@Gamerman01:
I don’t understand the idea that more income is needed from all over the Pacific. �By the way, I often took Paulau, the Marianas, the Carolines and the Marshalls before there was an NO for them. �It protected zone 33 a lot from Japanese air
Again I totally disagree that any part of the Pacific near Japan “lacks importance”. �That statement, along with your statement about Med islands lacking strategic importance, kind of blows my mind coming from someone who has so much success
You want to encourage a J1? �That’s easy, just let Japan collect the oil trade with the USA on J1 even if they declare war. �The idea being that they still traded with the USA right up to sucker punching them. �If that’s not enough, do something else too.
I am also mystified by your interest in helping Japan have multiple fleets.� They don’t already?� Are you one of those players (I saw two good players do this once, against each other) who goes around taking 1 island at a time with the whole fleet so that you never sacrifice a single transport?� In my most recent game, my opponent was able to float about 4 separate Japanese fleets safely.� We must be experiencing very, very different styles of games.� But please don’t go crazy with BM trying to incentivize everything you think of.� And remove that crazy Crete NO, pleeeeeease - Z99 is over the top crazy in BM2.0
And that’s the only use of taking those islands. In the vast majority of cases it’s a waste of time and tps to take them. Even with the BM NO I don’t see them fought over in most games, perhaps 20% of them.
It’s always relative. What can US achieve by going North instead of staying South? My answer is really not much, and they stand to lose the threat on the DEI if they go North. The small Iwo Jima NO would hardly impact this at all if it were implemented. Like I said earlier, the main reason is to put earlier JDOWs on more even footing with J3.
The change would also have to impact J2 DOW. I think the Iwo Jima NO is something else, and I don’t quite understand your vehemence against it.
It’s not helping Japan have multiple fleets, it’s more to have a different setup of opposing fleets. At the moment it’s nearly always Carolines or Queens vs Philippines or Malaya/Java, and the only islands being truly fought over are the DEI. The Iwo Jima NO could spice it up a bit.
I sacrifice a lot of Anzac tps to take islands, but I’m a bit more protective of US tps. I’ll make the move that I think is the most efficient, and I’ve never thought that taking the islands surrounding Carolines would be the most efficient move to make in vanilla.
That’s the approach I took to coming up with all the current BM NOs. After fixing early GDOWs and JDOWs I can’t think of anything else worthy to add.
What is crazy with the Crete NO? And the income swing for Z99 is only 5 PUs. That’s hardly over the top considering you need 2 tps to take them, and that zone is often covered by UK air.
There’s no need to worry, I won’t add or change something that goes against what the majority want, even if I think it’s a good modification.