Thanks everyone, I think you were accurate in your analysis. I probably got a little carried away by suggesting bonuses for such a plethora of territories, but keep in mind that I was intending this to be for the minority of players (like me) who want more a more detailed set of objectives that include even the seemingly insignificant aspects, such as American supply lines to Malta and the Soviet Far East and strategic perimeters in the Pacific and colonial areas being established.
As far as South America, I think it would have been huge for the Axis to establish bastions in the Western Hemisphere - South America being the easiest target. This would be a major, tangible accomplishment that proves their growing power and projection. And as you said, Narvik, these territories are not ravaged by war, and still hold many resources that could strengthen and fuel the industrial machine. Also, I see no reason to continue with the pattern of including NO’s that reflect the historiacal accomplishments. Although these are crucial, there are other objectives that could have been just as beneficial if the power in question had chosen that route, or gotten that far.
And although I acknowledge the concern about too many options, I feel that this comes down to lack of player focus. Real wars have many options, but it is up to the participants to pick one and stick to it.
From what I am hearing, all of these have merit, I just went about it in the wrong way. I could easily trim down the supply routes to the most crucial. The objectives then should be resource-rich territories and outstanding strategic goals, rather than victory cities and empire maintenance.
To knp7765, I intended this to include the territories and the adjacent sea zones, but not others, so your example sea zones 106, 123, and 127 need be clear but no others. This may not be ideal, however. Thanks for clarifying.
