea ports. The Brits had to lay mines in Norwegian waters to stop this activity.

On another note the Swedish Govenment agreed to a British request to allow volunteers to pass through Sweden, provided they traveled unarmed, without uniforms to help the Finns against the Russians.

Does the name Vidkun Quisling ring any bells?

But then again... how about those thousands of young Norwegians that suddenly appeared a few short days (hours actually) out of no where and began ambushing German truck convoys as they slowly and painfully advanced into Norway... I some how think that the same thing would have happened in Sweden had the situation been different. Good people are just that... good people.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:43 am

Sir, I am pleased to see you joining this discussion (that are actually happening on your own message board), and now that I got your attention, please answer my two humble questions.

1) Why dont the Bonus system include more sea zones ? Italy get a bonus if they controll the Mediteranean Sea, and this is a brilliant way to model the importance of convoys, shipping lanes and international trade. Since there are no convoy zones on the map, this bonus system could be the solution. But i guess you missed that ship.

2) Why is it not allowed to attack neutrals ? I have read the rulebook, and know it is not allowed, but I need to know why it is not allowed, because this rule beats me. In your Nova edition made in 1984, you allowed me to attack and conquer Sweden. But then just out of the blue, you now denie me the fun of harassing the neutrals, and I cant figure why in burning hell you do this to me, sir.

And dont blame this on WOTC, because you can easily make a FAQ or LHTR where you simply include this rules.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests