Axis and Allies Anniversary Series: Video 3, National Objectives 

The AA50 is probably my favorite map of the entire series. It is large enough to add a nice global feel with the unit/time bloat of G40. The NO's are a great idea - encouraging play objectives, and we found the extra IPC's helps to make the game go a bit faster play wise. However, as you have pointed out - they are not well balance at all. Our solution to that is to use a bid for the Allies which has made for both better game play and higher variety in game styles (different bids create difference strategies).

I totally agree. I feel like national objectives forces the game in a certain direction and remove creativity from the game. Great videos!

Another great video with some really good points and analogies. Couldn't agree more about the Allies NOs. It's shame that so many of them are relevant only once the allies are already winning. The NOs feel too Axis favoured and that, as you say, takes away from the Axis military Vs Allies economy aspect of the game. The way anniversary is set up pretty much makes a KJF strat an impossibility IMO, and there doesn't seem to be much diversity in strategic options. It's a shame really because Anniversary seems to offer so much. But somehow the devs didn't get it quite right. Again, great video mate. Thanks for doing these.. I've learned a great deal from them. Looking forward to the next in the series. Cheers

I agree with your initial assessment, they are skewed in favor of the axis, however aren't they supposed to be. Initially, the allies were fighting a very uphill battle against a force that many deemed to be unstoppable. They're inertia based, the axis start off on the front foot, but once the allies get going the tide begins to change. They did a good job with historical accuracy as well, for example italy's mare nostrum. On top of that, they gave value to territories that might otherwise be ignored, the Solomons or the Caroline Islands, for example. Then, it nullifies the problem with the green skies video by mitigating the effect of bombing raids, problem solved. I like the mechanic, I wish every version had it. Great video series though, I thoroughly enjoyed watching.

NO may be scripting but they add historical flavor and give players reasons to follow historical paths. Adds just a touch of realism to a game that I think it needs. Would rather see the NO adjusted to balance them than just removing them. Same thing with tech.

Brilliant video and analysis!🎉

You finally came back

Great video and great job with your research and work! I’ve come to the same conclusion, that the national objectives favor the Axis. I agree with all of your points except one, which is the objective that the Soviet Union has about controlling Archangel with no other Allied units on its territory. I’ve extensively studied the history of the Second World War, and I think when the creators made this objective, it was more or less historically based. From what I’ve learned, the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, in some senses, were only allies because they had a common enemy. They never really worked together, not only because of being geographically separated but also because they were culturally and ideologically distinct. However, this is also not to say that they never helped each other out, because the Western Allies sent convoys which contained war materials and armaments into the Soviet Union, mostly into ports that were in the Archangel area. So, that area was a critical part of the Lend-Lease effort and provided aid to the Russians. I do understand your argument that it discourages coordination, but again, I think it has some historical base to it. Anyways, again great video, thanks for putting it together!

This is an awesome series. I would love to see some of your ideas on house rules for these optional rules to make them better and more balanced. What would you change?

I hear people say that NO's are better for the Axis, but I don't agree. I think at best it's a wash. It's true that England is kind of meh starting out, but they also share the exact same objective as USA (France) which is a huge plus. Even early on, the Allied NO's still have great value even if they aren't collected, because it forces Germany to better defend France, Poland, etc.. Every infantry in France is one less infantry in Russia. Also, if you play a kill Italy first strategy (as you should), it can have a huge mid game swing in the Allies' favor. Especially if you add the extra 10 from Russia. Don't get me wrong, I think Axis have the advantage in the 1941 scenario, no doubt, but I attribute that to Japan's (a.k.a. "Godzilla") starting forces more than the NO's. By turn 3 or 4 you can have Italy collecting 5 or even ZERO NO's, and England collecting 1. If you can cut off Germany from 1 or 2 of their NO's, things suddenly swing into the Allies' favor. I also find Italy money to have less value, and Soviet money to have more value. What's Italy going to do with 5 extra IPC's? Camp extra infantry on France that will do nothing but sit there and not attack anything? Meanwhile, even just 1 extra fighter for Russia is huge for trading territories!! I also find that having NO's improves the strategy of the game for me personally. Yeah, it may encourage you to go certain ways, but it also adds a new dynamic to the game - Not only to win your own objectives, but to prevent the opponent from getting theirs; the latter being a huge dynamic in itself. I find it also makes the game more historically accurate - Weather the Axis storm, and then turn things around (Especially if you bank that juicy Soviet NO!). Ultimately, even if you are right and it does give an advantage to the Axis, it's so minor it's barely worth mentioning. I'd say my main complaint is just that it's less fun for a UK player at the beginning. But UK starts slow either way, so whatever.

Wow. I never realized that disparity.

I play on a map I altered in photoshop with my own rules. I wrote my own national objectives, which I think is more balanced

I'll have to agree with the Good Captain on these National Objectives, they seem annoying to me, especially when missing out.

Keep it up:)

Amen!!

I don't think it's fair to state that since the axis do have some layups early for boost ipcs that means that will hold them indefinitely. G2 or G3 is often a retreat from Ukraine even with the Dardenelles open. And from your optional Barbarossa strategy with heavy commitment to the Baltics, I feel that's already a concession for Germany. Players of Germany must keep in mind the additional income is still constricted by their 10 build capacity. And I agree for the need of infantry for Germany. A savvy Russian player would concede Leningrad's unthreatening production capability and retreat their AA gun. This causes at least an additional turn for Germany to mount any practical offensive against Stalingrad or Russia until turn 6, and at that point the Atlantic has a shot of holding France, industrializing Norway or placing a lot of pressure on Japan (potentially taking them out of the game). Italy on the other hand is very interesting, but the objective production gain is is not as important as creating a channel for a Japanese protective fleet to join Italy. If not, you lose any hope of Africa, Italy becomes a poor France protectorate and the masses of Allied assistance to Russia will pummel the Germans in KGF or eventually After a KJF. I admit, 100% of my game experience is '41 NO, tech, OD, bid 0.

For some reason this seems realistic though and maybe it's just finally making the Axis a threat that has to be taken much more seriously. There's a serious possibility of the Allies losing the war.

I don’t think it’s so easy for Italy to get 2 Nat O on their first turn and more likely they will only get 1 for most of the game. US can pick up one Japanese island and they are killing two birds with one stone. I’m in favor of Nat Os because it makes the game more historically accurate and I think the game is balanced in favor of the allies to begin with so it balances it out and makes it more interesting.