and yes we’re currently negotiating a 4th game, but this time with some small tweaks we’d like to try out that might make it a bit more interesting and different.
League General Discussion Thread
-
@barnee said in League General Discussion Thread:
@Panther said in League General Discussion Thread:
And PbF works just fine.
so works like it used to ?
Yes, see: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40008/testthread-posting-issue/7
-
@ All
Please use the TripleA support category
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/28/triplea-support
to further discuss TripleA related topics.I just wanted to inform the league players about the new version and did not intend to distract from league topics.
Thank you.
-
@Panther said in League General Discussion Thread:
@ All
Please use the TripleA support category
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/28/triplea-support
to further discuss TripleA related topics.I just wanted to inform the league players about the new version and did not intend to distract from league topics.
Thank you.
sorry panther and thanks
-
anyone know why in bm4 UK pac on turn 1 would not get their NO for no subs in the indian ocean, even tho all the conditions are met? they’re not at war yet, but the wording doesn’t require them to be at war with japan. it’s something i never noticed before, is it a bug or am i missing something here?
and here’s the game thread, it’s a team game with my cousins and one of them noticed it: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40795/bm4-cousins-team-game-2024-1?_=1714352206348
only thing i can think of is that since they’re not at war yet, they can’t possibly have enemy subs that would violate this NO… but seems to me it should be more explicitly worded and made clearer in that case
-
@axis-dominion I think it is the issue that you are not at war so Japanese subs are not enemy ones. But since there are enemy subs (German or Italian) that could hypothetically reach before one is at war with Japan, the text could be clarified. But I’m sure Adam can confirm/correct what I’m saying.
-
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
anyone know why in bm4 UK pac on turn 1 would not get their NO for no subs in the indian ocean, even tho all the conditions are met? they’re not at war yet, but the wording doesn’t require them to be at war with japan. it’s something i never noticed before, is it a bug or am i missing something here?
and here’s the game thread, it’s a team game with my cousins and one of them noticed it: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40795/bm4-cousins-team-game-2024-1?_=1714352206348
only thing i can think of is that since they’re not at war yet, they can’t possibly have enemy subs that would violate this NO… but seems to me it should be more explicitly worded and made clearer in that case
There should be an at war clause as well.
-
@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
anyone know why in bm4 UK pac on turn 1 would not get their NO for no subs in the indian ocean, even tho all the conditions are met? they’re not at war yet, but the wording doesn’t require them to be at war with japan. it’s something i never noticed before, is it a bug or am i missing something here?
and here’s the game thread, it’s a team game with my cousins and one of them noticed it: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40795/bm4-cousins-team-game-2024-1?_=1714352206348
only thing i can think of is that since they’re not at war yet, they can’t possibly have enemy subs that would violate this NO… but seems to me it should be more explicitly worded and made clearer in that case
There should be an at war clause as well.
It’s what I always assumed but never bothered to check, took a newbie cousin to point it out since of course he’s reading and learning the objectives for the first time. Ok thanks for confirming!
-
@Adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
anyone know why in bm4 UK pac on turn 1 would not get their NO for no subs in the indian ocean, even tho all the conditions are met? they’re not at war yet, but the wording doesn’t require them to be at war with japan. it’s something i never noticed before, is it a bug or am i missing something here?
and here’s the game thread, it’s a team game with my cousins and one of them noticed it: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40795/bm4-cousins-team-game-2024-1?_=1714352206348
only thing i can think of is that since they’re not at war yet, they can’t possibly have enemy subs that would violate this NO… but seems to me it should be more explicitly worded and made clearer in that case
There should be an at war clause as well.
maybe you guys can correct it in bm4.2, and while you’re at it make the battleships cost 18 and cruisers 11 like in ptv, or better yet, 16 and 10. :)
-
While that request is sitting there,
Tacs to 10, Fighters to 11 please
Maybe even subs to 7
Bombers to 13I know my dreams will never come to fruition, so maybe I’ll get somebody cool like @oysteilo to play it with me
AD, cruisers might be OK at 12 if they are given anti-submarine capabilities of destroyers (along with marines being in play)
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
While that request is sitting there,
Tacs to 10, Fighters to 11 please
Maybe even subs to 7
Bombers to 13I know my dreams will never come to fruition, so maybe I’ll get somebody cool like @oysteilo to play it with me
AD, cruisers might be OK at 12 if they are given anti-submarine capabilities of destroyers (along with marines being in play)
U re my man. Been saying all that a long time ago.
Maybe i would not lower down bombers to 13, especially if fighters go to 11.
As for the ships, battleship is definitely too expensive with 20, and cruiser offers too little for 12 (comparing to dd).
I also think mech infantry are bought in such big masses. Maybe move them towards 5 IPC and give them some little boost ?
-
I mean,
why would marine cost 5, and mech infantry 4?
-
@Amon-Sul
OK…You’ll like this idea, then.
Double all costs and income items, then you can fine-tune them all!
For example, infantry cost 6 (2 X 3), then you can make mech 9 (2 X 4.5)
Or in other words, effectively make mech 4.5To make bombers 13.5, you would have them cost 27
You could also fine-tune the values of territories in the same way, if you double everything.
Just may be a real pain in Triple A unless you get them to alter the coding for you. -
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
@Amon-Sul
OK…You’ll like this idea, then.
Double all costs and income items, then you can fine-tune them all!
For example, infantry cost 6 (2 X 3), then you can make mech 9 (2 X 4.5)
Or in other words, effectively make mech 4.5To make bombers 13.5, you would have them cost 27
You could also fine-tune the values of territories in the same way, if you double everything.
Just may be a real pain in Triple A unless you get them to alter the coding for you.i mean it’s fun to think about all kinds of alternatives, but i was more just wanting to keep it super simple: 1) battleships and cruisers are easily the least bought units, especially in higher ranked competitive games where optimal purchases/plays is crucial 2) we have some indication/data from PTV that the changes are good or at least have become normalized/accepted and 3) why not have the two “sister” games further aligned, especially if it can enhance bm… just seems like a win-win. i think other changes might be a lot more impactful, eg lowering tp cost to 6 prob would require more testing. bumping up mechs and then enhancing them in the same way as PTV seems like too big of a change as well. but i don’t see lowering those two ships as being a huge impact, but would help add some variety and make them at least viable/somewhat more useful.
-
@axis-dominion
What you’re saying, put another way, isit totally stinks that naval warship purchase choices are effectively subs, destroyers, or carriers
And in actual practice, destroyer purchases are kept to the minimum that is perceived as necessary.
So two (2) choices lol
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
@axis-dominion
What you’re saying, put another way, isit totally stinks that naval warship purchase choices are effectively subs, destroyers, or carriers
And in actual practice, destroyer purchases are kept to the minimum that is perceived as necessary.
So two (2) choices lol
yes lol you got it!!
-
@regularkid and @Adam514 we have some requests for bm4.2, see below… i think many in the community would like to see battleships and cruisers have the same price improvements as ptv
-
@axis-dominion said in League General Discussion Thread:
@regularkid and @Adam514 we have some requests for bm4.2, see below… i think many in the community would like to see battleships and cruisers have the same price improvements as ptv
and also fig - tac correction
if possible
-
@Amon-Sul said in [League General Discussion Thread]
and also fig - tac correction
if possible
Meaning fighters to 11 and tacs down to 10?
I hope there are several others who agree and that this could just maybe possibly be adjusted.
And I’m not even talking about PtV where I have no recent experience, but it would seem with so many additional scramble opportunities that a 10% increase in fighter cost could be an improvement there also
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in [League General Discussion Thread]
and also fig - tac correction
if possible
Meaning fighters to 11 and tacs down to 10?
I hope there are several others who agree and that this could just maybe possibly be adjusted.
And I’m not even talking about PtV where I have no recent experience, but it would seem with so many additional scramble opportunities that a 10% increase in fighter cost could be an improvement there also
yes i agree that figs and tacs shouldnt cost the same.
Fig can intercept, is more useful on ACs / airfields etc.
I am of course speaking about BM ,
minimum is making figs and tacs cost even, and that should be 11, not 10
-
Fighters @10 and Bombers @ 12 are carryovers from AA50, but airbases were added for G40, therefore, fighters and bombers each became more powerful, but especially fighters.
Bomber cost has been house-ruled up 16.7% and no one’s been complaining, though 13 would seem to me to be the happy middle ground.
Wait… if the cost of fighters would be raised to 11 then more bombers would be purchased at 14. My opponents almost never buy any bombers at all. Boring.So, I’m saying airbases give a bigger boost to the value of fighters than even to bombers, and bomber cost has been house-ruled up 16.7% but fighters no change (0%). Hmmm
@axis-dominion
Cruisers @ 12 and Battleships @ 20 also carryovers from AA50 and there were complaints about no new purchases for them.
Suggested Topics
