I think the Iraq loophole was fun. The African & Med ones were silly.
I’ve now got a fair few BM games played and I still notice a USSR DOW on Japan in a serious minority of games.
BM improves in a lot of areas, like breaking up the Pacific airfields NO in G40 and particularly the SBR rules. It isn’t perfect though.
Why post something on this thread if you don’t care what we think?
We all enjoy posting our thoughts on A&A. Making the case is most of the fun, that’s why.
Assuming things won’t achieve anything.
Do you even realize how condescending you are?
I re-read your last sentence, I don’t see what’s special about it.
Why am I surprised
Why post something on this thread if you don’t care what we think?
We all enjoy posting our thoughts on A&A. Making the case is most of the fun, that’s why.
Assuming things won’t achieve anything.
Do you even realize how condescending you are?
I re-read your last sentence, I don’t see what’s special about it.
Why am I surprised
Adam’s not condescending! He’s just French. :-P
Is that why we have all these complicated Vichy rules? :-)
Ha. No, that was mostly me, with extensive fine tuning by the squad
Back to more important things: any objections (with a reason) as to why we shouldn’t remove the Russian NO for taking Germany?
Reason to remove: useless NO, and takes up space in the objectives tab.
No objection here - I’m all for that
Another question about marines -
Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?
Another question about marines -
Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?
No, it acts like a transport in these cases.
We did the contrary of “manipulating the players into playing the kind of game we want”, so you’ll need to give examples of how we did that if you want us to believe you.
Well sea lion is weaker and barbarossa is stronger although the med is probably more dynamic in BM.
We did the contrary of “manipulating the players into playing the kind of game we want”, so you’ll need to give examples of how we did that if you want us to believe you.
Well sea lion is weaker and barbarossa is stronger although the med is probably more dynamic in BM.
You think Sealion is weaker and Barbarossa is stronger in what version?
In BM Sealion is stronger and Barbarossa close to the same.
I think BM makes Sea Lion weaker, because if you attempt it USSR gets some extra strength. Barbarrossa is made more urgent to whittle down those extra NOs.
I think BM makes Sea Lion weaker, because if you attempt it USSR gets some extra strength. Barbarrossa is made more urgent to whittle down those extra NOs.
How is it different from USSR getting extra strength in vanilla if Sealion happens?
I think BM makes Sea Lion weaker, because if you attempt it USSR gets some extra strength. Barbarrossa is made more urgent to whittle down those extra NOs.
How is it different from USSR getting extra strength in vanilla if Sealion happens?
It is increased by the additional NOs USSR gets in BM. That is what I meant by “extra strength” - extra compared to vanilla.
I think BM makes Sea Lion weaker, because if you attempt it USSR gets some extra strength. Barbarrossa is made more urgent to whittle down those extra NOs.
How is it different from USSR getting extra strength in vanilla if Sealion happens?
It is increased by the additional NOs USSR gets in BM. That is what I meant by “extra strength” - extra compared to vanilla.
In BM London is worth 5 more to Germany, and UK Euro’s income potential is bigger than in vanilla. I think that those are more than enough to counter the few PUs Russia gains (until they would get Iraq and the rest for example).
Another question about marines -
Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?
No, it acts like a transport in these cases.
Rule experts, please expand on this. This is a rule I am not aware of. So this means if you load a transport/cruiser/battleship and move this unit to a seasone where you are unloading other transports/warships all transports/warships must unload all mean in the amphibious assult? Or can this loaded cruiser/BB move to a different sea sone where you are conducting only a naval battle (I assume you can)
If we take this a step further it is possible to have a loaded transport in a sz that has become hostile (f.ex the enemy placed a destroyer there during placement phase). This transport must move and if the only safe location is where you conduct an amphibious assult these men must unload?
Another question about marines -
Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?
No, it acts like a transport in these cases.
Rule experts, please expand on this. This is a rule I am not aware of. So this means if you load a transport/cruiser/battleship and move this unit to a seasone where you are unloading other transports/warships all transports/warships must unload all mean in the amphibious assult? Or can this loaded cruiser/BB move to a different sea sone where you are conducting only a naval battle (I assume you can)
If we take this a step further it is possible to have a loaded transport in a sz that has become hostile (f.ex the enemy placed a destroyer there during placement phase). This transport must move and if the only safe location is where you conduct an amphibious assult these men must unload?
1. All units you load in the combat phase must conduct an amphibious assault (unless you had a half loaded tp before the combat phase). So you can’t load a marine in the combat phase unless you are also unloading it in an enemy territory in the combat phase.
2. No, since the tp was loaded before the combat phase.
thanks
this means that marines can’t be loaded to warships if you want the warship to conduct only a naval battle (no amphibious assult)? However, if the warship was loaded in NCM in an earlier round the loaded warship can participate in naval battles without unloading the marine?
thanks
this means that marines can’t be loaded to warships if you want the warship to conduct only a naval battle (no amphibious assult)? However, if the warship was loaded in NCM in an earlier round the loaded warship can participate in naval battles without unloading the marine?
Exactly.
Has it been considered to make SZ5 a convoy zone?
That’s a another move which deters a USSR DOW on Japan.
