French National Objective?

@Red:

@GeodrivE:

Don’t you think making all the french pieces would be a waste since you really won’t get the chance to use them. It would be like classic again with the Russian cv’s and bb’s. I’d rather see the effort and money put into pieces to represent Air and Naval bases.

No.  And it certainly wouldn’t be a waste to do the Italian pieces right since they are sticking around.

It isn’t a $25 game with generic pieces, it is a $100 game.  I find it surprising that with so much other attention to detail, and the obvious interest in the European theater (since it sold out quickly) that the decision was made not to do it right the first time.  It would seem to be a logical stepping stone to expanding the game anyway.

As for air and naval bases, I don’t mind the cardboard pieces.   They aren’t mobile anyway and really are only markers for the territory, not units.

Hey, if they make 'em great! I’m just not getting my hopes up to see it happen anytime soon. Cause at $100 like you said, I think they would have already made them if they wanted to. To me, I can play with what they gave me and have a good time.

@z0m4d:

These are pretty sweet!  Any motivation to do one adjusted for the different national objectives in the 2nd edition?

I concur!  These are the best I’ve found and the NO board is fantastic!  I’d love to see these updated for the 2nd Ed.!  Exclamation point!

No, unless the axis retake them first

No

Not yet.

Bump - Added Italian Set

Exactly- if you look at the hi-res pic of the board- it looks like the desert runs along the border between West and Central.  While the border itself it bright blue (not covered by the white of the desert as it is along the SW border of Algeria) the desert looks like it covers the entire border on the FWA side- making a crossing impossible.  But it Does need to be clarified.

Heh.

Seems like a fair trade-off then.  :lol:

Yes, but with so much information overload I started doubting my own thoughts and ideas.

@Krieghund:

@GrayBlaZe:

Hey Keighund, got a question; Why could it not be considered to be up to a nine person global game instead of six.  I do understand that playing France, China or ANZAC will be very minor, however, it’s possible for nine people to draw straws and last three places got it get the minors.  Or am I missing somthing?  I’m assuming that it’s just listed as six because that is the max number that would be a good game to spread playing around equally so nobody is just totally eliminated fast with France or having to play limited China.  Is this correct?  Thanx……

You’ve already answered your own question:

@GrayBlaZe:

When they state the number of players, it is just a recomendation.  You could very well play with nine players except; France, China, & ANZAC would be quite boring, unless a newbe or child was playing with you, it would be good for them to play a minor country.  If you are playing with six then some player would play two counties, however, they are still considerd nine different armies; if you play two they don’t mix there income.  So it always be nine indiviual counties weither you play with nine people or two.

The “official” player mix listed in the rules is what we consider to be the best mix for optimal enjoyment of the game.  There’s nothing stopping you from changing that if you have more than six people who want to play.  I do think, however, that getting beyond six will definitely get into territory that could be at least somewhat boring for players of minor powers (ANZAC, China and France).  A seventh player playing all three wouldn’t be too bad, though.