@Imperious:
Keep in mind the game was tuned to the existing NO’s, so that income given to players on balance needs to be equal and the ability to aquire any new NO’s needs to be just as difficult or easy
For me it would be more important to list the possible expanded objective goals first, then modify the values as needed. Rather than the other way around, if that makes sense? So for example, once you know that Panama is a desired objective, it’s easier to pick an appropriate value relative to the others, or to pull money off another objective and put it into this one, or perhaps modify any of these somewhere down the road if the initial value proves too high/low to make the objective relevant.
Lately I’ve been thinking more and more of an evolutionary/selection approach rather than an engineering/design approach, ever since Barney figured out a way to include several different standardized HR options into a single package. The thought being that with so many variables, it would require a different balance corrective depending on which house rules are in play anyway. So more ways to introduce cash might be helpful depending on for example whether one chooses to use a C5 bomber or a C12 bomber. Or whether one introduces a VC cash grab, or just wants to play using the OOB VCs. Whether one uses standard capital rules or China rules for everyone post capital collapse. Playing with a new NAP or not etc.
I suppose that is maybe a bit of a cop out for a thread with “redesign” in the title. But I think the a la carte HR concept as the first step basically requires a high degree of flexibility and adaptability in the near term. Once the tools are in the tool chest, with the standard options outlined, it becomes a lot easier to build a particular modification out of those materials. As opposed to pre-planning everything to the Nth degree. And it’s easy enough to edit as we go along, for things that need adjustment. So for NOs I would just try to ballpark it right now, get some working values out, with the understanding that they may need to change as the result of feedback.
Perhaps this methodology may seem rather backwards compared to the approach used to develop OOB game, but “grand design” type mod projects have been tried several times with several boards and often still seem to fall rather short, even when the playgroup is pretty large and the testing periods are pretty extensive, with multiple Alphas etc.
I still think by far the easiest method to balance the board under any conditions, is either by adjusting the starting cash or through a standard bid. So I don’t know if the OOB balance is really best place to start. I’m more interested in other things. Fine tuning the balance by sides seems easier to me than most of this other stuff, since it can almost certainly be achieved by just adding a number to the starting cash of individual nations, or else adding combat units via a bid mechanism.
I suppose at this point I am trying to see which of the many ideas/options under consideration will actually stick, since the brainstorming threw a lot of stuff at the wall. There are currently a couple dozen HR tech adds in the tripleA gamefile. Some of which may work as stand alones, others more in conjunction with a series of HRs. Some may prove less popular, hard to say at this point.
For the NO expansion, I think we’re working under the idea that it’s best if used with a VC expansion (and catered to those conditions), but also could work independently.
To that last Q, I think Greenland could be added, not sure where it should go though. I suppose if you consider Alaska/Greenland as part of an Arctic control NO they could go together, but it seems to make that one a bit thematically ‘fuzzy.’ I would nix the word “continental” from each, since it’s not very descriptive for any objective that includes Greenland or Aleutians or West Indies.
I like the idea of regional Sovereignty NOs, where the theme serves as a mnemonic device for the region effected. So in that sense it might be nice to have the Alaska NO as it’s own discrete thing, rather than attaching Greenland (even if I like the idea of Germany have some potential to disrupt a US NO if they managed to conquer that TT.) It never really comes into play at all OOB.
Of the 4 listed, C seems like the one with least gameplay interest. Because in order to disrupt it Axis would have to hold one of these territories through the US collect income phase, which seems rather challenging for some already far flung TTs. Seems to require that Axis take Central America and land blitz blockers in Mexico to have a chance at holding it long enough to disrupt. Or I guess if G landed in W. Indies, or the US had no blitz units at the ready it’s more doable, but still seems like a lot to take down the NO.
D seems a lot more attractive since it can be disrupted with ships. I wonder if the wording there needs to specify submarines? Seems like having a destroyer or a carrier or a battleship ought to be equally disruptive. Even if subs are the most likely.
