G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

The BM that comes with the global package has the Vichy bug.

@Adam514:

The BM that comes with the global package has the Vichy bug.

Are you sure? I’m pretty sure I’ve applied the fix. Perhaps I haven’t moved on the version number though so it won’t tell you that you need to download the new version. There’s still a few outstanding bug fixes for some other maps that I’m waiting to be applied so that is probably the case.

If the version number is 2.0 you don’t have the fix. If it is 2.1 you do. Unless I’m mistaken.

Yeah I had to update the G40 maps to get it.

Ok, I’ve submitted a pull request to get the version moved on.

I was waiting for another map to be included but it has been 19 days now.

@simon33:

Ok, I’ve submitted a pull request to get the version moved on.

I was waiting for another map to be included but it has been 19 days now.

I don’t quite understand, the version that are included in the Global pack have a working Vichy. I think you just need to click on ‘‘download maps’’ and then update the G40 pack.

While I can update the current version, there is an additional update that needs to be made to tell Triple-A that it needs to re-download the map. Thankfully, that update has been made now.

USA not getting NO for owning Holland and Normandy, with one or more land units in either: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38899.105

@simon33:

USA not getting NO for owning Holland and Normandy, with one or more land units in either: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=38899.105

Yeah, I have no idea what’s causing that. I checked to see if it was a problem with marines but it isn’t, and even with S France being US the objective still doesn’t work.

Except for the fact that the NO doesn’t work with only a marine on the territories, the NO works fine with all BM versions I have. I also tested to see if the NO was working earlier in your game, and it works on US2. So it’s a bug, I don’t think there’s anything that can be done.

Japan can’t launch a kamikaze attack when an allied marine is getting off a different ally’s cruiser/battleship, right?

It’s a similar situation to scrambling vs Allied units unloading from a different Ally’s tp without ship or air protection, so while Japan still has kamikaze tokens, Allies can’t unload marines in the combat phase from a friendly cruiser/bb other than their own into a kamikaze zone.

Thanks for the answer, but that doesn’t make sense.  Shouldn’t Japan have to at least spend a kamikaze?  Kamikaze rules require the combat movement of an enemy ship into the zone.
It appears the balanced mod rules for marines never anticipated this question.  Is that the answer of the mod squad, or just what you think?

The reason you can’t unload from an ally’s transport without ship or air protection against a scramble is because there actually IS a scramble.  The defender has to say “I’m scrambling a plane to stop your amphibious assault”

You’re telling me just having a kamikaze in the bank stops all Allied marines unloading from allied cruisers/battleships, without the Japanese player having to actually send a kamikaze?  I don’t think so.  If that’s the rule the balanced mod group came up with, it should be changed.

I understand what Adam is saying. If someone gets off an allied transport into a scramble, the scramble can’t hit the transport but the amphibious assault is stopped unless the scrambled fighter is downed.

The same logic should apply IMO.

However, the mod squad may take a different view, which is what Gamerman01 is saying.

@simon33:

I understand what Adam is saying. If someone gets off an allied transport into a scramble, the scramble can’t hit the transport but the amphibious assault is stopped unless the scrambled fighter is downed.

The same logic should apply IMO.

However, the mod squad may take a different view, which is what Gamerman01 is saying.

I edited my response probably while you were typing this.

It’s not the same as a scramble against a transport, because no kamikaze is even being spent.  A plane is actually scrambled in the other situation.

That has been our rule for lobby games in any case. I’m not sure how it doesn’t make sense, since it’s nearly the same situation as an undefended friendly tp unloading in a scramble zone, which is illegal. I don’t understand what you mean by kamis requiring combat movement into the zone.

Simply put, you can’t allow a situation where a friendly unit can participate in combat (die) when it isn’t its turn.

No a plane is never scrambled, the move is illegal because a plane can be scrambled, that’s the difference. Or else Japan would spend 1 kami per turn per marine on a friendly bb/cruiser because of the possibility of unloading it in a kami zone?

@Adam514:

No a plane is never scrambled, the move is illegal because a plane can be scrambled, that’s the difference. Or else Japan would spend 1 kami per turn per marine on a friendly bb/cruiser because of the possibility of unloading it in a kami zone?

That’s not quite correct BTW. IIRC Kreighund has clarified that the scramble blocks the assault, not that it is illegal. So if the territory with the airbase is also attacked the assault could at least tie up a defending plane or the defender could chose to allow it.

It is similar if the defender wins the sea combat in any way, normally by a scramble but could also be an allied mobilisation I guess.