Are National Objectives priced too high at $5 IPCs each?



  • The game seems to be very changed when ever the National Objectives optional rule is added  (to either version (1941 or 1942).  I have read and continue to read “this happens when NOs are active, the opposite when NOs are not used”.

    Does the use of National Objectives swing the penduleum too far from one game outcome to the other?  If you think so, what should we change the NO’s to be?


    Our house rules “Chicago Rules” (1941) use NO’s reduced to $4.  Doesn’t seem like much, but 1 less Germany inf a turn can add up.

    Thanks for your input!


  • TripleA '12

    Hey, cool post. I like them just fine the way they are: 5 IPCs each is a great incentive for you to strive for, whilst equally provoking a strong resistance from the enemy to ensure that you don’t get them.  🙂



  • I’ve only played '41, with NOs and Tech in play.

    It seems like the game favours the Axis, and it seems the NOs help them more than they help the Allies (though I haven’t put this to the test).

    That said, I do not place the blame on the NOs, and I like how they motivate play.  The balance issue is a combination of rules and the set up.  You could just as easily blame japan’s strength at the onset, or Russia or China’s weakness.  To sum up, I like the number five for strategy motivation, and It wouldn’t be the first thing I’d change for balance considerations.

    I’ve yet to try with the optional rule closing the Turkish passage.  I think that would help the Allies quite a bit (but maybe or maybe not enough).



  • @zooooma:

    I’ve yet to try with the optional rule closing the Turkish passage.  I think that would help the Allies quite a bit (but maybe or maybe not enough).

    I am inclined to think not enough. That said, a $5 bid to Egypt (namely, a tank) has a profound influence on the game - both in reducing G1 opening options and later North African (and sometimes Indian) havoc. Played many games now with bids in the 5-8 range. 8 is too much in my estimation, and 5 just about right.



  • @zooooma:

    seems like the game favours the Axis, and it seems the NOs help them more than they help the Allies (though I haven’t put this to the test).

    That said, I do not place the blame on the NOs, and I like how they motivate play.  The balance issue is a combination of rules and the set up.  You could just as easily blame japan’s strength at the onset, or Russia or China’s weakness.  To sum up, I like the number five for strategy motivation, and It wouldn’t be the first thing I’d change for balance considerations.

    I’ve yet to try with the optional rule closing the Turkish passage.  I think that would help the Allies quite a bit (but maybe or maybe not enough).

    Agreed. Fault of unbalance is the reasons you said,  and the NO sistem in fact is OK

    rockrobinoff said 8 bid is too much. With a unlimited bid probably yes because the bid would go to Egypt or western USSR, unbalancing precisely the theater that is balanced and probably leading to a KGF fanmania again

    Restrict bids to asian mailand (exclude any soviet territory west of kaz-novo-eve line, maybe also exclude TRJ), Pacific islands, ANZAC and Indian and Pacific Oceans (Atlantic being between z25 and z27) and it should work. It would add units where the unbalance is while still giving some freedom of choice



  • I think the N.O.s should not all be  5 IPC’s  I do not see them as being equal.
    Soviet player is the only exception

    Maybe a small bonus for having all.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

51
Online

13.5k
Users

33.9k
Topics

1.3m
Posts