@wittmann:
I think America’s income is easily stifled from the start . It takes too long to get to 80, while Japan can still have 70 by T3. Guam is often taken early and capturing NAfrica is hard , as Taranto amd Tobruk are both not possible, without a Sub in 98. Anerica is playing catch up economically and I think it should be quicker.
I won’t play a BM game as Allies , if the Axis player won’t forfeit the 3 NO for Iwo Jima or the 2 fot the Balkans.
I like so much about BM. But also dislike a few things.
Just imagine what it was like in vanilla :lol:.
@wittmann:
I think America’s income is easily stifled from the start . It takes too long to get to 80, while Japan can still have 70 by T3. Guam is often taken early and capturing NAfrica is hard , as Taranto amd Tobruk are both not possible, without a Sub in 98. Anerica is playing catch up economically and I think it should be quicker.
I won’t play a BM game as Allies , if the Axis player won’t forfeit the 3 NO for Iwo Jima or the 2 fot the Balkans.
I like so much about BM. But also dislike a few things.
the statistics speak for themselves. Allies win most BM games (albeit by a slim statistical margin). there doesn’t really seem to be a need to boost the allies further. if anything, it should go other way.
In addition to kid’s comment, I’m not sure why getting to 80 income as usa is particularly important. Also not sure why those two objectives annoy you so much.
I don’t know what you mean about being easily stifled. Usa rarely gets below 70 income once at war.
I do not have problem with BM.
And for those who have, just use the bid.
It brings more joy to the game 8-) :lol:
apologies if this is not the right thread. I just wanted to make sure I understood the Vichy rules and wasn’t sure where to post.
If a UK ship joins the French fleet off Southern France and then France goes Vichy, combat would only occur if the British ship didn’t leave in its next combat move. Or would it happen on the French turn?
On UK’s turn if it didn’t leave.
thanks!
No, Neutral units can never attack.
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 Japan
Surely the small number of IPCs changed in the Pacific doesn’t change that much. What am I missing here?
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)
