Well said Adam!
Yeah, there is a big difference in game experience depending on who you are and who you play, a great point
just give the Vichy occupied ipc income to Germany. This will provide more incentive to go for Vichy France and will provide the axis with what they need to counter the allied nos. Historically this would also b e accurate as supposedly the Vichy France regime had to pay Germany lots of money for the occupation forces.
It would also give the allies more reasons to counter or grab as many of the vichy tt’s as they can and as fast as they can.
@Nozdormu:
just give the Vichy occupied ipc income to Germany. This will provide more incentive to go for Vichy France and will provide the axis with what they need to counter the allied nos. Historically this would also b e accurate as supposedly the Vichy France regime had to pay Germany lots of money for the occupation forces.
It would also give the allies more reasons to counter or grab as many of the vichy tt’s as they can and as fast as they can.
Disagree. The “only” thing that is great about Vichy is that the axis actually have to activate these territories. If activation is not required too much free money. Allies should not go after silly nm Africa areas for 1 ipc
That would give massive incentive for the allies to block Vichy which they can always do, so long as they take down SZ96 UK1 by using the TT to land an inf on Southern France.
I see people start to bid for axis in BM. What is the rational for this? How does a bid of 4,5 or 6 make a difference in the long run? I don’t see it. Must be hugely more important not to make mistakes.
I honestly have no idea if it helps. I’m just gathering data with my bidded BM games.
It’s probably not about how much it helps
If both players want Allies, then the way to settle it is to bid
After a small bid of 4, 5, or 6, the other player is unwilling to give more to the Axis player, and so that’s where the bid amount settles.
The #1 purpose of bidding is to allow both players to be satisfied with their side and situation before starting.
How does a bid of 4,5 or 6 make a difference in the long run?
I bid of 6 could be 2 more inf on Africa I guess or a sub. A lot of the bid in vanilla tends to go to to the med so helping the Italians is where a BM axis bid would probably go. One inf changes Ethiopia from a 79% assault to a coin flip at 49%. One sub turns a 2 fighter Taranto raid to a 29% chance of the BB surviving - so you need a 3 fighter one.
An inf on Tobruk with the fighter blocks a no TT assault and gives a 50% chance of taking out all the ground troops against a maximal assault.
Still, is there any proof yet that the Allies are overpowered?
What does the general statistics say?
Adam hasn’t lost a single game as Axis yet, but as Allies
My personal (very limited) experience is, that it is pretty even and that Axis has valid winning chances, I do not see a clear necessity yet to make changes in order to strengthen the Axis.
One rule question btw: Cruisers and battleships that unload Marines into amphibious assault can NOT do shore bombardment, right?
I might remember the TripleA client still does allow that option so the player unloading marines needs to say “no” then?
One rule question btw: Cruisers and battleships that unload Marines into amphibious assault can NOT do shore bombardment, right?
I might remember the TripleA client still does allow that option so the player unloading marines needs to say “no” then?
They can do shore bombardment even if they unload marines.
thx!
It’s actually quite trivial to update the .xml to have the combat movement before the purchase. Is there interest in doing such a thing or has it been considered and decided against?
It’s actually quite trivial to update the .xml to have the combat movement before the purchase. Is there interest in doing such a thing or has it been considered and decided against?
I don’t get it. Why should combat movement take place before purchases?
It’s actually quite trivial to update the .xml to have the combat movement before the purchase. Is there interest in doing such a thing or has it been considered and decided against?
I don’t get it. Why should combat movement take place before purchases?
Practical reasons. In general you need to decide your attacks before you know what you want to buy. I find it annoying to have to plan out your attacks in your head first and then enter them in later.
It’s super helpful for folks like myself who have difficulty visualizing their entire turn and the reasonably expected results.
FOr example, you’re playing Japan. You’ve got several major battles (and a few minor ones) to set up. Until you can actually see what can go where and how much you’re going to lose, it’s tricky to know what you should be buying as a replacement.
Of course, these sorts of cognitive limitations are what keep me in the mid-tiers. :-D
In practice, a lot of people will buy stuff, set up their combat move, then realize their buy doesn’t make sense, and redo their turn. Changing the order will help simplify this process and make turns less time-consuming. Note that we’re only talking about the combat move, not the actual die rolls.
It also makes it easier to use the battle calculator to see if you want to make an attack at all which will affect your buy.
Ok. In fact, I never thought about that.
I am playing my first bal. mod game in months, and I realize that (unless I forgot something) there is a powerful argument for marines that has never been made.
An argument for keeping them as is.
Since marines are treated as infantry on transports (they could have made them like non-infantry and that would have actually been reasonable), marines upgrade transports.
A transport can now take an artillery and a marine, a mech and a marine, or a 3/3 TANK AND A MARINE
Contrast that with transports in classic :lol: that cost 8 IPC’s and could transport only ONE TANK that was by the way 3/2, and NO INFANTRY with it (not that that’s relevant, just interesting comparison)
So transports can take marines to locations for cruisers or battleships or transports to pick up and take from there, and transports have the option of taking an infantry, AAA, mech, artillery, or tank along with, or 2 marines.
Marines would be overpowered if you lowered the cost or upgraded their capabilities in any way. They’re already awesome. Plus you have something (besides AAA) to buy for 5 (if you don’t understand the significance of this I’m not going to take the effort to try to explain it to you), so marines are pretty much perfect as is.
A MARINE AND A TANK on a single transport!! Holy cow
A marine that has the option of being picked up by a cruiser or a battleship, which can also bombard when unloading them. Jeez. They might be overpowered already. Maybe they should cost 6 :-D
