2017 League General Discussion Thread

[gamerman01]

@Adam514:

What’s also interesting is that tier 1 has a better win % than tier E!

This is because this data is only for opponents within 1 tier.

Tier E data includes playing tier M, tier E, and tier 1
Tier 1 data includes playing tier E, tier 1, and tier 2

The analysis was to look at whether the Axis or Allies win more, not to compare tiers.

[Karl7]

Having played the most BM games second only to Simon (I think that’s right), I’d say there is an Allied advantage.  Not huge or fatal, but one that grows over the course of the game.  If the Axis get stalled early, it’s probably lights out.

Instead of bid for Axis, I’d say Axis should get maybe a mulligan for G1 or something. In my current game w/Wheatbeer, Germany AND Italy got badly mauled by dice setting them too far back probably for victory.  A mulligan or reroll for Axis only would go a long way to countering this.

[Gargantua]

@Karl7:

Having played the most BM games second only to Simon (I think that’s right), I’d say there is an Allied advantage.  Not huge or fatal, but one that grows over the course of the game.  If the Axis get stalled early, it’s probably lights out.

Instead of bid for Axis, I’d say Axis should get maybe a mulligan for G1 or something. In my current game w/Wheatbeer, Germany AND Italy got badly mauled by dice setting them too far back probably for victory.  A mulligan or reroll for Axis only would go a long way to countering this.

Wheatbeer is enjoying the taste of those tears hahaha

[Karl7]

@Gargantua:

@Karl7:

Having played the most BM games second only to Simon (I think that’s right), I’d say there is an Allied advantage.  Not huge or fatal, but one that grows over the course of the game.  If the Axis get stalled early, it’s probably lights out.

Instead of bid for Axis, I’d say Axis should get maybe a mulligan for G1 or something. In my current game w/Wheatbeer, Germany AND Italy got badly mauled by dice setting them too far back probably for victory.  A mulligan or reroll for Axis only would go a long way to countering this.

Wheatbeer is enjoying the taste of those tears hahaha

I hope it tastes like pilsner…

[simon33]

@Karl7:

Having played the most BM games second only to Simon (I think that’s right), I’d say there is an Allied advantage.  Not huge or fatal, but one that grows over the course of the game.  If the Axis get stalled early, it’s probably lights out.

Instead of bid for Axis, I’d say Axis should get maybe a mulligan for G1 or something. In my current game w/Wheatbeer, Germany AND Italy got badly mauled by dice setting them too far back probably for victory.  A mulligan or reroll for Axis only would go a long way to countering this.

I would concur about the Allies having the edge, at least against the standard Axis strategy of G3/J2 DOW. I would wonder if a G2 DOW would work out better with the changes in BM3 but I haven’t mastered the nuances of this move; far from it before anyone says so.

I still feel that there is an advance in Allied strategy possible, I just haven’t mastered the nuances. I would tend to doubt too many advances for the Axis; their strategy is well developed.

Can’t say I like the idea of a mulligan. I’d much rather just trim back some of the extra Allied NOs in BM.

[gamerman01]

@simon33:

Can’t say I like the idea of a mulligan. I’d much rather just trim back some of the extra Allied NOs in BM.

Yeah, I agree with you, although Karl’s right that the round 1 dice are major, no matter what version you’re playing

There was a modest over-compensation for the Axis advantage of 2nd edition, which is what I thought when I first saw the BM rules and has been proven true.  Just play without a couple of NO’s, which is what I’ve done before.

Prime candidates for removal, in my opinion
+3 for India for the Indian Ocean subs etc
+5 for USA for North Africa
+3 or +6 for Russia’s Persia route
Undo the China changes and give them the +6 NO back
+3 UK Malta Cyprus Med NO

I’m not saying remove all of them at once, just a few examples off the top of my head for Allied advantages that could be rolled back to get closer to balanced.  I mean, as opposed to bidding units, bid for NO removal, is my suggestion.

[simon33]

Getting rid of the Chinese guerrilla fighters however desirable that might be is not really an evolution in BM though. It’s really a restart of the mod. I don’t think that would get off the ground given how happy people are with the mod.

BTW, Persia is only +2/+4.

I’d keep the +2 for Persia, just remove the Japan DOW bonus from it and Archangel. I’d also keep UK Malta/Crete/Cyprus.

Totally agree on USA North Africa! What’s the basis of that idea anyway?

[gamerman01]

You think one of the reasons people are happy with the mod is the Chinese guerilla fighters?  I doubt it  :-)

[gamerman01]

@simon33:

Totally agree on USA North Africa! What’s the basis of that idea anyway?

Well, it does encourage historical play

[Adam514]

Without the North Africa NO US is basically the same as vanilla US for half the match.

It contributes to making the Med interesting since usually Axis leaves the French North African territories alone. Now there’s something more to consider.

[Karl7]

Hmm, I’d say the Chinese guerrillas are the one thing that could be paired back.  It is a super pain in the ass for Japan and ties up a ton of units beyond reason– 12 terr=36IPCs of inf to keep it quelled.

If getting rid of that it is undesirable, maybe you could give the Axis 1 more NO out of the gate?  I know that’s like adding more weight to balance the foundering ship. But maybe give Germany a +5 for Romania or something?  Romania was far more important IMO than Norway.

Also, for fun, give Axis +5 for control of London.  Getting rid of that NO was insane.  Does anyone doubt that capturing London would have been one of the greatest Axis achievements ever?  Larry obviously understood its importance in that its capture rescinds the US,USSR diplomatic restrictions. So why then take away the NO?  Defeating the UK should be a monumental achievement of allied shattering consequence!

[Adam514]

@Karl7:

Hmm, I’d say the Chinese guerrillas are the one thing that could be paired back.  It is a super pain in the ass for Japan and ties up a ton of units beyond reason– 12 terr=36IPCs of inf to keep it quelled.

If getting rid of that it is undesirable, maybe you could give the Axis 1 more NO out of the gate?  I know that’s like adding more weight to balance the foundering ship. But maybe give Germany a +5 for Romania or something?  Romania was far more important IMO than Norway.

Also, for fun, give Axis +5 for control of London.  Getting rid of that NO was insane.  Does anyone doubt that capturing London would have been one of the greatest Axis achievements ever?   Larry obviously understood its importance in that its capture rescinds the US,USSR diplomatic restrictions. So why then take away the NO?   Defeating the UK should be a monumental achievement of allied shattering consequence!

You may want to reread the NOs regarding London  :wink:.

[variance]

What if ungarrisoned Chinese territories become Chinese at the start of China’s turn, but no infantry on them.

[Karl7]

@Adam514:

@Karl7:

Hmm, I’d say the Chinese guerrillas are the one thing that could be paired back.  It is a super pain in the ass for Japan and ties up a ton of units beyond reason– 12 terr=36IPCs of inf to keep it quelled.

If getting rid of that it is undesirable, maybe you could give the Axis 1 more NO out of the gate?  I know that’s like adding more weight to balance the foundering ship. But maybe give Germany a +5 for Romania or something?  Romania was far more important IMO than Norway.

Also, for fun, give Axis +5 for control of London.  Getting rid of that NO was insane.  Does anyone doubt that capturing London would have been one of the greatest Axis achievements ever?   Larry obviously understood its importance in that its capture rescinds the US,USSR diplomatic restrictions. So why then take away the NO?   Defeating the UK should be a monumental achievement of allied shattering consequence!

You may want to reread the NOs regarding London  :wink:.

Oh, did I overlook something?

[Karl7]

HA!

Shows you how well I can read!

:mrgreen:

[simon33]

@Gamerman01:

You think one of the reasons people are happy with the mod is the Chinese guerilla fighters?  I doubt it  :-)

Hardly.

People are happy with the mod because they are finding it pretty close to balanced. A major contributor to the balance is the weakening of Japan by the institution of the guerrilla fighters. No one really likes that instrument yet they are happy with what it achieves.

@variance:

What if ungarrisoned Chinese territories become Chinese at the start of China’s turn, but no infantry on them.

I think that would be better although it won’t work if there is an AA gun or a plane on that territory.

@Adam514:

Without the North Africa NO US is basically the same as vanilla US for half the match.

It contributes to making the Med interesting since usually Axis leaves the French North African territories alone. Now there’s something more to consider.

That only works if Vichy has never been in effect.

[simon33]

Hold on, I’ve just checked and if Vichy is not effect, USA only has to land one inf on Morocco to claim the NO.

[oysteilo]

This is how it should be:

Germany stays as OOB (can include london OR Egypt for  +5)
Soviet Union: Please remove the lend lease, it is so poor. Add +3 for novgorod and + 3 for ukraine. I would also like to see +3 for Iraq or add +3 for no allied units. The archangel should be +5
Japan: OOB
USA: OOB + BM
British: OOB + both sub objectives
Italy: OOB + all 3 med islands +3
Anzac: OOB + the gilbert objective

[oysteilo]

@oysteilo:

This is how it should be:

Germany stays as OOB (can include london OR Egypt for  +5)
Soviet Union: Please remove the lend lease, it is so poor. Add +3 for novgorod and + 3 for ukraine. I would also like to see +3 for Iraq or add +3 for no allied units. The archangel should be +5
Japan: OOB
USA: OOB + BM
British: OOB + both sub objectives
Italy: OOB + all 3 med islands +3
Anzac: OOB + the gilbert objective

not play tested though……  :-D :-D :-D

[farmboy]

Rule question. A destroyer is attacked by subs. Fighters scramble in defense. The attacker hits the lone destroyer. In the next round where there are only fighters present for the defender and subs for the attacker, is the attacker deemed to have won (and so stuck in the new sea zone) or can they still retreat?