National Objectives:

Marking the 50th anniversary of Avalon Hill, Wizards of the Coast published this very special version of A&A. I hope you enjoy it.
User avatar
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:40 pm

Larry wrote:Comments noted.

Your comment are noted too, Larry, and very much enjoyed. We know you are bussy, Larry, we know all about A&A 1942 and august this year. WOTC cant keep any secrets from us, man. I am so excited. Already pre-ordered 5 copies.

User avatar
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Englewood, Colorado

Re: National Objectives:

Post by Builder_Chris » Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:46 pm

I love the national objectives in the broadest terms of what they bring to the game.

The general idea behind them (as I understand them) is a great addition to the game but I think that’s because I see them more as a tool for giving players “extra IPC” and for giving new and not so skilled players a sense of direction as well as bolstering a players confidence in their game play more than I view them as a “historical” representation of real world geopolitics of the day…which is what I see them attempting to mimic in the game.

Simply having national objectives in the game gives players a tool to see their short yard gains as they fight down the long yards of the field toward their goal of winning the war. I view them as the equivalent of ten yard gains just to get first downs in foot ball so you can keep moving down the field because players can see if they are on 4th and 15 (if they don’t have the objective) and they can see they are working their way steadily down the field by making first downs (if they make their objectives each round).

Italy is a prime example of how well the NO’s work (IMO). Because if Italy ignores their NO’s they will always find themselves on 4th and 15 loosing the “extra 10 IPC” each turn will hurt them more than it will for any other power because its usually half of their income and if they keep their NO’s they can see they are moving the ball down the field because they keep gaining first downs with the “extra 10 IPC” they keep gaining.

As far as the details go for each national objective, the ins and outs of what each objective could be or should be or shouldn’t be “based off of history” some of those NO’s I think could be clearly “explained” and mimicked in the game (and most of them have been…IMO) but as the comments so far under this topic show, there is tons of room for debate.

National Objectives in the broadest terms are (IMO) nothing more than “areas of interest” that each power “would have historically viewed” as being strategically and economically vital to their cause of winning the war; first for themselves and secondly for their side. If these objectives had no “reward” (extra IPC) most players wouldn’t see the significance behind them and they would be nothing more than “sound strategic advice” to new players. Putting a reward to these objectives simply helps to ensure that every player…booter or veteran alike…sees the “historical significance” behind them.

I think the basic game design behind them is clean and simple to play and understand; all of them are clearly defined, relatively easy to achieve and maintain and work well as a tool for giving players a better sense of direction.

As far as all the details of what each objective should be or shouldn’t be “based off of history” I’m certain the possibilities are as endless as the number of books that have been and will be written on the war and are as varied as each players personal perspective of “how it was” and “how it is” with regards to geopolitics than and now what books they’ve read on the subject.

I’m not a historian by any means, and I’m not a game designer, but I think all of us here would agree that they are a great addition to an already great game. I know I love them and after reading some of the “historical comments” on this topic I might even fancy making some “house rules” concerning them…maybe even some kind of “political tech (diplomatic treaties or something)” that would result in some kind of “political national objective” of “keeping the peace” with neutral territories instead of opening up neutral territories to game play just because I want to strategically bomb them for the fun of it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests