@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)