Says the guy who invented it
You and Adam are so biased.
Vichy adds a lot of confusion and a lot of rules
I don’t only criticize you guys - I hated on the game developers for coming up with that whole stupid Mongolia thing, and for too many Pacific air (compared to Europe) in the original version, and for their insane scrambling rules in the original version
But at least they eventually admitted their errors by dramatically changing their position.
“Vichy” isn’t that complex.
Well…
It’s a non trivial increase in complexity in the game overall.
Is there a bug in the recent BM where Japan won’t get the +3 for Oki and Iwo after USA DOWs on Japan?
USA DOW on Japan R3, but Japan didn’t get the +3 J4.
:?
Is there a bug in the recent BM where Japan won’t get the +3 for Oki and Iwo after USA DOWs on Japan?
USA DOW on Japan R3, but Japan didn’t get the +3 J4.
:?
Do you have the latest BM version?
I thought so, I down loaded the saved game at the end of the BM rules page 1.
I thought so, I down loaded the saved game at the end of the BM rules page 1.
That’s BM2. I think that’s your problem.
Yeah BM has been included in the TripleA maps for many months now. I thought you started a BM2 game with Garg on purpose.
uh, then where do I get BM3?
Not to be presumptuous, but why isn’t BM3 the download at the end of the BM rules?!!?!?
That’s quite misleading, IMO. :-P
Not to be presumptuous, but why isn’t BM3 the download at the end of the BM rules?!!?!?
That’s quite misleading, IMO. :-P
It’s included in TripleA!! All you need to do is update the G40 maps on TripleA and voila.
There’s no need to use a saved game anymore.
ah, ok. So I am a dummy it looks like!
:lol:
This is me slowly walking away, pretending that I didn’t do anything wrong…… :mrgreen:
I’ve pushed up that update to the Japanese objective. If you’re really bothered by the present wording, you can delete and re-download the map.
cool. whats the updated wording?
10 PUs if not yet at war with USA, has not yet attacked or taken control of French Indo-China, and has not declared war on UK or ANZAC.
It’s as discussed above isn’t it?
yah. i thought “occupied” by itself was sufficient, but its fine.
Only problem was if an ally moved troops in and then Japan attacked it unsuccessfully.
Good catch Simon! :)
aha! But it is impossible for Japan to attack allied troops unsuccessfully, without having already violated one of the other two conditions (i.e. it must be at war with USA, ANZAC, or UK). So its a moot point. Thats why “occupied” was sufficient. But whatevs. . .
In that case, u might as well change the objective’s language in Vanilla and every other Global iteration, cuz the language is the same in all of them.
aha! But it is impossible for Japan to attack allied troops unsuccessfully, without having already violated one of the other two conditions (i.e. it must be at war with USA, ANZAC, or UK). So its a moot point. Thats why “occupied” was sufficient. But whatevs. . .
Incorrect!
Japan can be at war with UK/ANZ and still collect from FIC, in the case of an unprovoked attack by UK/ANZ!
So if UK/ANZ declares war on Japan and occupies FIC, then Japan could attack FIC and fail, and this should nullify the NO, even though it is not occupied by Japan and Japan is not at war with the USA
Aren’t we all just doing J1 these days anyway? :-D
