N.O.

They are optional, but they’re nothing like the NAs.  In theory, the game should be balanced with or without them, but some folks have opinions that the different scenario and optional rules combinations favor different sides.  As to whether you should include them, they don’t add that much complexity, so go for it!

Even if you play with the objectives, they’re optional since you don’t HAVE to try for them.  However, they are along what one would consider a standard route anyway (Only exception is one of England’s which is not really defensible anyway.)

I don’t see ever playing without them since they are goals the allies have and the axis have anyway, as players, if not as nationally historical goals.

Also, if they are optional, are they needed for a fair and balanced game.

I wish the NO rules were just mandatory, because leaving them out doesn’t really make the rest of game any easier to learn or any faster to play.

:)

The basic patterns of the game are completely different when the National Objectives are not included. The 41 and 42 sub-forums already need sub-forums of their own: “With NOs” and “Without NOs”, because the effect of these rules on the basic strategies is that dramatic. For example, I don’t think an Allied Pacific game is adviseable without the NOs (in either scenario), but with them its almost a necessity. Without NOs Germany is considerably nerfed in comparison to Revised, but with them it, can go Monster quick style. Without NOs the USA is so low on cash that it really drags the pacing down, with them its still a little slow on the uptake, but has much more incentive to go after early action in the Pacific.

I don’t really agree with Krieghund about the added complexity. I think they actually introduce a lot of unecessary stats tracking into the game, which players then have to manage. But, that said, I still think the game is more interesting with NOs, so you should use them. AA50 was never going to be very friendly for new players anyway. Its much more rules intensive than Classic or Revised, so chances are the kind of people who play will be the kind who want to use NOs, even with the extra overhead. I get the feeling that Larry surrounded himself with the hardcore veterans, and rules junkies while designing and playtesting this game. Not that that’s a bad thing for people like me, but did strip away some of the simplicity.

I wonder if they will re-issue Revised, with new rules once all the AA50 boards are sold out. I think they should really pick a more newb friendly name for it though. Words like ‘Revised’ or ‘Advanced’ don’t really help to pick up new players. Instead it should be something more like 'Axis and Allies ‘Starter Set’ or ‘Core Game’ or ‘Basic Game’. Just looking at the product list to the right of this screen, I imagine it would be hard for a neophyte to know which game is the most basic/general/current Axis and Allies board game.

I think National Objectives are indicative of a broader trend towards increased nuance and sophistication, which has been going on for a while now. Its cool in some respects, but I miss the simplicity of the earlier rulesets. With each new iterration I feel like it gets harder for me to explain how to play the game to my friends. With the exception of my online crew, I only have one friend who is down to play A&A. We’ve tried to get the others to join in, but its such an uphill battle to explain the rules that we’ve never finished a game. There’s a lot a preliminary set up and explanation before anything too exciting happens, you can tell when people start to lose interest. Usually we just give up and resort to playing Risk, because its less involved, but I can tell that people really want to play A&A. You can see it in the way they oggle over the pieces and the map and the markers, its just that they don’t usually have the patience to learn how its played.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m really happy with AA50 and the NOs and everything else. Its just that next time I would like to see a tutorial game, or a streamlined ruleset, geared specifically for new players. ;)

@Cmdr:

I don’t see ever playing without them since they are goals the allies have and the axis have anyway, as players, if not as nationally historical goals.

We opted not to bring the National Objectives into the game (or tech either) as we played our first few games.

The thought was to learn the base game and territories and see what can be done without modifications(tech) or ‘strategic suggestions’ as I like to think of National Objectives.

Once we get a few games under our belt and have committed to memory the new rules and territories, we’ll bring the N.O.'s into play first.

Still not sure about the tech aspect.

Black Elk said everything I wanted to say. ;)