Best posts made by Adam514

@AndrewAAGamer said in Find League Opponents Thread:

@Omega1759 said in Find League Opponents Thread:

@axis-dominion said in Find League Opponents Thread:

@Omega1759 said in Find League Opponents Thread:

@Omega1759 said in Find League Opponents Thread:

Would take a Global 1940 Second Edition game, been out of it for two years. Used to be tier 1-E at peak. Fine with league game or non-league game (warning, I play under influence most of the time).

Edit: reached tier M in 2017, tier E in 2018 when I stopped playing.

welcome back omega! funny like a day before you resurfaced, I was thinking about how so many ol’ timers started showing up again, and I remembered you, and sure enough, here you are! lol

if I may suggest, please do make an effort to learn the latest balanced edition (BM3), which has significant improvements in the rules and objectives, making the allies far more viable. if you wish to do a practice game with me to learn the rules (not so hard, many are just common sense improvements), I’d be happy to get you started on it.

Hi AxisD. I mentioned this before.

I’m old school, continue to believe that the community should hang on to the original game in order to not fragment the community / intimidate new players looking at this forum.

I agree with your sentiments @Omega1759. Being new I am surprised that, from my perspective, a lot of people here do not like OOB and prefer BM3. While I have only played one game of BM3 my initial impression is OOB is better. I think the main detriment to OOB is that it requires a high Allied bid to be even. That is totally accurate. However, with a large enough bid OOB is an even game and still has that tension of the early game “Am I going to stop or accomplish the VC path to victory or not.” Then if the VC win is stopped the money is close enough that the game turns into a fairly even long term battle.

BM3 seems to dramatically lend itself to the Allies in a long term money game forcing the Axis Player to either a) go for a VC win and if failing loses the game for sure or b) play a long term money game initially to have any chance of success. To me that lessens the options for the Axis Player and reduces the fun of the game for both sides. Since the game is played on the exact same board I am not sure why BM3 is preferable to OOB.

Now if you do want a long term money game then Path to Victory seems to be a good choice. It is a completely different game than OOB played on a different board so to me it is a different game versus a different version of the same game. @surfer and I are both playing our first game and so far so good. It is very different and challenging and my initial impression is it is a good game.

Statistics say otherwise, BM3 is still Axis tilted.

@CaptainNapalm It was a bug, fixed in future iterations of the map.

@AndrewAAGamer OOB the Axis would play the money game and succeed at it much easier than Allies. In BM3 Axis still usually win in that way, imaigne OOB.

@Gorshak said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

Hey folks! Version 4.0 of Path to Victory is ready for download on TripleA (delete your existing copy of the map and reinstall. The map is backwards compatible with older saved games).

The substantive changes:

1. Carriers reduced to 1 defense. May no longer scramble to empty sea zones (must be a defending surface warship present - player enforced)

2. New global victory conditions for Axis. In addition to the existing theater specific victory conditions, Axis can now also win by taking and holding for one round 13 victory cities, globally.

3. A U.S. marine has been added to Hawaii.

Enjoy!

What about an amphibious assault on a territory with an airbase where there is a fighter stationed and there is also a carrier on the adjacent sea territory - but no defending surface warship to fight the invaders in the same territory?

Do I understand the rules correctly, that the land-air-based fighter can scramble against the naval invading force - but the neighbouring carriers cannot help the defending fighter as there is no surface warship around?

I would prefer having the same rules and restrictions for scrambling from a land based air base as from a carrier.

Yes, only the plane from the airbase can scramble to the sea zone.

@Amon-Sul Max scramble.

@simon33 Mech tank combo defeats pure tanks on attack and on defense for a given PU value.

@Amon-Sul We can wait, no worries.

@wizmark You must choose no.

@Amon-Sul Needs to be a particular territory to be able to fly over it after.

How is it logical that a neutral warship can affect lend-lease…?

@Amon-Sul Just do maximum defense.

@simon33 Actually Kamis cannot attack ships that aren’t part of the nation doing the turn, so they also don’t prevent unloading off allied ships.

@oysteilo Against J1DOW I prefer to focus Germany, since I won’t get anything significant done in the Pacific like counter tps or force blockers in the first few turns anyway. Getting me to commit 2 sacrificial tps for India that first time was good though.

At this point indeed the Allies don’t have too much going for them. Japan has India secured and can start taking back Pacific islands, and Germany is about to get the Southern money as well.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Well, the only important place Japan could conceivably attack from SZ6 in BM was SZ25. Or were you worried about USA mobilising CVs from a Korea Factory to attack the Japanese fleet utilising planes from San Francisco?

No, I meant the numerous examples of US ships in sz6 being attacked/deadzoned by Japanese air that wouldn’t reach if not for a carrier buy.

@Sovietishcat The game gives you the option of scrambling in that situation, but even if you do scramble N Italy will still be taken without a fight and the planes will go back to their airfield.

@owentoo You can only make a move that’s legal with the units on the board, but you can land anywhere including on newly built carriers. It’s to prevent a somewhat cheesy attack with a big carrier buy to make your aircraft that would normally be too far away to attack and land able to reach (typically by the sea zone near Japan).

@wizmark You can go ahead with Japan, Russian sub is not moving.

@argothair Yes.

@Sovietishcat No scramble, and no need to ask me when it’s obvious like that.

@pejon_88 It’s taken into account in the battle calc I proposed. They actually fight pretty evenly in the battle calc, but in a real fight there would be more fodder ships, which would advantage the cruiser fleet above the carrier-fighter fleet.