So your mom gives you 20 IPCs to go to the store and pick up some warships. Now the question is how do you spend these precious 20 IPCs?
Is the Battleship the correct purchase or would it be better to get a Destroyer and a Cruiser?
What do you think?
@Panther
Any way this thread could be moved back to the original page? There won’t be much discussion of it here. It is not really customizing and not really a BM3 thread.
I just wanted to know if everyone liked the cruiser where it was or if there was a some tweak to make it more desirable to use without revamping costs and attack/damage.
Or maybe everyone uses it and I’m just wrong.
Stacking infantry is death for the Soviets. 6 tanks on the first few turns is actually the way to go. Or as many tanks as you can with a mech here and an infantry there. It will let you hold off the germans and swing your army where you need to go. If you don’t have a mobile army they will be at moscow before you know it.
I think we can all agree that the cruiser is one of those units that, while useful if you start the game with one, is not worth buying. Destroyer spam, Carriers with fighters, and Battleships is the way to go if you are doing some intense sea fighting. Submarines also have their place but why buy a cruiser when you can get two subs. They give you 2 possible hits versus just one on the defense and have the same attack value as a destroyer.
So why ever buy a cruiser?
I think I have a simple fix that might make the cruiser purchase a little more desirable. Allow the cruiser to carry just 1 infantry unit. The cruiser would still get its Amphibious assault shot. Now this is something that BM 3.0 has but it is only with a marine. Also the marine costs 5 and can be transported by a battleship as well. So again what is the point of the cruiser in that scenario?
I propose that BM 3 remove the marine all together( it is rarely used anyway) and implement this change.
I also will just throw in after some testing that BM mod is superior to the Taamvan mod since Japan can still become way too powerful with no real way to deal with it(sorry taamvan).
Let me know what you think and if we can get an official change in BM 3.
@taamvan
I am wondering if you do Gargantua’s start as Soviet Union which is 6 tanks and building tanks and a few arty with infantry. Tank spamming with the SU is a must for countering the Germans. I was also wondering if you considered making Leningrad worth 5 again since this would make a northern push a bit more desirable since a problem with the game for the germans is that there is a TON of money south and not much north, plus you are further away from moscow. What are your thoughts?
So I have played two games with the “taamvan mode” and I think that it does quite good job at balancing out the game. It slightly slows down Germany while giving the Soviet Union something it never had before. OPTIONS!
That extra tank and fighter can be in Manchuria by turn 3 which means that not only does this effect Germany but also Japan. Hitting Manchuria/Korea with 18 infantry a tank and fighter means that Japan has to spend more money on transports or turn around some land units or simple keep a larger force than usual in Manchuria.
I think it is a small change that makes a big difference and I encourage everyone to give it a try.
@barnee
Excellent, thank you.
@barnee
Hey thanks for putting the effort in but it doesn’t seem to be working for me. I’m in global house rules and checked the taamvan option in the map options menu. I started the game and it had the changer round. I opened up the game tab and went to map options and it showed that taamvan was checked but no tank in urals and no extra fighter in russia. :(
@barnee
If it is easy to do why not. I would appreciate it and I’m pretty sure everyone else would too. It would be nice to have a balanced game instead of just a “different” game. It would be quite interesting of Taamvan’s simple changes could easily balance out the game and remove the need to bid at all.
So you don’t use any of the other NO’s from the balance mod or the SBR rule change or any other rule change for that matter in regards to the balance mod? Tank/fighter in Soviet Union and the NO for taking the caucasus, leningrad, stalingrad and moscow go from 5 to 3.
If this is true and really balances the game then a mod should be put forward on AAA I feel. Small changes like these drastically fixed 1942.2 with LH’s tournament rules.
If would be nice to have some more feedback and testing done on this.
So OOB game is a 30 bid for allies whereas BM is almost perfectly balanced? Let me ask a quick off topic question. Does including vichy France help balance the game or does it really not matter. And is the Marine necessary to the game balance or is that just a bonus unit?
What is the possibility of hitting Hawaii or Alaska/British Columbia(sz1)? I know that US could just stick a DD in some sea zones and stop that but you could do something crazy and send your fleet on J2 to park in the Hawaii sea zone. I would think this would give the US pause as far as pushing Germany. Which was why I was thinking sealion would be a good bet since the US would have to commit more forces to the Pacific leaving Russia(if sealion was a success and I’m assuming it was) to fight Germany alone.
I guess Im trying to think of crafty ways to put the hurt to the US early on in the pacific. Or if you can take out Hawaii turn 3, quickly slip down and knock out Australia or push into the panama canal.
This is going to be some theory-crafting so just come along on this mental journey with me for a moment. I know this game is fantastic due to the fact that there are at least 3 or 4 different openings for each country whereas in 1942 you had 1 or 2.
It seems to me that the optimal German opening would be a g1 1 CV(Carrier?) and two Trans build. Attacking whatever sea zone with whatever ships and air you choose. The important part being taking france and southern france. SO. Fran.(it’s what all the cool kids say these days) just so you have the option to build a small fleet in the med or just a trans to try to get a guy into egypt. The CV/trans gives you the flexibility to sealion or just hit Novgorod. Cool
So what is the optimal japanese opening. Now if you are doing a J1 it is pretty obvious, no need to spell that out. But what if you don’t do that. I was thinking that the optimal opening would by to buy 3 trans 1 art and move every single sea unit to Japan(sz6) making sure to pick up the infantry in okinawa with the trans there.
Now the reason behind this move, is that it opens up the possibility to attack hawaii or even Alaska/British Columbia(sz1) or move down to Hainan and placing a harbor and airfield for Calcutta crush Or a push into western australia(sz56). Or you could just take the money islands with your 4 transports and hit malaya with 2 trans. This is a J3 of course but the whole idea behind the pulling of the whole fleet to japan is having the maximum strategic options.
This can also include dow russia by hitting the far east and moving 12 units towards Russia while building 10 more units on japan. I feel this is probably the most versatile opening move you can do and this is especially powerful if you can do a successful sealion.
Thought and comments appreciated.
It’s all one turn. There is no separate Europe UK and Pacific turn its all one turn. So all UK units move once. The only thing that is separate is purchasing and placing units. UK is one country just like germany is one country and Russia is one country and japan is one country. The only thing different about UK from everyone else is you keep your purchases separate and your unit placement separate on the europe and pacific side of the boards.
So you purchase for the Europe UK and Pacific UK on the same turn. Keeping the money from each board separate. Then at combat movement phase it becomes one entity just like all the other countries. At the CM and NCM there is no Europe UK and Pacific UK there is just the UK. Does that help?
Then when you place units and collect money you once again keep the economies separate as well as unit placement. What UK pacific buys can’t be placed on the European side of the board and vice versa.
So once again UK is one entity you don’t move twice and they are not two separate powers as far as movement of units on the board is concerned.
No, it’s the same turn. There is no difference between UK Europe and Pacific. The only difference is the money. So when it is Uk’s turn you have to keep the European money and Pacific money separate. So you will make two separate purchases. Then during the Combat movement you move the UK power as a whole. So if you were to move that fighter to India it have finished it’s movement. Just as if you have moved a tank from India into Eastern Persia. UK moves as one entity just like every other faction. They only difference is purchasing units and placing those units on the board.
So there is no separate UK Europe and UK Pacific turn. It is all one big turn.
I hope I explained it better.
No, you can only place major IC’s on originally owned territory of that power. So Germany could place is on norway since they originally owned it but no other power could since…well it’s Germany’s original territory.
It is the same turn. Simply the economies are separate. So, you buy for the E UK and then buy for the P UK then move jointly. It is one power except for income and placing units. The only time you can share money between the two is if you are buying a tech roll if you are using the research rules.
Alright. I’ll just get me some hot g40 action then. Thanks for your time. Kinda sucks but it is what it is.
So there is a problem but no one has come to a consensus on how to tweak the game(like putting the bomber back into germany) to make it more dynamic? Or is everyone at a happy place with how the game progresses even though it is a little repetitive as far as opening moves? Is there active discussions on how to fix this strategy problem or is everyone just moving on to AA50th and g40?
New to the forum’s here. Been lurking, learning and reading but it has been a while since I’ve seen any activity on 1942.2. I was wondering if Larry Harris’ tournament rules have changed the game to the point where it is balanced with no need for a bid or if a bid still occurs in allies favor.
To me the changes seem pretty good but I have read discussions about people wanting the bomber back in Germany.
If this is true has anyone tried putting an IC in east Australia and/or south Africa and perhaps either having an IC, 1 inf, and and an AAA in Sinkiang, OR for every two Chinese territories the US can place 1 infantry(purchased normally) into any owned Chinese territory. Similar to AA50th.
Anyway hopefully this game isn’t dead although even I will soon be getting G40.(Better late than never)