2017 League Post Game Results Here

[Witt]

Danke.

[Adam514]

@wittmann:

Thanks Gamerman. My first BM win too. Still not a fan, though. Too many NOs for the Axis, which they can achieve, whilst the Allies struggle to achieve theirs. I thought BM was meant to help the Allies monetarily.

That’s the opposite of what has been said before. Such conflict!

[oysteilo]

@Adam514:

@wittmann:

Thanks Gamerman. My first BM win too. Still not a fan, though. Too many NOs for the Axis, which they can achieve, whilst the Allies struggle to achieve theirs. I thought BM was meant to help the Allies monetarily.

That’s the opposite of what has been said before. Such conflict!

Still good to see that not all experienced players applaud BM unconditionally!

[simon33]

@wittmann:

Thanks Gamerman. My first BM win too. Still not a fan, though. Too many NOs for the Axis, which they can achieve, whilst the Allies struggle to achieve theirs. I thought BM was meant to help the Allies monetarily.

I don’t see why you would say so. Ussr achieves lend lease by doing nothing. Uk also achieves convoy lanes doing nothing.

Axis can achieve Balkans easily and achieve Japan’s home islands doing nothing. I can’t recall other objectives for the axis that are easily achieved and new in bm.

Generally, axis have to do more to block allied objectives in bm.

I don’t know if the guerrilla fighter rule has too many fans though.

[Witt]

The USSR and America needed more assured income. The USSR, because it is SBRed continuously. America needs more, because it needs to fight on two fronts and cross two Oceans, needing defenseless TTs to carry troops, in order to capture territories. (Historically, it was not short of cash and resources, either.)
I have played games , where we escalated its at war Income, turn by turn. The Axis should be rushed into a victory; time should be on the Allies’ side.
Germany and Iapan did not need another safe NO each.
I am very happy with the Chinese spawning and Fts intercepting at two .
I am not sure Vichy is quite right, but is fun playing with it.

[gamerman01]

@wittmann:

Thanks Gamerman. My first BM win too. Still not a fan, though. Too many NOs for the Axis, which they can achieve, whilst the Allies struggle to achieve theirs. I thought BM was meant to help the Allies monetarily.

Heh - so now we know how to interpret this. 
Are you saying Japan shouldn’t have the automatic NO added and Germany shouldn’t get a new fairly easy +2?  And that while the Allies got more NO’s, it’s not enough?

[Shin-Ji]

We actually played that game without the Iwo Jima NO.  And I wasn’t able to claim the Balkans one.

[gamerman01]

:lol: Then what are all these Axis NO’s you’re talking about, Witt?

[Witt]

I meant those extra two.
Before, Russia struggled to make 25 income, whilst being SBRed, whilst Germany could make 60, then 80with the OOB German ones (Caucasus, automatic Novgorod and Volgograd). I have always argued that Russia and America needed another 10 a turn. This has been done.
Adding 2 income  to Germany and 3 to Japan, is a step back.

I agreed to play BM with Shin Ji, as he elected to drop  the Iwo Jima NO and, fortuitously, we set up a game, without the Balkans NO. I will play BM this way.

To continue my argument, it is fairly easy for Japan to grab Guam on its DOW turn, leaving the US on its OOB 72 income, whilst Japan is already close to 70. Equally, on the European side, we know how easily It is to grab Iceland or Crete, thus denying the UK a NO. Playing without a bid, means Italy can make close to 20 for a few turns, thus enabling it to buy those pesky Can Openers, which favour a German breakout into the oilfields (and more
Income).

S

[simon33]

Nit pick: USA is 70 income without the Philippines OOB.

There is a logical flaw in the argument that USSR needs more money because it’s SBR’d. In BM that only happens if the Allies don’t pile in the fighters to defend Moscow. And the Lend Lease NO has been separated from the National Pride for having no allied troops - you don’t need to sacrifice the Lend Lease part.

I suppose though the USSR are still pretty weak even without SBR. Strengthening them strengthens the Allies considerably.

I think Vichy is fine, in spite of the added complexity - except for the way UK can block it if their tank (or art) in Paris survives.

[Witt]

I always take Brazil, Simon.

[gamerman01]

Thanks a lot, Wittmann

Simon, I think he just meant in the regular game Moscow is vulnerable to hard SBR

[wheatbeer]

I was thinking, if anything, Balanced Mod might have over-corrected and given the Allies an edge.

(take my opinion with a grain of salt though, since I’m getting back in the groove)

[gamerman01]

Yeah, I think that’s the consensus.

[dawgoneit]

farmboy (Axis) vs Dawg (Allies + 20) - farmboy (Axis) wins
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40464.75

[aequitas-et-veritas]

L17 G40 Kamikaze_pilot (L+19) vs AetV (X)

Kamikaze Pilot over AetV

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40070.165

[StuckTojo]

Karl (Axis) defeats StuckTojo (Allies +24)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40453.0

Not sure what the hell happened there.  I thought USSR was doing pretty well; next thing I know they’re road kill.  Damn good-for-nuthin’ commies!  :-P

[gamerman01]

Karl strikes again
Wily veterans - you gotta watch out with them

[Giallo]

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40428.75

Variance(x) over Giallo bm3.3

[GeneralSvend-Sved]

Dawgoneit over GeneralSvend-Sved

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40275.0