oh, d’oh! My mistake.
Huh. I suppose that could work, actually.
Has BM2.0 fixed the SBR AAA and stopped you from choosing the tacs?
Hmm, that’s weird. I just did an SBR with 3 Tacs + SB and it auto selected the 2 of the tacs. Didn’t ask me which ones either.
@Shin:
If they are that cheap, there’s no reason to buy Inf unless you’re going to pair them with Art.
That is a valid criticism - so long as you are using them on the attack.
Would it be better to just have 4IPC cost and no amphibious assault bonus? I also don’t like them counting towards the number of ships able to bombard - perhaps the bombardment should be weaker one point weaker and also reduce the Marine’s attack to zero on the first round if a marine is supporting the bombardment?
If you did that, I reckon they’d be about as perfect a unit as I could dream up.
I’ve got a few games of this going, and I’d have to say I’m finding that it makes a lot of previously dynamic decisions automatic. Some of them:
I’m sure there’s more but I can’t think of them OTOH.
- Concentrate G1 attack on France or diversify to claim more territory. I reckon this is now automatically a claim Normandy but not Sth France
I am still not convinced that in a game of same skilled players the Vichy couldn’t backfire in the long run for the Axis. In my first games I activated it on purpose to see where this leads to, however I will also try to not activate Vichy to evaluate the long term economic advantage Vichy brings for the Allies
- USSR DOW on Japan. Now out to claim a bonus.
I am not convinced yet. Especially as Germans now often delay DOW on Russia. Russian DOW does not change anything in the first place except that Japan then can neglect the Eastern NO without doubling the Persia NO. Still, sacrificing 2 IPC per turn for Russia can be worth it if this means China gets even more nasty for Japan
- USSR Eastern forces defend the east or run back to Moscow? Now automatically run back to Moscow
Not at all! I do not see any reason to retreat those units. According to my experience I consider it almost always bad to send these guys home.
And in case Japan leaves Manchuria and Korea unguarded I do not hesitate to declare war against Japan with Russia.
- Japan DOW on USSR. This one now swings a bit more I guess. Gives some money to USSR but also takes some away. Not really enough to be worthwhile until the dying stages of Moscow’s stand though.
Yes, the DOW is now a bit more expensive. However its also just 2 IPC in general. If Japan DOW they will occupy Amur and the archangel NO can be stopped in most cases anyway. So 2 more IPC from Persia but Japan often easily eats 4 IPC quickly from Russia. So still a very valid option for Japan, especially if Allies focus in Germany early.
^ I’ll take your comment under advisement on the Soviet Eastern troops, but I’m pretty sure that in all of the half dozen BM games I have going where I am axis, the other player has chosen to run those troops home and I’ve chosen not to DOW on them to prevent USSR from getting the bonus. Perhaps a mistake on my part.
A couple of other points:
Does the engine not allow enemy troops to be in a land territory owned by the opposite side like it does dfor sea zones? Is that the reason for British units in Sth France blocking Vichy?
Others have also made the same comments about Vichy but I will be surprised if it isn’t activated every game by the Axis when people are more familiar with BM.
I also want a UK sub in SZ98.
In there a bug in BM mode where the US factories don’t upgrade automatically? I had to do manually when Japan didn’t DOW until turn 4.
In there a bug in BM mode where the US factories don’t upgrade automatically? I had to do manually when Japan didn’t DOW until turn 4.
That has always been there, I assume it gave the 9 unit limit warning and then you edited it yourself, but they upgrade before you place your units anyway.
Thanks Adam, just was worried the designers pulled a fast one and made the US PAY for the upgrade. That would be crazy. :-P
Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4. A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC. For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers. For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.
Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4. A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC. For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers. For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.
With its stats the marine should cost 4, but when you add the ability to be transported on cruisers and BBs the cost needs to be higher to compensate for that ability. They are not cost-efficient units when only looking at its stats (and that is what we were aiming for), but when you have cruisers and BBs close to a factory buying marines is a good option at the current cost of 5.
There are a lot of cruisers and battleships on the board to start
Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4. A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC. For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers. For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.
With its stats the marine should cost 4, but when you add the ability to be transported on cruisers and BBs the cost needs to be higher to compensate for that ability. They are not cost-efficient units when only looking at its stats (and that is what we were aiming for), but when you have cruisers and BBs close to a factory buying marines is a good option at the current cost of 5.
They are awesomely cost efficient from the point of view of the purchaser when doing amphibious assaults. You have to consider not needing to buy transports.
Mad if you didn’t use them.
I still think I’m correct about the balanced mod swinging the advantage back to the Allies (although not as badly as 2nd edition favors the Axis).
I think on average (across all players who’ve played balanced mod in the league), the Axis are played more effectively because it’s easier to play them effectively, thus counterbalancing the Allied advantage
I still think if you had 50 games played between evenly matched excellent, veteran players that the Allies would win a couple more than 25
Almost 140 games played (although BM 1.0 and 2.0 are mixed together), almost equal number of Axis and Allied wins
Definitely an improvement on 2nd edition in several ways, including balance, but thought I’d pre-empt Kid’s (if he’s still around) highlighting the even record at this point :-D with an argument that the “Balanced” mod is a little bit out of balance by giving a couple too many NO’s to the Allies
But hey, it is definitely the best version of A&A that I know of, currently, although AA50 and Spring 1942 are still fantastic for faster and less complex games
Don’t want this point to be missed in my nitpicking -
The balanced mod is great!
gamer can you set up a parallel championship for BM players? so the top 8 overall would as usual qualify for the championship using the 2nd ed “vanilla” version, and then the top 8 players who only want to play BM would play for a parallel championship. Any top player who wants to play both can, and would take priority. for example, some of the masters have taken a liking to BM already, e.g. jdow, so he would qualify to play in both.
cuz i know adam doesn’t wanna play vanilla anymore, and it’d be a shame for him to miss out on the championship. he’s imo the best player around these days.
There can only be one champion…
For the top, main playoff, default has to be 2nd edition because the league rules are set for the year at the onset. I’m not willing to change the game on someone who insists on playing 2nd edition this year because the league rules were set.
I only see 2-3 players right now who are likely to be in the “official” playoff who haven’t posted balanced mod results yet, Zhukov and Me1945 and maybe Alexgreat. I’m hoping everyone in the playoffs will agree to play balanced mod, however, I’m not willing to force anyone to, again, because the league rules were set at the beginning of the year. Top 8 players will likely be adaptable to playing balanced mod if their opponent really wants to play balanced mod, because players like Zhukov and Me1945 are so skilled and experienced it wouldn’t be much of a handicap even if they play the balanced mod for the first time in the playoff.
However, the 2nd and 3rd playoffs (or however many there are) are not to played to determine the league champion for the year, and are primarily for the enjoyment of the players. I would be happy to set up a balanced mod only playoff(s) and 2nd edition default (could still play balanced mod if both players want to) playoff(s) according to the number of signups, but the main playoff needs to be 2nd edition default (balanced mod is fine if both players agree) because otherwise we’re changing the rules in the middle of the year. I know you understand this, and that’s why you’re proposing parallel playoffs, however I hesitate to take away from the top players by diluting it at all from 1 official playoff.
I realize it would be a problem if we have someone who’s been playing balanced mod only for awhile, run up against someone who’s never played it and refuses to play it. However, before the games start and after we know who the top 8 who are participating are, I will ask everyone then about their position on the balanced mod, and think we can resolve this concern before any matches start.
I don’t know if Me1945 or Zhukov or Alexgreat read this thread, so I should talk to them about this. If they are willing to play balanced mod in the playoffs, then there is no issue. If they are not willing, well, their opponent is going to have to play 2nd edition against them. Everyone’s played that one several times.
