Game History
Round: 3 Purchase Units - Americans Americans buy 1 armour, 1 bomber, 1 fighter, 1 infantry and 3 transports; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Politics - Americans Trigger Americans War Production Eastern: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Eastern United States Trigger Americans War Production Central: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Central United States Trigger Americans War Production Western: has removed 1 factory_minor owned by Americans in Western United States Trigger Americans War Production Eastern: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Eastern United States Trigger Americans War Production Central: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Central United States Trigger Americans War Production Western: Americans has 1 factory_major placed in Western United States Combat Move - Americans Trigger Americans Unrestricted Movement: Setting movementRestrictionTerritories cleared for rulesAttachment attached to Americans 2 infantry and 1 transport moved from 16 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 2 infantry moved from 17 Sea Zone to Iwo Jima Combat - Americans Battle in Iwo Jima Non Combat Move - Americans 1 artillery, 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, 3 destroyers, 1 fighter, 1 infantry, 2 submarines, 1 tactical_bomber and 1 transport moved from 16 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 1 artillery and 1 infantry moved from 17 Sea Zone to Iwo Jima 2 carriers and 4 fighters moved from 7 Sea Zone to 17 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from Western United States to 10 Sea Zone 1 battleship, 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 transport moved from 10 Sea Zone to 26 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from 26 Sea Zone to Hawaiian Islands 1 fighter moved from Aleutian Islands to Siberia 2 bombers moved from Alaska to Siberia 1 bomber moved from Western United States to Siberia 1 armour moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 armour, 1 infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone 1 armour and 1 infantry moved from 91 Sea Zone to Gibraltar 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from Eastern United States to 101 Sea Zone 1 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 transport moved from 101 Sea Zone to 86 Sea Zone 1 infantry and 1 mech_infantry moved from 86 Sea Zone to Brazil Americans take Brazil from Neutral_Allies 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer moved from 101 Sea Zone to 91 Sea Zone Place Units - Americans 2 transports placed in 101 Sea Zone 1 transport placed in 10 Sea Zone 1 armour, 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 infantry placed in Western United States Turn Complete - Americans Americans collect 53 PUs; end with 53 PUs Objective Americans 1 Homeland: Americans met a national objective for an additional 10 PUs; end with 63 PUs Objective Americans 3 Defense Obligations: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 68 PUs Objective Americans 2 Outer Territories: Americans met a national objective for an additional 5 PUs; end with 73 PUs Purchase Units - Chinese Trigger Chinese Loses Burma Road: Chinese has their production frontier changed to: productionChinese_Burma_Road_Closed Chinese buy 2 infantry; Remaining resources: 2 PUs; Combat Move - Chinese 1 fighter and 11 infantry moved from Suiyuyan to Chahar Chinese take Chahar from Japanese 1 infantry moved from Suiyuyan to Chahar 1 fighter moved from Chahar to Suiyuyan Combat - Chinese Non Combat Move - Chinese Place Units - Chinese 2 infantry placed in Suiyuyan Turn Complete - Chinese Chinese collect 8 PUs; end with 10 PUs Purchase Units - British British buy 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 3 infantry; Remaining resources: 0 PUs; Combat Move - British 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 3 destroyers and 2 fighters moved from 98 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 bomber, 1 fighter and 1 tactical_bomber moved from Egypt to 97 Sea Zone 2 destroyers moved from 81 Sea Zone to 97 Sea Zone 1 infantry moved from Tobruk to Libya British take Libya from Italians 1 artillery and 2 infantry moved from Egypt to 98 Sea Zone 1 artillery moved from Trans-Jordan to 98 Sea Zone 2 artilleries, 2 infantry and 2 transports moved from 98 Sea Zone to 76 Sea Zone 2 artilleries and 2 infantry moved from 76 Sea Zone to Ethiopia 1 battleship moved from 76 Sea Zone to 80 Sea Zone 1 armour moved from Egypt to Ethiopia Combat - British Battle in 97 Sea Zone British attack with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 5 destroyers, 3 fighters and 1 tactical_bomber Italians defend with 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer and 2 transports British win, taking 97 Sea Zone from Neutral with 1 bomber, 1 carrier, 3 cruisers, 5 destroyers and 3 fighters remaining. Battle score for attacker is 55 Casualties for British: 1 tactical_bomber Casualties for Italians: 1 battleship, 2 cruisers, 1 destroyer and 2 transports Battle in Ethiopia British attack with 1 armour, 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Italians defend with 1 artillery and 3 infantry 1 armour owned by the British retreated to Anglo Egyptian Sudan Italians win with 1 artillery and 1 infantry remaining. Battle score for attacker is -8 Casualties for British: 2 artilleries and 2 infantry Casualties for Italians: 2 infantry Non Combat Move - British 1 infantry moved from Belgian Congo to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 1 infantry moved from Belgian Congo to Anglo Egyptian Sudan 2 fighters moved from West India to 80 Sea Zone 1 bomber moved from 97 Sea Zone to Egypt 1 fighter moved from 97 Sea Zone to Malta 1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to Egypt 1 fighter moved from Gibraltar to United Kingdom 1 artillery and 4 infantry moved from Iraq to Persia 1 aaGun and 2 infantry moved from Trans-Jordan to Iraq 3 aaGuns, 1 armour, 1 artillery, 9 infantry, 1 mech_infantry and 1 tactical_bomber moved from West India to Eastern Persia Place Units - British 1 carrier and 1 destroyer placed in 80 Sea Zone 1 infantry placed in Persia 2 infantry placed in Egypt Turn Complete - British British collect 33 PUs; end with 33 PUs Turn Complete - UK_PacificLeague General Discussion Thread
-
@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:
And please pray for his wife who has divorced him, that she would get her mind back and realize that they should be re-united, and she can be the mother of the children again. Thank you all, and God bless you.
wow gamer thanks for sharing, everyone can seem so anonymous on here, yet we all have our story of life going on and so it’s nice for us to be able to connect to that every now and then. we definitely miss our old-timers, and bold for sure is one of them! we’ll be keeping him in our prayers and hearts.
-
@karl7 said in League General Discussion Thread:
Wow, sad to hear about the troubles. Sounds like Bold is on his way back. That is good news indeed. I went to college in Chicago and spend many years there. I used to have a lot of connections there, but time has faded many of them. But a trip back once things finally return to normal could be in order.
When Bold is ready to pick up the sword, let him know I am ready! LOL.
boy Karl ain’t kidding there, he’s been kicking my butt lately!
-
@gamerman01 All the best from Victoria, Canada. It’s been a trying time for many, I hope things work out for Bold and his family.
I’d like to also thank everybody on this forum for all of the games in the past year - my wife and I have been staying at home since March 2020. We both work at home, our college age daughter is taking remote courses and I’ve had a much easier time of it because of all the A&A games I’ve been able to enjoy.
-
STREAMING ON TWITCH TONIGHT:
@Adam514 and I will be playing @mikawagunichi and @avandoo in a live game of WW2 Path to Victory. The game will be streamed in its entirety, with live commentary from Adam and me.
Adam and I are playing Axis with no bid. Mikawagunichi and Avandoo are playing Allies.
Come hang out. Have a snack. Talk some A&A.
Time: 10 pm EST, tonight.
Place: https://www.twitch.tv/dudewithopinions

-
League stats show 121 BM games finished in the 2021 year so far, vs 40 PtV games. I think the major factor restricting the popularity of PtV is the division of SZ38.
-
@simon33 I don’t think so. It seems like even the skeptics recognize it as improvement after playing it a couple of times. And I seriously doubt a one-sea zone division would deter someone who is otherwise willing to try a substantially redrawn map.
BM caught on quickly because the game looks and feels identical, in most respects, to G40. This was by design. When we made BM, one of the limitations we placed on the project was that it must have a completely familiar feel for G40 players— to encourage wide acceptance by the community.
PTV, on the other hand, is a bolder departure from G40. As soon as you open it, you know it is a completely different game. That means there is a somewhat higher bar to entry.
That being said, the enthusiasm with which the G40 community has embraced PTV has surpassed my wildest expectations. And the fact that over 10% of league games are now PTV games is highly encouraging.
-
@regularkid Yeah well 2016 showed 387 G40 games vs 261 BM games in the league, even though BM only came out in May.
2017 showed 110 G40 games vs 294 BM games in the league.PtV came out in June 2020, to some excitement which seems to have dissipated. But if you just want it the way you say, I guess that will be it.
-
Just checked again. Its actually 25% of league games. Not too shabby!
-
There is a bit of a threshold to get going with P2V. Primarily the different map (Russia and China) and land- and carrier-scramble changes the dynamics of the game quite a lot.
I belong to the apparent sceptics regarding the division of z38, but after having played a few games I’m not really opposed to the change anymore. I feel it does make things around the islands more interesting, for both sides.
I believe there’s a more serious issue regarding Japan. It was @Ghostglider who showed me this in a game of ours. Because of the extra scramble-options grabbing first Queensland and then Sydney in the early game is very powerful. The thing is that Japan can quite easily force the hand here, since US isn’t ready for the challenge yet.
This might be a bit of a flaw regarding strategy and balance. I don’t really see how it can be avoided and then there’s a scripted path for japanese superiority, which would be bad for the game.
-
@simon33 I for one enjoy PtV much more than BM, and for a variety of reasons. A few players I have reached out to, to play PtV, have told me it is the increased complexity of PtV that keeps them playing BM.
-
@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:
There is a bit of a threshold to get going with P2V. Primarily the different map (Russia and China) and land- and carrier-scramble changes the dynamics of the game quite a lot.
I belong to the apparent sceptics regarding the division of z38, but after having played a few games I’m not really opposed to the change anymore. I feel it does make things around the islands more interesting, for both sides.
I believe there’s a more serious issue regarding Japan. It was @Ghostglider who showed me this in a game of ours. Because of the extra scramble-options grabbing first Queensland and then Sydney in the early game is very powerful. The thing is that Japan can quite easily force the hand here, since US isn’t ready for the challenge yet.
This might be a bit of a flaw regarding strategy and balance. I don’t really see how it can be avoided and then there’s a scripted path for japanese superiority, which would be bad for the game.
I don’t think it’s in Japan’s best interest to go for Anzac if it’s appropriately defended, they’d need to trade basically everywhere else to take out Anzac. It’s a bit like Germany always being able to get decent odds on UK if they max it, but it’s a losing move since it leaves them too weak to stand up to Russia.
-
@adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:
I don’t think it’s in Japan’s best interest to go for Anzac if it’s appropriately defended, they’d need to trade basically everywhere else to take out Anzac. It’s a bit like Germany always being able to get decent odds on UK if they max it, but it’s a losing move since it leaves them too weak to stand up to Russia.
With “early game” I didn’t actually mean off the bat, but after the DEI has been secured.
I might very well have messed it up, but in the game that was given as reference, I couldn’t see how Australia could be appropriately defended. I did push the fleet there, but had to scurry away. I did have air available for defense and had built land-units, but it wasn’t even close to be able to hold off the japanese.
The main point is that I could not hold both Queensland and Sydney, but had to take priority to the latter. Queensland fell and couldn’t be taken back because of the carrier-scramble. Next turn Sydney was complete toast, which is then further supported by the ab in Queensland.
Admittedly, there was an Axis+12 bid on the table. Anyway, if you have the time, please investigate the aforementioned situation. It’s located here.
-
I like it more too…
I admit, however, that for those who are not very good already with BM (in fact I am demoralizing by dint of fixing defeats :( ) should limit themselves to the latter
-
@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:
Admittedly, there was an Axis+12 bid on the table. Anyway, if you have the time, please investigate the aforementioned situation. It’s located here.
I have stopped doing the 1inf 1TT buy ANZAC1. I have been going for a 3inf buy, to shore up Sydney. I note that you lost all 3 ANZAC fighters ANZ2 in SZ38 but normally I would take them to E India anyway. The combination of the TT instead of inf buy, the inf that the TT take off and taking the fighters off make Sydney too weak.
You did use some USA planes to hang on until J8, with one exchange of Sydney before that. So at least it hang on for a while. The other issue I would raise here is that USA weren’t very effective in the Pacific, were they focused on the Europe side?
-
I am not an expert but from what little I have seen I do not think it is necessary to give a BID to the Axis … as I see it often…
-
@trulpen said in League General Discussion Thread:
@adam514 said in League General Discussion Thread:
I don’t think it’s in Japan’s best interest to go for Anzac if it’s appropriately defended, they’d need to trade basically everywhere else to take out Anzac. It’s a bit like Germany always being able to get decent odds on UK if they max it, but it’s a losing move since it leaves them too weak to stand up to Russia.
With “early game” I didn’t actually mean off the bat, but after the DEI has been secured.
I might very well have messed it up, but in the game that was given as reference, I couldn’t see how Australia could be appropriately defended. I did push the fleet there, but had to scurry away. I did have air available for defense and had built land-units, but it wasn’t even close to be able to hold off the japanese.
The main point is that I could not hold both Queensland and Sydney, but had to take priority to the latter. Queensland fell and couldn’t be taken back because of the carrier-scramble. Next turn Sydney was complete toast, which is then further supported by the ab in Queensland.
Admittedly, there was an Axis+12 bid on the table. Anyway, if you have the time, please investigate the aforementioned situation. It’s located here.
Anzac does need those 3 fighters to defend and counterattack more in PTV than in BM. India also sent away all its airforce, allowing Japan to take the islands with minimal escort while using its fleet to keep the US fleet away. The US also lost more planes than Japan in the Solomon scramble. If you don’t scramble and you have a few reinforcements in Hawaii at the start of turn 4, Japan would not have been able to stack sz55 (Queensland). It does look like Euro-Axis went navy, so maybe you thought your priority was to deal with that.
-
I guess there’s an easy solution then and I simply screwed up. I’m not a very strong player with the Allies.
-
Guys, I’m thinking about resigning as league moderator and scoreboard operator. I don’t want to leave you in the middle of a year so intend to finish this year out and set up playoffs and everything, but maybe somebody should come alongside me and learn some of the ropes, or maybe you guys have an idea of another direction to take all this.
Contributing to this decision is that I did have my first manic and depressive episodes this year since 2005 (still pretty depressed - trying to get the right meds) but I wanted to get out anyway, since I haven’t found the time to play any league games myself.
I intend to help make a smooth transition if someone else is eager to moderate and score games (maybe a team) - I’d been doing everything with no partner for years now (Although having a partner can mean more work if they have differing ideas than you)
Please think about it - sorry - I guess this day had to come sooner or later. Thanks for understanding
Gamer
-
@gamerman01 Thanks for all your efforts over the years.
-
@gamerman01 you have been a sensational moderator, gamerman. Really appreciate the time and work you put into keeping the League going.





