I’m having a real love hate reaction to the National Objectives.
On the one hand I like the idea, because they provide a model for customizing the game (via addition House NOs) but then you have the issue of uniformity, and ease of use.
Right now I don’t think the NOs are changing the gameplay enough to warrant how complicated they are to explain and keep track of. If they were blowing the lid off the game, and producing intense dual front action every time, then sure, I’d be all for memorizing everything. But the current NOs seem to still favor a KGF playstyle that is only slightly different from the previous one.
A heftier American Nation Objective in the Pacific would have been nice. They should really be collecting closer to 50 ipcs a round if you want players to seriously fight in two directions at once. Otherwise you’re always going to get people going after the magnified “All Europe” or “All Pacific” gameplan.
What has not been discussed is how an allied nation can help the other in NO’s.
If the the USA player takes a Jap. Island, it will help the UK on the next turn. I also like how the NOs involve several territories. It does not have to be the same combination.
IF the PACIFIC is abandoned, the the USA will have one NO in a short period of time and the UK may have zero.
Gallo Rojo,
But on the other hand: if Germany manages to deliver a knockout blow to Moscow… that singular even usually wins the Axis the game!
Why shouldn’t be that the case if Japan defeats the US too?
That’s fair. But in Germany’s case, you’re actually taking Moscow, the opponent’s capital. In the Japanese scenario, you’re merely threatening an invasion of the West Coast. Which is almost like the Axis winning by virtue of taking Eastern Ukraine and simply threatening Moscow.
Anyways, I’m all for changes that spread the action across theaters. Your idea is a start.
Edit: Yay 5000 posts! That only took six years. Also why am I a Heavy Bomber Now? Battleships >> Heavy Bombers 8-)
A heftier American Nation Objective in the Pacific would have been nice. They should really be collecting closer to 50 ipcs a round if you want players to seriously fight in two directions at once. Otherwise you’re always going to get people going after the magnified “All Europe” or “All Pacific” gameplan.
TOTALLY!
Does anyone else think that you should only get your NO after the entire round is over instead of you turn? This makes more dynamic because you have to take and hold your NO’s from all the other players. Like Germany takes Lenningrad but the Russians have a chance to take it back before the Germany player gets the extra 5IPC?
If you’re talking about all the players getting paid at the end of a complete turn, I thought about that too, but it occured to me that the nation that goes first would be at a severe disadvantage in that all of the other players would have a chance to react and knock him/her out of eligability, while the player going last in the turn order would not have anyone to contest his moves.
You could always make the payout for NOs at the begining of each players turn, I suppose though. I hadn’t really given that much thought, although it does seems like that might water down the whole effect of NOs somewhat.
Yes, maybe at the begginning of your turn. I just don’t want to see rediculous attacks to get your NO just to get the extra IPC and then lose it right away. I should be that you can obtain the NO and hold at least for awhile. That’s completing a National Objective. It’s like germany taking 3 Russian territories then getting there army destroyed. The NO’s I thought where suppose to simulate more moral for you winning. Not I have East Poland and then instantly the Russian army destroyed your whole army there.
Though I suppose the logical retort is, is the 5/10+ IPCs you gain from capturing Poland worth your whole army being destroyed?
I do like the idea of NOs income being collected at the start of the turn (beyond the first) and look forward to someone giving it a whirl.
The one NO that really bothers me is the one for holding the US territories. USA gains 5 IPC for holding E USA/ C USA / W USA… what about Alaska?
First off, USA will ALWAYS get this (99% of the time, Axis invasion unlikely) and is Alaska not part of the USA? So it is way too easy and an unfair advantage to the USA which is always an IPC powerhouse anyway.
If you add Alaska to this NO than it adds two things:
a) More Historical - May direct Japan to attacking Alaska RE Aleutian Islands Campaign. And it IS a US home territory.
b) Gives the Axis a chance to rob USA of this NO just as EVERY other nation is in risk of loosing their NOs.
In my house, on my game table with my game… this will now be the HOME rule.
There are two reasons why Alaska is not included in that NO. First, it was not yet a state at the time. It was still a territory, so it was not part of the US “home territory”. Second, at the time it wasn’t a huge part of the USA’s economy.
As for it being “too easy”, it creates more of an incentive for the Japanese to take the fight to the USA.
The one NO that really bothers me is the one for holding the US territories. USA gains 5 IPC for holding E USA/ C USA / W USA… what about Alaska?
First off, USA will ALWAYS get this (99% of the time, Axis invasion unlikely) and is Alaska not part of the USA? So it is way too easy and an unfair advantage to the USA which is always an IPC powerhouse anyway.
If you add Alaska to this NO than it adds two things:
a) More Historical - May direct Japan to attacking Alaska RE Aleutian Islands Campaign. And it IS a US home territory.
b) Gives the Axis a chance to rob USA of this NO just as EVERY other nation is in risk of loosing their NOs.In my house, on my game table with my game… this will now be the HOME rule.
BRAVO!
I totally agree
There are two reasons why Alaska is not included in that NO. First, it was not yet a state at the time. It was still a territory, so it was not part of the US “home territory”. Second, at the time it wasn’t a huge part of the USA’s economy.
As for it being “too easy”, it creates more of an incentive for the Japanese to take the fight to the USA.
Historical reasons would good if were taken into account all the map. Making China able of survive after 1941 J1 would be a good beggining (Carthago delenda est :wink:).
About the 2nd, the easier was make Alaska part of the NO instead CUSA. How many times you can take and hold Springfield (CUSA)? As now, this NO doesn’t give any additional incentive to Japan to attack America. You are screwed anyway if Japan can take and hold any of the 3 territories.
There are two reasons why Alaska is not included in that NO. First, it was not yet a state at the time. It was still a territory, so it was not part of the US “home territory”. Second, at the time it wasn’t a huge part of the USA’s economy.
As for it being “too easy”, it creates more of an incentive for the Japanese to take the fight to the USA.
You’re right on the money here Krieg. I’ve heard many US players whine that they don’t have enough IPC’s even with that easy NO. Some have even talked about bidding on the allies, especially the US. I feel that the NO is fair enough, and for the record, I like the idea of playing with them in general.
FieldMarshalGames,
As others mentioned:
1. Alaska was not a State. If you implement this rule shouldn’t Hawaii also be included? Or do 4 out of 5? (USA/Alaska/Hawaii)
2. The USA player already seems strapped for cash
Other then that, I look forward to placing this rule in the House Rules section.
Question:
Do you get a bonus for each NO achieved or just for one of any?
you get a bonus for each. so if you’ve achieved 3 NO’s, you get the total of 15 sweet sweet IPC’s
Oh hell yes! I havent been able to get a game together yet so I’m trying to get all the info I can to update my group so we’re all up to speed.
Thanks.
