All conditions must be met for 1 continuous round, simpler that way. So if the number of VCs/capital is exchanged during a round, you’ll need to wait 1 more round after it’s been retaken.
Thanks! Both for the answer and the good news. That is what I wanted to hear.
Another question that relates to Vichy and transporting Marines. My understanding is that when you load a combat unit on a transport it must unload as a combat move on that turn if possible (the exception would only be if the landing is blocked at sea).
I’m playing Axis and in a situation where there is a British destroyer in 96 and I want to land in Vichy Syria. However I want to land a marine and I want to use the Cruiser carrying it in the combat with the destroyer. The marine moves onto the cruiser but then cannot move off of it as a non combat move right? So if I want to do this move I would have to leave the cruiser out of the combat.
in BM, it is only possible to plunder enemy s capital once per game (per power) ?
in BM, it is only possible to plunder enemy s capital once per game (per power) ?
I’m pretty sure the answer there is yes. It only happens once.
Another question that relates to Vichy and transporting Marines. My understanding is that when you load a combat unit on a transport it must unload as a combat move on that turn if possible (the exception would only be if the landing is blocked at sea).
I’m playing Axis and in a situation where there is a British destroyer in 96 and I want to land in Vichy Syria. However I want to land a marine and I want to use the Cruiser carrying it in the combat with the destroyer. The marine moves onto the cruiser but then cannot move off of it as a non combat move right? So if I want to do this move I would have to leave the cruiser out of the combat.
I am pretty sure you have it correct. Any units loaded during the combat phase must unload for combat. Marines can be loaded on transports if that helps you.
Yeah you need to keep the cruiser out of combat/moving if you want to perform loadings/unloading in the NCM.
No it’s 1 plunder per capital per game. The nation that plunders is irrelevant.
Yeah you need to keep the cruiser out of combat/moving if you want to perform loadings/unloading in the NCM.
No it’s 1 plunder per capital per game. The nation that plunders is irrelevant.
Yes, that is what I meant. Germany can plunder Moscow only once, but Japan can plunder it too (once).
or can not? :|
or can not? :|
If Germany Plunders Russia, then Japan and Italy cannot do it. It only happens once in the game per capital.
Disallowing multiple capital plunders is one of the better innovations in bm.
Perhaps it should be disallowed even the first time, although such a change would be radical for game balance and I can’t see it happening.
The Europe Axis really need plunder money to fuel their objectives.
Disallowing the plunder of capital IPCs would radically change the game. UK could purchase super aggressive turn 1 due to less incentive or possibility of executing a Sea Lion. Without the treasury sack (which is realistic; especially if a nation’s gold reserves were captured), Germany might not be able to push Russia back. No 19 IPCs for capturing Paris; kind of critical for buying transports in the first place.
I think NOs would have to include 10 for capturing London AND 5 for Cairo. After that, vanilla for the rest of game might result in true balance. Only play testing would tell of course.
The Europe Axis really need plunder money to fuel their objectives.
Disallowing the plunder of capital IPCs would radically change the game. UK could purchase super aggressive turn 1 due to less incentive or possibility of executing a Sea Lion. Without the treasury sack (which is realistic; especially if a nation’s gold reserves were captured), Germany might not be able to push Russia back. No 19 IPCs for capturing Paris; kind of critical for buying transports in the first place.
I think NOs would have to include 10 for capturing London AND 5 for Cairo. After that, vanilla for the rest of game might result in true balance. Only play testing would tell of course.
Germany can take (plunder) London, Moscow and Paris.
But Italy and Germany can not (both) take any of these cities.
The Europe Axis really need plunder money to fuel their objectives.
Disallowing the plunder of capital IPCs would radically change the game. UK could purchase super aggressive turn 1 due to less incentive or possibility of executing a Sea Lion. Without the treasury sack (which is realistic; especially if a nation’s gold reserves were captured), Germany might not be able to push Russia back. No 19 IPCs for capturing Paris; kind of critical for buying transports in the first place.
I think NOs would have to include 10 for capturing London AND 5 for Cairo. After that, vanilla for the rest of game might result in true balance. Only play testing would tell of course.
Germany can take (plunder) London, Moscow and Paris.
But Italy and Germany can not (both) take any of these cities.
I am aware of the plunder rules in BM3 as is.
I was conversing in regards to what simon was saying in how not permitting any plunder would radically change the game.
I was conversing in regards to what simon was saying in how not permitting any plunder would radically change the game.
Well it means that Germany has 19IPCs less to spend G2. That would change things up a fair bit.
Yeah, U re both correct.
It would boost allies tremendously.
Some feedback on the stats the triple A client provides
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Italians : 1.83
British : -0.33
Neutral_Allies : -1.33
This information is usually useless because it contains battles like Japan attacking a single inf with 2 inf and 12 planes so it does not matter whether Japan scores 1 or 14 hits in such a battle.
In case the stats should be really providing helpful stats I believe the difference compared to expected TUV of the battle outcomes would make sense.
This would of course mean that the client has to make a simulation of every single battle, not sure if this would eat too much resources.
I am aware that for some types of battles expected TUV is not always accurate but I am certain that statistics would give rough clues how the battles went in comparison to average
I am also aware that in non 100% battles the average TUV is NOT the most likely outcome.
I just think that this would at least give a clue about how the dice went in that turn. The current information is close to useless to me.
What do you think in general?
Some feedback on the stats the triple A client provides
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Italians : 1.83
British : -0.33
Neutral_Allies : -1.33This information is usually useless because it contains battles like Japan attacking a single inf with 2 inf and 12 planes so it does not matter whether Japan scores 1 or 14 hits in such a battle.
In case the stats should be really providing helpful stats I believe the difference compared to expected TUV of the battle outcomes would make sense.
This would of course mean that the client has to make a simulation of every single battle, not sure if this would eat too much resources.I am aware that for some types of battles expected TUV is not always accurate but I am certain that statistics would give rough clues how the battles went in comparison to average
I am also aware that in non 100% battles the average TUV is NOT the most likely outcome.I just think that this would at least give a clue about how the dice went in that turn. The current information is close to useless to me.
What do you think in general?
I agree 100000% The current information is useless. I have asked for the deviation from average TUV to be included, but nothing happened with this. I think this is nice to have and it will show how unlucky/lucky any given player is.
yep, TUV rules!
