National objectives

[Lucifer]

Krieghund can you confirm that the National Objectives are not optional rules? I think I read somewhere that NO’s are optional rules, but to make things clear, in AA50 the only rules that are optional is tech, right?

[Imperious Leader]

he has already said this many times before. They are optional.

[italiansarecoming]

optionaly ill probably play it with out optional rules then slowly bring them in that way i will not confuse my friends

[Guest]

Has anyone varied the game in the following 2 ways? #1 each contry for its self, and #2 pick the 3 country alliances by random drawing?

[Builder_Chris]

I’m sure none of us have even play AA50 yet (obviously since its not out yet) but as far as any “variants” that you are talking about, yes I have played similar things but most times I don’t think it is as fun as the “historical” set up.

Most people that play “everyman for himself” types of games like you are talking about make the mistake of not changing the geopolitics of the world and play it with the historical geopolitics which just screws up the game…in my opinion…instead of making it more fun or different.

If you are going to try something like those two ideas, make sure to rework more of the game than just “alliances” it makes for a much better game of what I like to call…“Ultimate Risk”…risk with A&A pieces.

The geopolitics are imperative to those types of games, because everyone should know that “he who makes the most IPC controls the world”, so if everyone starts the game with the same amount of IPC those types of changes make the game a lot more “balanced”.

Just my opinion, personally I still prefer the “historical” setup 99.99% of the time.

Google tripleA and download the latest game, they have a “4 if by sea” and a “6 player free for all” that are kind of fun but the geopolitics are kind of screwed up in them…just my opinion.

If you want to talk more about those ideas, personal message me I will gladly talk to you more about them since they are kind of “off topic” for this thread.

[Imperious Leader]

yes thank you. or you can post in house rules.

[italiansarecoming]

House rules??? also some people have played it from doing some digging and copying but there’s is not official or maybe not even properly done!

[Guest]

I think a Japanese National Advantage should have been +5 IPC as long as you control no red (Russian) territories.  Bam, non-aggression treaty.

[Imperious Leader]

Yea i got to add that as well to my house rules. good thinking.

[italiansarecoming]

Brilliant thinking japan having no russian territories brilliant!

Add that to house rules (i wouldn’t give 5 i would give ependign on the game maybe even 10)

[Guest]

I dunno, I’m a bit disappointed that only two of these national objectives REALLY exposed their potential- Italy’s sea zone one, and russia’s “no allied units on russian territory” one.  These bonuses could have done so much with so little.  But fortunately, the bonuses look like they will do a lot for the game even as they are.  I just think less “Hold ____” objectives and more unique ones would have been cooler.

[Funcioneta]

@italiansarecoming:

Brilliant thinking japan having no russian territories brilliant!

Add that to house rules (i wouldn’t give 5 i would give ependign on the game maybe even 10)

Tricky. With a classic ignore Japan strat, Japan gains 5 free IPCs for going with Godzilla strat against americans and they have not to send any forces against soviets. 10 is too much, Japan could go 70 ipcs easily, maybe even more. With a KJF still gives a huge boost to Japan, maybe too much, and it’s buggy: what if soviets mass those 8-9 siberian units at Vladivostok? Japan would like keep her bonus but they could lose Manchuria, that also has a bonus I think. Two opposite bonuses for the same country seems non-intuitive. Maybe giving a straight non-agression rules is better: Japan can only attack soviets if they conquer all China, India and Pacific islands; USSR can only attack Japan if Berlin and Rome are in allies hands. Both must keep one land unit at Buryatia/Manchuria at end of their turn or the pact can be broken.

[Builder_Chris]

I kind of like the idea a non aggression pact between Russia and Japan being done as a National Objective, but I’m still really undecided about NOs in general.  :|

From what I’ve read about them so far, I think the basic idea behind them was to try and get more of a “political motivation” for each Power.  The game to date has primarily focused on “military motivation” so I think NOs might be a fresh idea that will hopefully add some more dimension to the game.  They sound like they might do that.  Some of them sound very intriguing and worth pursing and the rules concerning some of them don’t seem like they will overcomplicate or bog down game play, which is a plus.  :-D

But when an idea (or rule) concerning national objectives (or national advantages for that matter) “restricts” a players options, or “controls” or “directs” a players actions I like the idea of it less and less.  :-( I obviously have not played a game yet with any of the “official” national objectives, but I’ll give you an idea of what I mean about a rule/idea “controlling” player’s options using national advantages as an example. (Something I have played with)  :-P

The United States Superfortesses National Advantage basically makes the US bombers immune to AA guns because they fly so high, right?  Why is that an NA for the US and not a technology that any nation (power) could develop?  :?

What made superfortesses (and most NAs for that matter) a national advantage was not the fact that the US was the only power that COULD develop them, it’s just that they were the only nation that DID develop them.  To limit that tech to one nation as an NA may be more “historically accurate” (which I am all for since this IS a “history game”), but it’s not “realistically accurate” (which I am more for since this IS a “realistic game”  BASED on a historical time period). ANY nation COULD have created superfortesses, so when a tech is “limited” to any one Power, it “restricts”, “controls” and or “directs” a player on how to play their Power.  After all, what player WOULD NOTsend every bomber they had on bombing raids if they had the superfortesses as an NA?  :lol: Take cash from your enemy with no threat to yourself?  :evil:  Come on!  If that wouldn’t direct a player to conduct bombing raids, nothing will.

So I’m all for the IDEA of National Objectives as long as they don’t “restrict” or “control” a players options.

Take the IDEA for the nonaggression pact between Russia and Japan for example.  (I know this is not an “offical” NO, but it’s a good example to use)

Russia probably only had a non aggression pact with Japan as a national objective because it made good sense for them to. Russia more than likely did not want or need to have two fronts.  Every strategist hates (or should hate) two fronts, so they made the pact.  :roll: duh. Only becouse it was imprtant for them to not have two fronts did it become a “National Objective”.  And since the Germans and Japanese didn’t really “work together” like the Allies did, it made sense to the Japanese too.  So becouse it was important to them , it also became anational objective to them.  Had the Japanese and the Germans been coordinating their efforts more, it might not have made such good sense to the Axis powers and than might not have been thought important enough to be a national objective for Japan.  After all, wasnt it a “national objective” for the US and Britan to get the Russians to open up another front againts Japan, and wasnt it “strongly suggested” to Russia to do so ONCE germany was taken out of the war?

Any objective (national or military) is only as important as the “leaders” THINK it is. The objectives that leave players with options attract me the most, but the ones that have controlling factors like, Japan CANT attack Russia I don’t like.

Japan COULD have broke that pact at any time, simply because history says they DIDN’T break it shouldn’t dictate the rules in the game to say the Japanese player CANT break it.

The idea of NOs having an IPC “reward” as an incentive for not breaking a national objective (or for achieving an NO) such as the pact between Russia and Japan (if it was an NO) make “historical” sense and gaming sense to me.  After wall, what player would break such a pact IF keeping it not only produced extra IPC for them but also kept them from fighting on two fronts?  Even if his allies “insisted” he did. Come on! :-P

Just think how cool and multifaceted NOs could be in the game.  Imagine if the game started in the summer of 1939.  Hitler could have kept the “secret treaty” (an NO at the time it was signed) with Russia until AFTER he concurred England in the Battle for Brittan instead of attacking Russia and opening a second front, and if he would have NOT declaring war on America (could have been a nice NO for Germany) after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and opening a third front. Those types of “national objectives” could have kept Germany winning in Europe and possibly ultimately the entire war.

With the game starting in the spring of 1942, some of these possible NOs have already been determined for us in the game. Which is cool because that is what the game is based on, WW2.  It’s not based on preventing WW2, which is what some of those and other unmentioned NOs might have done.

So NOs that create options for players to choose from and that offer incentives to achieve them, sounds way cool to me, but any NO that restricts or directs a players options or leaves the player with no real choice but to achieve the NO because its so obviously the ONLY way for them to win the war just turns me off to the idea of NOs all together.

But, ultimately, until I actually play with the NOs I’m going to have to wait before giving any final opinion on them.  But so far, that’s what I think about NOs.  This is just My 2IPCs worth for now.

[Lucifer]

Builder_Chris, I agree with everything you said about the NO’s.  8-)

[Perry]

Builder_Chris:

The NO’s basically INCREASE the relative worth of two areas on the board:

Pacific, without NO’s: Worth 10% of total IPC on gameboard (worth 17 ipc out of 178 total)
Pacific, WITH NO’s: Worth 15% of total IPC on gameboard (worth 39 ipc out of 268 total)

EastEurope/WestRussia, without NO’s: Worth 13% of total IPC on gameboard (worth 24 ipc out of 178 total)
EastEurope/WestRussia, with NO’s: Worth 19% of total IPC on gameboard (worth 52 ipc out of 268 total)

…this is done primarily on the expense of North/South America and East Russia, which has few or none NO’s associated with them.

So, it gives players more incentive to move for these two regions above, than if you play a game without NO’s. Call it “scripted” or “control” , call it  “good” or “bad”, this it essentially what it does.

[Builder_Chris]

Perry,

I’ve been thinking that’s what the NO’s were designed for and I am really looking forward to playing them, I think they are a cool idea.  I get the impression from this thread that I won’t be disappointed in them.

I figure if they are HALF as good as the “improvements” that got introduced with AAR (compared to classic) I’m sure they will be an awesome addition to the game.

I can’t wait to see!

[Funcioneta]

A game starting in 1939 would need something to do for USA and USSR, or they would get 4 or 5 turns of doing nothing. Also, we would need more territories in western Europe to simulate 1940 warfare. Italy would suffer from this also, but not so much.

Maybe making France a minor controled by USA and China a minor controled by USSR would give them some action. Even then, we should make some additional rules for peacetime USA, USSR and Italy.

The thing could start even in 1937. Some historians think that starting of Sino-Japanese war was the begining of WWII and Spanish Civil War the prelude, but too much territories in Spain would be too much I think, and all guys watching fight in China would be boring. And better not talking about Cold War period

I’m playing Hearts of Iron II too much, I fear 8-)

[italiansarecoming]

No way i just got that game and i am cunfuzled how to play! i normally play som1 small help me! p: ill rpiv message

[cousin_joe]

@Rakeman:

I dunno, I’m a bit disappointed that only two of these national objectives REALLY exposed their potential- Italy’s sea zone one, and russia’s “no allied units on russian territory” one.  These bonuses could have done so much with so little.  But fortunately, the bonuses look like they will do a lot for the game even as they are.  I just think less “Hold ____” objectives and more unique ones would have been cooler.

Totally agree with your comment 100% Rakeman
They could have done so much more with these NOs

As I mentioned before, they should have had some NOs that encouraged SUB warfare and more Pacific and Atlantic action:

**Germany: At least 2 SUBs in North Atlantic (SZs 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) = 5IPC
Germany: At least 4 SUBs in North Atlantic (SZs 1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) = 10IPC

Japan: At least 2 SUBs off US W coast (SZs 44,53,54,55,56,57,65) = 5IPC
Japan: At least 4 SUBs off US W coast (SZs 44,53,54,55,56,57,65) = 10IPC

USA: At least 2 SUBS off Japan coast (SZs 58,59,60,61,62,63) = 5IPC
USA: At least 4 SUBs off Japan coast (SZs 58,59,60,61,62,63) = 10IPC**

This would at least encourage the possibility of a German naval campaign as well as Japanese and American Pacific campaigns

A really nice one would  have benn:

UK: Control at least 1IC in either India, Australia or South Africa = 5IPC

This would definitely encourage non-KGF strategies and more Pacific action
UK’s initial investment of 15IPC is offset by a 5IPC return/round
UK will fight like hell to hold onto the IC and have increased means to do so (The big problem with building an IC is knowing if you’ll have the income to hold it)

[Perry]

Cousin_Joe

I think that the addition of NO’s , will make modding the game a helluva lot more interesting. The concept of NO’s , gives you the option of adding or deleting NO’s that you see more fitting.

Just replace some old NO’s with the ones you just suggested. Presto - a new game!