Why is a J1 attack more optimal in vanilla than in BM? On paper, the only real distinctions I can see is that attacking J1 vs J2 in OOB vs BM3 means:
UK gets its Indian Ocean objective UK1: +3IPC to UK_Pac
USA gets its airbase objective US1: +5IPC to USA
ANZAC gets its convoy lane objective but 2 less from the strategic islands objective: +1IPC to ANZAC (or +3 if they claim Java instead of the strategic islands)
Japan gets its home island objective: +3IPC to JapanSurely the small number of IPCs changed in the Pacific doesn’t change that much. What am I missing here?
J1 is by far the best in vanilla, in BM we strived to make them closer in effectiveness, which meant reducing J1.
Why is a J1 attack more optimal in vanilla than in BM? On paper, the only real distinctions I can see is that attacking J1 vs J2 in OOB vs BM3 means:
UK gets its Indian Ocean objective UK1: +3IPC to UK_Pac
USA gets its airbase objective US1: +5IPC to USA
ANZAC gets its convoy lane objective but 2 less from the strategic islands objective: +1IPC to ANZAC (or +3 if they claim Java instead of the strategic islands)
Japan gets its home island objective: +3IPC to JapanSurely the small number of IPCs changed in the Pacific doesn’t change that much. What am I missing here?
J1 is by far the best in vanilla, in BM we strived to make them closer in effectiveness, which meant reducing J1.
interesting, what are the arguments for this? Why is J1 BY FAR the best option in OOB and what does BM do making J3 (or even J4) just as good as J1. I am not saying you are wrong, i am just curious on your argumentation here
It leads to the easiest and quickest Axis victories, even with bids designed to discourage it.
BM makes Italy a more important Axis power with more potential than in vanilla, but they are still vulnerable if the US gets into the Med early, such as in a J1DOW. J1DOW is mostly counterbalanced by the loss of Italian effectiveness in BM.
It leads to the easiest and quickest Axis victories, even with bids designed to discourage it.
BM makes Italy a more important Axis power with more potential than in vanilla, but they are still vulnerable if the US gets into the Med early, such as in a J1DOW. J1DOW is mostly counterbalanced by the loss of Italian effectiveness in BM.
I haven’t thought about it like this, but I still dont buy/understand your argumentation fully. You say Italy is vulnerable, even more so in OOB than in BM. I agree with that, then you say J1 is less good in BM compared to OOB because Italy becomes less effective in BM? How does that come about when you say Italy is stronger in BM? I guess it has something to do with the additional objectives for the allies, but please explain further for those of us who are not enlightened
I say that Italy has more potential in BM than in vanilla, but that bringing US in the war early due to a J1DOW blocks their expansion just the same as in vanilla. In vanilla the Med wasn’t worth as much, and Italy could do its share of the work by making can openers and defending the coast. In BM that would be a waste for the Axis, who probably would’t be able to achieve the economic advantage without Italy’s contribution in the Med.
I say that Italy has more potential in BM than in vanilla, but that bringing US in the war early due to a J1DOW blocks their expansion just the same as in vanilla. In vanilla the Med wasn’t worth as much, and Italy could do its share of the work by making can openers and defending the coast. In BM that would be a waste for the Axis, who probably would’t be able to achieve the economic advantage without Italy’s contribution in the Med.
fair enough. I guess it is “never” wrong for usa to go 99% atlantic in two first round? No matter what axis does?
If Germany buys navy, I think rushing Europe is the wrong move.
Yeah, the problem with Atlantic Navy in US1 is that the navy is idle in case Japan does not declare war to the Allies. Pacific purchases can always do something as they can be brought in position.
I am starting to think the axis are still overpowered in BM3. Against very scripted axis play it is extremely difficult to go anywhere with the allies. Japan is basically impossible for the allies to take down without catastrophic consequences in Europe. Japan is very good at protecting its units and is hardly loosing anything else than infantry in the early rounds. Likewise, for Germany it is impossible to stop Caucasus/Volgograd in round (6) 7. A Germany at full speed making 75+ is trouble any day of the week. In a lot of cases the med islands are axis controlled too and this makes for axis parity in income, or at least the gap is not big. If the allies are to retake all three islands it requires a lot of lost momentum elsewhere, or to send in defenseless transports with loss of momentum that way. My prediction is we will start to see bids for allies soon (I already have seen one game, but not sure the reason for this bid though)
Japan is strong but it faces 5 powers against itself.
20 Soviet ground units, bunch of Chinese guys, Chinese guerilla, UK Pacific land, air and navy, ANZAC, and the mighty USA that can strike sz 6 with planes from LA.
Japan is strong but it faces 5 powers against itself.
20 Soviet ground units, bunch of Chinese guys, Chinese guerilla, UK Pacific land, air and navy, ANZAC, and the mighty USA that can strike sz 6 with planes from LA.
That’s right. And those smaller allies shouldn’t be afraid to chip away
I agree with oystello.
I note that a bm playoff game has a bid of allies plus ten.
What is changed in bm is that you are more punished for getting off the script. In vanilla, if you don’t get on BElarus g4, ussr are probably only making 25 with no NOs. In bm, add 7 per turn from nos.this extra money then makes it more difficult to get to Bryansk on later turns.
Similar with Calcutta. If they keep living, they keep getting objective income.
It leads to the easiest and quickest Axis victories, even with bids designed to discourage it.
BM makes Italy a more important Axis power with more potential than in vanilla, but they are still vulnerable if the US gets into the Med early, such as in a J1DOW. J1DOW is mostly counterbalanced by the loss of Italian effectiveness in BM.
Re: The J1 DOW still being optimal even with bids designed to discourage it, I don’t reckon that applies to the Yunnan stack strategy, with 2 planes and a ground unit bid getting to Yunnan J1, the Japanese need to avoid hitting that territory. If they J1, I don’t know how Japan has enough to put enough pressure on Yunnan to avoid it being held the next turn also. Then later turns are also trouble.
Perhaps I’m wrong but times I’ve seen a J1 DOW against the Yunnan stack strategy it has gone very badly for Japan. Can you give me an example where it’s gone in the Axis’ favour?
Against a Yunnan bid stack especially I J1, and ignore it in favour of India.
Ok. Do you have an example?
You can find that in playoff games mostly. I have no examples on me.
Just for the record, I don’t accept your implied assertion that a J1 DOW is optimal in the face of a significant Yunnan stack. The only other way land based fighters can support an amphibious assault on India is if Shan State (or Burma) is held, so you might be talking about an all amphibious assault on India - perhaps around J5?
We’ll just agree to disagree on that one I guess.
Just for the record, I don’t accept your implied assertion that a J1 DOW is optimal in the face of a significant Yunnan stack. The only other way land based fighters can support an amphibious assault on India is if Shan State (or Burma) is held, so you might be talking about an all amphibious assault on India - perhaps around J5?
We’ll just agree to disagree on that one I guess.
No, no, no, agree to disagree in a league game! Take it to the dice for vindication! KILL KILL KILL
I’d be up but I think I’d need a bid of like 60 to compensate for the tactical mistakes that I am sure that I would make, and the initial axis advantage. Perhaps 50 if we house rule BM SBR rules. And Adam514 has said that he’s done with vanilla.
Just had a victory conditions question that applies both to the regular game and BM3. The rules say
“To win with the following victory conditions, a side must maintain it for a complete round of play ….”
What happens if Japan gets its final capital in the Pacific, Germany is taken in the following turn and then taken back by Italy. Is what matters that on the next Japan turn it has the victory conditions or that it holds them continuously through a full turn.
And secondly I assume that if Axis get the final city and lose it, the process restarts. So If Sydney is taken, but then taken back by the allies, Japan taking it back means that another turn must go where the Axis maintain the victory conditions before Axis wins.
Karl the similarities between this question and our game are purely coincidental. :)
