National objectives

thanks for the nice comment how does karma work lol because i was at like 4+ - -1 but no im at -3 so do peeps say bad karma dude

now i know smite or apllaud man thats eman some peeps dotn like me lol

I never really paid attention to Karma personally, not sure what the point is.

me niether ahh im at +6 wow some people are giving me comments must be me starting to type more aprropriatly(well better anyways)
also another thing maybe for italy is make a fighter fighters cna move fast from italy and can strike easily?

Last one:

@Lynxes:

Soviet Union

• (Control of all at least four out of: Finland, Baltic States, East Poland, Poland, Czechoslovakia/Hungary, Roumania/Bulgaria and/ or Balkans) = 10 IPCs (we know the Soviets have a 10 IPC bonus, but the details are not known)

10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary and/or Balkans.

All of the National Objectives are now complete.

@Krieghund:

Last one:

@Lynxes:

Soviet Union

• (Control of all at least four out of: Finland, Baltic States, East Poland, Poland, Czechoslovakia/Hungary, Roumania/Bulgaria and/ or Balkans) = 10 IPCs (we know the Soviets have a 10 IPC bonus, but the details are not known)

10 IPCs if Allied powers control at least three of the following: Norway, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria/Romania, Czechoslovakia/Hungary and/or Balkans.

All of the National Objectives are now complete.

Thank you Krieghund!

thats sorta easy i do not think many germany’s skip scandinavia maybe if it was worth something more for the axis to defend !

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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

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!

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

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

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)

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.

@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.