Wouldn’t you lose too many planes in the assault on Paris, at least potentially? I did say weak land forces.
There’s no reason not to attack with all the available infantry and artillery, and maybe a couple trucks/tanks. Without running it, pretty sure it’s highly unlikely you will lose more than the 1 plane that you have a 40% chance to lose to the AAA
The reason I was referring to was to leave Paris for Italy - that isn’t a winning move.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here.
Ahhh, I appreciate the clarification
On the Lend Lease National objectives.
If Russia declares war on Japan then they do NOT get the bonus +2 for each Lend Lease lane that is open.
Is this correct?
Yes
Wow! That’s a real incentive not to declare war on Japan then. Made a schoolboy error there in one game.
So wrt the 10 IPC Japanese bonus in OOB for not declaring war and not attacking FIC; if Vichy activates then you can claim that territory without attacking it and still collect the bonus in rounds two and perhaps three?
Can I have a clarification on this one?
So wrt the 10 IPC Japanese bonus in OOB for not declaring war and not attacking FIC; if Vichy activates then you can claim that territory without attacking it and still collect the bonus in rounds two and perhaps three?
Can I have a clarification on this one?
In OOB the bonus if for attacking/invading, declaring war on France changes nothing. Same thing in BM, so if Japan is controlling FIC then they can’t get the bonus.
So wrt the 10 IPC Japanese bonus in OOB for not declaring war and not attacking FIC; if Vichy activates then you can claim that territory without attacking it and still collect the bonus in rounds two and perhaps three?
Can I have a clarification on this one?
In OOB the bonus if for attacking/invading, declaring war on France changes nothing. Same thing in BM, so if Japan is controlling FIC then they can’t get the bonus.
Hold on, you can control FIC doing none of those things because it becomes a Pro Axis neutral. Or should you not be able to do so?
So wrt the 10 IPC Japanese bonus in OOB for not declaring war and not attacking FIC; if Vichy activates then you can claim that territory without attacking it and still collect the bonus in rounds two and perhaps three?
Can I have a clarification on this one?
In OOB the bonus if for attacking/invading, declaring war on France changes nothing. Same thing in BM, so if Japan is controlling FIC then they can’t get the bonus.
Hold on, you can control FIC doing none of those things because it becomes a Pro Axis neutral. Or should you not be able to do so?
Simply put, the NO only works if Japan does not control FIC and has never attacked it.
Alright. I see a need to tidy up the wording then.
On second thought I’m not sure about the ‘‘never having attacked it’’ part. In any case, TripleA only cares about whether its occupied, so the wording is correct with regards to TripleA (OOB has the same wording and no rule has changed with respect to that NO).
What has changed though, is the possibility of occupying FIC without attacking it. This isn’t possible OOB but is possible in BM with the Vichy rules.
Hasn’t this come up before?
The No says ‘‘occupied’’, so the circumstances have not changed.
Not in my rules:
• 10 IPCs if Japan is not at war with the United States, has not attacked French Indo-China, and has not made an unprovoked
declaration of war against United Kingdom/ANZAC. Theme: Strategic resource trade with the United States.
I’ve just checked Europe against Pacific and they both say the same.
Not in my rules:
� 10 IPCs if Japan is not at war with the United States, has not attacked French Indo-China, and has not made an unprovoked
declaration of war against United Kingdom/ANZAC. Theme: Strategic resource trade with the United States.I’ve just checked Europe against Pacific and they both say the same.
In any case, occupying makes more sense and that’s how TripleA works.
Well, in case we start semantic discussion^^
I believe Allies could send units or land air in Blue FIC. Japan could attack without occupying it –> The NO would still be nullified.
I believe Allies could send units or land air in Blue FIC.
Covered by the Vichy rules.
Japan could attack without occupying it –> The NO would still be nullified.
Hmm, I guess if UK or ANZAC move in and are then attacked by Japan without any land units surviving the battle.
Anyway, I’ve discovered that the “Objective” tab has the wording Adam514 was quoting, but not the “notes” tab or the PDF rules.
I’m getting a bunch of errors after loading the BM upgrade.
triplea.engine.version.bin:1.8.0.9
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:Russians with name: triggerAttachment_Russians_2_Persia_Lend_Lease_Lane
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_Italians_3_North_Africa_Control
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:Russians with name: triggerAttachment_Russians_4_Increased_Lend_Lease_War_With_Japanese
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:British with name: triggerAttachment_British_3_No_Enemy_Submarines
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_Germans_7_Control_of_Balkans
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_British_2_Southern_Europe_Beach_Head
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_Americans_9_Vital_Forward_Bases
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:Americans with name: triggerAttachment_Americans_7_North_Africa_Beach_Head
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_Italians_5_Control_Convoy_Lanes
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:Russians with name: triggerAttachment_Russians_7_Great_Patriotic_War
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_British_4_Control_Convoy_Lanes
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:British with name: triggerAttachment_UK_Pacific_4_No_Enemy_Submarines
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_Americans_8_Pacific_Airfields
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:Americans with name: triggerAttachment_Americans_6_Western_Europe_Beach_Head
Triggers: No trigger attachment for:Russians with name: triggerAttachment_Russians_3_Siberia_Lend_Lease_Lane
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_Japanese_5_Pacific_Airfields
objective.properties attachment does not exist: objectiveAttachment_ANZAC_3_Pacific_Supply_LinesWhat have I done wrong here?
Nothing, you simply don’t have the additional download (first page of this thread) which places the correct objectives in the objectives tab, and not having it gives this error. The error is harmless though, you can ignore it and it will have no effect other than popping up when you load a BM game.
With the imminent release of 1.9 of Triple-A, it wouldn’t be that hard to make Balance Mod a new game within it and prevent these errors if you want to play an OOB game in a Balance Mod activated Triple-A would it? I guess you might as well make BM selectable as a game rather than needing to load a save game. In fact, if you give me the latest version of BM - aren’t there some outstanding bug fixes? I could ask the team to incorporate it if you haven’t done so already.
I’ve set up two environments of Triple-A 1.8.0.9 for Vanilla games and BM games. It shouldn’t be this hard.
that would be awesome, Simon. the most recent version of Balance Mod and the companion files containing the new unit images, objectives panel, etc. are in the first two posts of this thread, as Adam mentioned. Substituting the objectives.properties file in the “optional download” for the one in your Global folder will resolve the issue described in your prior post.
that would be awesome, Simon. the most recent version of Balance Mod and the companion files containing the new unit images, objectives panel, etc. are in the first two posts of this thread, as Adam mentioned. Substituting the objectives.properties file in the “optional download” for the one in your Global folder will resolve the issue described in your prior post.
Only when playing BM. If you play an OOB game, you still get similar problems. It’s not backwards compatible. I’m guessing not many people go back.
