Play with National Objectives?



  • After playing AA50 twice, with and without NOs, I prefer to play without them, for these reasons:

    • NOs funnel players to specific parts of the map, limiting open strategies

    • NOs that aren’t yours are a PAIN to keep track of. Each nation has too many. One each would be better

    • NOs in a 2v2 game is very painful to track, and annoying  😞

    As I mentioned above, I really wish they would have given each nation one NO, not multiple. Also, I’m trying to figure out a good way to track them on the board without making a mess. My first thought was using flagpole-like stands showing which NOs are linked, but there are too many to clutter the map with, and too many of them have multiple variables.  Bah!! 😞


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I would agree, except you know like anything else you will memorize the NO’s

    They do lead you to play historically possible strategies, which is fine and also as you point out somewhat limit the weird ideas that usually don’t pan out. I just love the fact that they ARE OPTIONAL WHICH allows that decision  for a historical flavor.

    Each nation has like 2-4 that’s not alot considering these are intuitive really. Its not like Germany has an NO for taking Brazil and cloning Hitlers.



  • @Imperious:

    Its not like Germany has an NO for taking Brazil and cloning Hitlers.

    House rule:  It does now!



  • @Comassion:

    @Imperious:

    Its not like Germany has an NO for taking Brazil and cloning Hitlers.

    House rule:  It does now!

    😄

    House rule should be: Germany controls Brazil and Gregory Peck playing Joseff Mengele



  • I don’t have much experience on AA50 yet: I’m on the second round of my first game (1941)

    my friend and I are playing with NOs
    I don’t think they are very hard to remember

    But I have some problems with them:
    NOs are supposed to lure the players into a more historical gaming by tempting them with economic gainings

    We’re at the second turn, and Japan is already as economically strong as the US. Japan took a time to further push on the pacific to deny the Americans of 5 IPC for controlling Wake, Hawaii, Midway, Solomon… but that’s it! I’m playing the Americans and I’m retreating the US Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic (5 IPC are not an incentive to stay there).

    So the game looks to be evolving into a KGF again, and Japan will start attacking the USSR as soon as he can.
    As far as I read here, that’s what’s happening in most games

    Point is: If NOs goal is to lure the players into a more historical deployments, then it’s not working.
    The game is still KGF for allies and Kill Russia for Axis

    If NOs as economic incentive are going to be useful to produce more historical gaming, then the economic gain (or lost) for not controlling those territories should be significant to a point where the entire war effort of a given nation is threatened if NOs are not achieved.

    Ideas and suggestions:
    NOs should be both economic significant and mandatory: In addition to capturing Victory Cities, each Nation must achieve their NOs
    Example: if the USA abandons the Pacific… the US looses the war; Washington is out; kapputt, finito! (we need a Japan that it is not Gozzilla after the 2nd round)



  • P-Unit,

    NOs funnel players to specific parts of the map, limiting open strategies

    I disagree.  For certain NOs throw out certain strategies like a Japanese Invasion of the West Coast, Germany takes Cuba, or Japan in Africa.  But these really aren’t viable strategies in the first place.  NOs do put a crimp on the Japanese dash across Siberia, but we can all agree this is old hat.  If anything NOs improve action throughout the game.

    NOs that aren’t yours are a PAIN to keep track of. Each nation has too many. One each would be better

    NOs in a 2v2 game is very painful to track, and annoying

    True and true.  Especially if you’re a newbie like me.  If you’re that worried, don’t play 2v2 (seems boring to me anyways) and don’t hand out NO cards, but display them in front of everybody.

    Gallo Rojo,

    NOs should be  both economic significant and mandatory: In addition to capturing Victory Cities, each Nation must achieve their NOs
    Example: if the USA abandons the Pacific… the US looses the war; Washington is out; kapputt, finito! (we need a Japan that it is not Gozzilla after the 2nd round)

    It seems like you’re suggesting two things:

    1.  Players have to win by achieving VCs and NOs.

    Certainly, this would prolong the game.  Though each side has A LOT of NOs and I worry that requiring all players to do this is tantamount to achieving world domination.

    2.  Players are penalized for not achieving NOs.

    If US abandons their Pacific NOs, they lose the game?



  • TG:
    what I’m looking for regarding NOs is that they deliver what they are supposed to deliver: a more historical game

    for what I’ve been reading here (and for my very limited gaming experience with AA50), that’s not the case

    if they’re doing what they’re suppose to do, then they’re just a bunch rules to memorize. They can be ‘fun’, but their intended goal is lost.

    My guess is that the ‘economic incentive’ is not working
    It’s still better the Axis to focus all three against Moscow, and for the Allies on a KGF (with USA forgetting about the Pacific)

    Hence, my suggestion was to make NOs mandatory – not simply an economic incentive.

    The “US loosing the game if abandon the Pacific” was simply an example about how those ‘mandatory’ NOs could be.



  • 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?



  • Rojo

    My guess is that the ‘economic incentive’ is not working
    It’s still better the Axis to focus all three against Moscow, and for the Allies on a KGF (with USA forgetting about the Pacific)

    I have no concluded that myself yet.  But if it does prove to be the case, then yes, NOs have not worked and they have to be reworked.

    The “US loosing the game if abandon the Pacific” was simply an example about how those ‘mandatory’ NOs could be.

    I suppose so.  But if Japan manages to deliver a knockout blow to the US (which they are well capable of doing), does that singular event win the Axis the game?

    Admiral_Thrawn,

    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?

    I like the idea.  I really need to start a house rules thread for A&A:50 to get everyone’s suggestions down…



  • @TG:

    But if Japan manages to deliver a knockout blow to the US (which they are well capable of doing), does that singular event win the Axis the game?

    As I said: it was just one idea

    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?

    Let me put in another way: if in the real war, Japan would had won the battle of Midway, taken Hawaii later on, and threatened with an invasion to the US West Coast (not a real one, just the threat), that would had forced the USA to capitulate in the Pacific.

    In the real world, we don’t know what would had happened later on
    Probably the US would had sent everything against Germany and finished the war en Europe faster (but that post-WW2 world would have seen Japan as a mayor power anyway)

    Or the Japanese may have forced the US to quit their war effort all together and retreat from Europe

    my point is: how can that be modeled into the game?

    In Classic, the Axis could win the game not just by conquering the Victory Cities but by an Economic Win (achieving certain amount of Production).
    Why not inventing some modified NOs on a similar way?

    My problem with the game as it is now is the following: aside that it’s un-historical, if it’s still true that the dominant strategy for Axis is going always after Moscow, and the dominant strategy for the Allies is playing a KGF (with the USA forgetting about the Pacific altogether)… well, we end up with a very predictable game.

    and after have payed $100 for the game, I would like to see some variety! (otherwise this is just Revised plus Italy!)

    Not to mention that I would love seen a good series of navy battles in the Central and South Pacific that actually means something! But so far it seems that the only crucial battle is the Battle for Moscow… fought by two historical enemies such as the Soviets and the Japanese  :roll:


  • 2019 '15 '14

    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-)



  • @Black_Elk:

    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!



  • @Admiral_Thrawn:

    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.


  • '10

    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.


  • Official Q&A

    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.



  • @FieldMarshalGames:

    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



  • @Krieghund:

    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  😉).

    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.



  • @Krieghund:

    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.


  • Customizer

    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


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

55
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts