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.