National objectives

[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!

[Guest]

@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!

This is true… NOs have a ton of effect on gameplay, but aren’t actually part of the board or anything, so to change, all you need to do is type up the new ones.  Of course, not all things can be implemented with the NO system.

[Black_Elk]

When developing the enhanced NOs please try to consider the TripleA game engine.  :-D

We can test a lot of ideas using the edit mode, and if we had more coordination and eyes on it, we could probably get a little more coding help from the devs. Things like X ipcs for Territory A, or no units of type Y in Territory B for a bonus of Z ipcs. As long as we keep it within some sort of general framework, it should be pretty easy to customize or expand the rules. I think simplicity and ease of memorization is the ticket.

I like the Russo-Jap NAP for example, and the Submarine stuff too (Germany/Italy need an incentive to buy ships or it’s never going to happen.) If it comes down to it, we may also want to seriously consider a 21 VC system instead of 18 as another relatively simple adjustment that might help. For the house rules though, the easier they are to explain the better the odds that players will adopt them. Something to keep in mind while brainstorming.  :-)

We should try to come up with 5-10 really innovative but ‘easy to remember’ NOs, and then try to establish them as a kind of standard House Rules option. Then we could include them at the bottom of the game notes *optional expansion to give the rules some additional sense of formality. The edit mode should already make most of these ideas possible, the only issue right now is that the players have to track the stats themselves (which is sort of a pain). That’s not much different from what you have to do in a face to face game though, so its not unreasonable. Hopefully Kev will look into coding some of this stuff, or at least providing some more UI flexibility to deal with things like expanded NOs. Even just getting some good house rules in the gamenotes would be cool though.

I’ve felt for a long time now that the game could use an influx of additional money, so I think additional House NOs would be fun (more money means more build options, means less dependence on the starting set up and more dynamic strategies.) If we wanted to limit the impact of these additional NOs, we could always drop the standard bonuses from 5 ipcs to 3 ipcs, or something of that sort, to make room for the new ones. But I think you could bring everyone up 5 or 10, and as long as it was even, most players would accept it.

As a house rule along these lines, I also think it would be fun to award 1 additional IPC for each Victory City controlled. We can do a lot right now though, using the edit mode. Its a little unwieldy, but still allows for a lot more flexibility than we had before.

[cousin_joe]

@Black_Elk:

When developing the enhanced NOs please try to consider the TripleA game engine.  :-D

We can test a lot of ideas using the edit mode, and if we had more coordination and eyes on it, we could probably get a little more coding help from the devs. Things like X ipcs for Territory A, or no units of type Y in Territory B for a bonus of Z ipcs. As long as we keep it within some sort of general framework, it should be pretty easy to customize or expand the rules. I think simplicity and ease of memorization is the ticket.

I like the Russo-Jap NAP for example, and the Submarine stuff too (Germany/Italy need an incentive to buy ships or it’s never going to happen.) If it comes down to it, we may also want to seriously consider a 21 VC system instead of 18 as another relatively simple adjustment that might help. For the house rules though, the easier they are to explain the better the odds that players will adopt them. Something to keep in mind while brainstorming.  :-)

We should try to come up with 5-10 really innovative but ‘easy to remember’ NOs, and then try to establish them as a kind of standard House Rules option. Then we could include them at the bottom of the game notes *optional expansion to give the rules some additional sense of formality. The edit mode should already make most of these ideas possible, the only issue right now is that the players have to track the stats themselves (which is sort of a pain). That’s not much different from what you have to do in a face to face game though, so its not unreasonable. Hopefully Kev will look into coding some of this stuff, or at least providing some more UI flexibility to deal with things like expanded NOs. Even just getting some good house rules in the gamenotes would be cool though.

I’ve felt for a long time now that the game could use an influx of additional money, so I think additional House NOs would be fun (more money means more build options, means less dependence on the starting set up and more dynamic strategies.) If we wanted to limit the impact of these additional NOs, we could always drop the standard bonuses from 5 ipcs to 3 ipcs, or something of that sort, to make room for the new ones. But I think you could bring everyone up 5 or 10, and as long as it was even, most players would accept it.

As a house rule along these lines, I also think it would be fun to award 1 additional IPC for each Victory City controlled. We can do a lot right now though, using the edit mode. Its a little unwieldy, but still allows for a lot more flexibility than we had before.

Hey Black_Elk,

As I’ve always said, I think TripleA + Enhanced would be a great combo
I do agree, if there is going to be a standard set of house rules, they would have to be fairly simple and not too far off from the base game
I’ll have to drop by the TripleA site sometime and see what the engine’s capable of now
It’s been a while since I’ve played a game there

P.S. For those that haven’t tried TripleA, it’s a nice way to practice your strategies before your next FTF game.  I’d highly recommend it!  :-D

[italiansarecoming]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Also another 1 would be if germany makes 3 subs for any german turn you get no’s=5 so really you would be paying 13 ipcs for something worth 18ipcs!

[Guest]

@cousin_joe:

@Black_Elk:

When developing the enhanced NOs please try to consider the TripleA game engine.  :-D

We can test a lot of ideas using the edit mode, and if we had more coordination and eyes on it, we could probably get a little more coding help from the devs. Things like X ipcs for Territory A, or no units of type Y in Territory B for a bonus of Z ipcs. As long as we keep it within some sort of general framework, it should be pretty easy to customize or expand the rules. I think simplicity and ease of memorization is the ticket.

I like the Russo-Jap NAP for example, and the Submarine stuff too (Germany/Italy need an incentive to buy ships or it’s never going to happen.) If it comes down to it, we may also want to seriously consider a 21 VC system instead of 18 as another relatively simple adjustment that might help. For the house rules though, the easier they are to explain the better the odds that players will adopt them. Something to keep in mind while brainstorming.  :-)

We should try to come up with 5-10 really innovative but ‘easy to remember’ NOs, and then try to establish them as a kind of standard House Rules option. Then we could include them at the bottom of the game notes *optional expansion to give the rules some additional sense of formality. The edit mode should already make most of these ideas possible, the only issue right now is that the players have to track the stats themselves (which is sort of a pain). That’s not much different from what you have to do in a face to face game though, so its not unreasonable. Hopefully Kev will look into coding some of this stuff, or at least providing some more UI flexibility to deal with things like expanded NOs. Even just getting some good house rules in the gamenotes would be cool though.

I’ve felt for a long time now that the game could use an influx of additional money, so I think additional House NOs would be fun (more money means more build options, means less dependence on the starting set up and more dynamic strategies.) If we wanted to limit the impact of these additional NOs, we could always drop the standard bonuses from 5 ipcs to 3 ipcs, or something of that sort, to make room for the new ones. But I think you could bring everyone up 5 or 10, and as long as it was even, most players would accept it.

As a house rule along these lines, I also think it would be fun to award 1 additional IPC for each Victory City controlled. We can do a lot right now though, using the edit mode. Its a little unwieldy, but still allows for a lot more flexibility than we had before.

Hey Black_Elk,

As I’ve always said, I think TripleA + Enhanced would be a great combo
I do agree, if there is going to be a standard set of house rules, they would have to be fairly simple and not too far off from the base game
I’ll have to drop by the TripleA site sometime and see what the engine’s capable of now
It’s been a while since I’ve played a game there

P.S. For those that haven’t tried TripleA, it’s a nice way to practice your strategies before your next FTF game.  I’d highly recommend it!  :-D

Why isn’t Enhanced on TripleA yet?  It would make TripleA actually worth playing (to me)  :-D

Some rules would be tough to program, especially all the national advantages.  A TripleA lite (with no national advantages) shouldn’t be difficult at all, however…

[Black_Elk]

I’ll have to drop by the TripleA site sometime and see what the engine’s capable of now
It’s been a while since I’ve played a game there

When you download the latest stable build, make sure you check out the “Game” tab, and click “enable edit mode” to see some of what we can do. Right now the edit mode is the easiest way to implement things like house rules. Its still not as flexible as it could be, but we’re starting to get there. Right now the things that are the most difficult to simulate are rules that effect combat. Things that are more related to income or units (bonuses and penalties) are much easier to do. Some of the Enhanced stuff is I believe supported now though, and new NOs for AA50 would definitely be doable, so long as players are willing to track/edit the stats. :)

As soon as the real set ups are known, and we have the actual board in front of us, it should be a lot easier to start working on things like Enhanced National Objectives. I’m stoked that this sort of feature has the Pope’s blessing now. It should make house NOs easier for players to accept. :D

[Imperious Leader]

Too many posts on house rules require the thread to be moved to its final destination.

[italiansarecoming]

Whats are oh nvm lol i know what you meant lol go to house rules ok ok!

[shohoku201]

Since national objectives are optional, is it better to use it for 41 setup?  would it make it more balanced?  more fun?

about to have my first game tonite!

[Imperious Leader]

Just play w/o them in first game then play with both tech and NO in second game. Start out slow.