Technology rules

@Amon-Sul:

@Marshmallow:

Exactly so.

It’s house rules.

what about 2nd edition? it is also an upgrade of it`s own.

yes, BM adds some more stuff, but i would say a lot more than just a house rule, since half the people play it.

If you discount the players in league (2016) standings who only played like 3-5 games, than there were about 50 players. However, there are probably around 1000 players throughout the world who play Global 40 2nd ed. (I can’t find the metric for 2017 league standings). In the Global 40 forum section, there are hundreds of threads and posts by people who haven’t played BM3 yet.

Not everyone who even comes to the site plays triplea live, let alone pbem, let alone league. Also, when league players call an Axis and Allies game that is respected and religiously played by serious regulars “vanilla,” it might come across as snobbish. Even if not intended to.

I’m trying to learn BM3. To me it’s a different game. And my jury is still out on whether or not I will like it. Played 150+ games of G40 2. A difference I’ve noticed for instance is I don’t see the majority of players do Tobruk or Taranto compared to Global 40. In G40 2, protecting Cairo is decisive. BM3 permits the UK more options. And even in this thread, right away buying a marine changes the game drastically. Now a cruiser has become a transport. Also, how many people do a J1 DOW in BM3 compared to Global 40? Not many.

Huh.  Thanks Wittman.  Maybe TripleA confused me on that one.  Can’t recall if it actually happened or if I was concerned that it might happen.  Either way, I know now.

Awesome thank you all for the clarification!

To be fair, this is why you never ever ever send carriers anywhere without a destroyer. The same problem happens if you send a carrier plus fighters to attack submarines. Since the carrier doesn’t roll attack dice and the fighters can’t hit the submarines, you just have infinite rounds of combat until the subs either sink the carrier or the units retreat.

This is also why it is recommend that when playing the pacific side as either Japan or the US, you purchase at least one sub for every carrier that the other side purchases.

You should also never tip your carriers on defense if you have no where for your planes to land, since the attacker will almost always retreat and watch your planes crash into the ocean for free.

@creeping-deth87:

I’m surprised there isn’t a more definitive answer. I CAN’T be the first person to think of doing this.

I’m not seeing anything in the rules that would disallow it. A carrier is a valid landing space for any fighter or tac bomber, the rules don’t mention ensuring sufficient capacity for landings.

It is pretty much definitive. It says you can’t send them on suicide missions (or some wording akin to that).

As the others have mentioned. You need to have a potential landing spot to send aircraft to fight. If only having 2 potential landing spots (assuming perfect rolls), you can only dedicate two air planes.

@Pelanderfunk:

The Soviets get a 5 IPC bonus for being at war. In all of the global games I’ve played so far, the Soviet player has simply “declared war” on Japan on R1, regardless of whether or not they had plans to attack.

Is there any reason that the Soviets wouldn’t declare war on Japan as soon as they can? Is there any reason that being “at war” is a requirement of this NO if the Soviets can always be at war?

This has been addressed in the FAQ thread.  The Soviets have to be at war with either Germany or Italy in order to receive the 5 IPC bonus.  Of course, it would have been nice for the rulebook to say this directly.

Yes, one sub can reach it and that one should be moved there. Combine it with a massive move to Carolines and from there you can pick Hawaii, most ANZAC territories, most of DEI, Phillipines, etc.