Best posts made by oysteilo

@barnee said in Oysteilo (Allies) vs Simon33 (Axis) taamvan mode:

@simon33 right on

sorry about the confusion with the AAguns. Guess I shoulda said something when I posted it originally : )

i scored two hits and cant expect more than that with 9 dice either. Its fine and my bad in the first place

From page 1:

China

“At the start of China’s turn, a Chinese infantry is spawned in each non-coastal Chinese territory under Axis control that is not garrisoned by at least one Axis land unit (i.e., infantry, marine, mech infantry, artillery, or armor). These “guerrillas” engage in combat wherever they are spawned and may not be moved until China’s next turn.”

Does this mean an AA gun prevents the spawn? I don’t think so, but it must be considered a land unit. Please clearify!

Simon takes:

Fighters: Moscow, Malta, Stalingrad, Scotland
Subs: SZ110, SZ98
inf Yunnan
DD SZ91
Art Sudan
Tank Egypt
inf Gibraltar
Mech Burma

@oysteilo said in Post League Game Results Here:

@simon33 said in Post League Game Results Here:

oysteilo (Allies) over simon33 (Axis) - taamvan mode

Interesting, not convinced I played it right.

This is somewhat premature as i have played the mode once.

I hit wrong button…

I think it does some things good and offers a different solution to the oob problem for global 2nd ed compared to BM3.

Good things: it takes money away from the axis, germany, this means games last shorter than Bm. where 20 + rounds seems the standard. Personally i like russia much better in oob compared to bm and when you take money away from Germany russia becomes more fun too

Bad things

Might become to static as it becomes very tempting to go after Norway

In short

Germany gets +3 for Novgorod, russia, caucasus and volgograd.
Russia gets an extra fighter and a tank

No other changes. Probably it is not enough if many games are played

It’s taamvan mode and the mode is available on triple a. I encorage others to try it.

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

@oysteilo Every land unit that stops guerillas is listed. AA are omitted.

I understand. I think a different wording is better to avoid confusion.

@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

@oysteilo said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

for a 50 bid. I would take:

British
Scotland: 1 fighter
Sz 110, 91 and 98: 1 sub each
sz 71: 1 transport
Egypt: 1 infantry

China
Yunnan: 1 inf

Anzac
sz 62: 1 sub
New Guinea: 1 inf

The China and sz 62 bid is to discourage a J1 attack. J1 attack is extremely powerful when playing OOB version

That’s a great bid. Suspect however that the inf in NG will not be accepted.

all right, then an inf in alexandria or so.

Some might think 3 subs are too much. I think it is a strong bid, because in sz 110 you can choose to have the sub fight or not, combined with a possible 3 fighter scramble and a scotland scramble it becomes “impossible” for Germany to kill both 110 and 111

But most likely the sub in 110 is not going to fight. Now, you are in great shape if you want to do taranto raid, but if you want to stack 92 you also put great pressure on Italy with your 3 subs and everything else you might put there. So the sub bid is both defensive (110 and 91) but also highly offensive!

@majikforce you need a bid of 200+

since the topic of doing changes to BM has been brought up…Even though I am critical in many of my posts regarding BM, BM is fixing many things that are not so good about the out of box version. Its become more balanced, it has even increased playability in some ways. But it also creates new problems that is becoming more and more obvious to me. Many games lasts 25+ rounds. Thats fun when it happens once or twice but when it “happens all the time” it becomes too much work and less enjoyable in my book.

Is this something the mod squad (and everyone else) thinks is a good thing?

I just think it is important to discuss why you suggest what bid where and discuss it a little bit if this is going to be a tutor game!

In general i think the war is going well for the axis here. A lot of things to attend to for the allies!

I just made som quick calculations about game statistics. I have looked at the last 50 games finished. I have excluded some games that was surrendered very early, its not more than 2 or 3 games anyway

I found the average bid was 8 (allies) and out of 50 games the axis won 31 and the allies 19. This is a 62:38 ratio. 50 games might be too few games, but it definately gives an indication I think

Yesterday i posted about game lenght. 5 games went for 20 rounds or longer and the longest is 35 rounds. So maybe this is not a big deal and it is just my style that is the problem as many of my games tend to be long.

since this is a tutor game i am throwing in my 2 cents here. If you play OOB with a healthy bid at least +50.

Priority 1: stack Yunnan R1. Bid: 1 chinese inf and 2 russian fighters (moscow and stalingrad) 23 ipc

Priority 2: fighter scotland and sub 110. This makes it too risky to take out both british fleets 110 and 111. Now we are at 39 ipc total

Personally i would also place sub in egypt sz and maybe also in gibraltar and canada. Here you might have other priorities and place men in eastern USSR, but really I dont see the need for more than 2 artillary to team up with the 18 russians +2 AA

For BM at 20:

french inf to normandy (makes vichy more complicated)
fighter scotland
sub egypt
1 ipc to india

@trulpen said in trulpen (X) vs oysteilo (A+5) BM3:

Yes, I expected to lose most of the air, but accounted that it would be worth it. The Brits were rather lucky against Italy’s fleet, I think, so were able to keep more in there than expected. Despite that, I think I should’ve landed more german air in Rome instead of Bessarabia, anticipating this.

I agree with this, given this result my french sucide mission looks pretty good now, 1 hit would be a big deal

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?

Correct.

I don’t think the marines were particularly well advised due the uncomfortable fit they have in the game mechanics. They don’t really add much, although they do make some of the island hopping encouraged by the new NOs easier to get.

I agree with this simon33. Marines are useful for Japan and partially sometimes for Italy. I see people buy marines with germany and 5 rounds later the marine is still sitting in western germany. This happens among players at all tiers

@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

Think it’s possible to have multiple tutor games going. Not much of a problem. I’m not the man for OOB though.

I thik if ABH and crockett36 are doing a tutor game at 69 in bid it is smooth to set up a new thread and we discuss the bid there

crazy is probably wrong wording, its a very risky move, The average result would be 2 bombers remaining. I would live with that. The actual result is probably comparable to battleship and 2 fighters living or maybe even better. I think you were supposed to be about +20. ended up with +70 something

Now it will be difficult for the allies, I judged the average result would be difficult for axis, so much for that!

I think its good to see AeV contribution in this discussion. First of all I support his view but wont take that as a support to what I write here

First of all I have raised critisism to BM many times and maybe this gets old. BM is better than OOB in many ways, I admit. BUT it is far from perfect. But lets face it, we will never get a perfect game!

What I find funny is when the squad want to change something in BM, THIS is what they want to change, the cost of bombers

@Adam514 514 says it is because it will reflect the strenght of bombers better than the original cost of 12. Fair enogh i think. It also raises the question about reviewing the cost of BB, Cruisers etc, which I think adam014 is open too. Then @regularkid comes along and argues the change is more about playability (maybe i misread the original post and the following discussion. I am not sure) It makes the discussion difficult when the squad has different opinions and the reason for the change is not clear. Maybe the squad can explain the reason for this change? Is it playability or is it a strenght reflection? Or is it both? If it is a strenght question why should other units not be considered? It would be nice to know.

I also want to bring up, who is the squad?? If you read the notes I have no idea who these guys are. Really, the only people playing the game is @Adam514 and @simon33, but simon33 is not really a die-hard fan of BM from what I read. So, I am unsure why @Regularkid should have a saying as I never see he participate in league games. Maybe he has great experience and everything I dont know. I just dont understand why he should decide the rules here when he never plays. Feel free to explain why your take is stronger than anyone elses given we never see you play! Bottom line, it boils down to adam514 who wants this change I think.

I also disagree that it is a lot of support in this forum for the change. I see some people has supported it, maybe 2 or 3? I am not sure if those people play frequently in the league though. I think it would be interesting to hear what frequent players in tier M E and 1 would say. Too few of these guys have raised their voice. Maybe they silently accept, I dont know.

I think you guys do a great job and I am happy to support the site!

@gamerman01 said in Post League Game Results Here:

Rankings up to date

And for anyone wondering, I do plan to play a league game again after 3/31.

I only completed 1 game in 2018, and last championship won was 2014?? Time flies. I’d better get back in it so I can still answer questions and adjudicate matters fairly!

you are needed to play gamerman01

OK @Adam514

So it is basically you and regularkid who have come up with this change?

And regularkid never plays in the league as far as I can see. Then I think this is your change @Adam514. Isn’t it?

I think most people (including me) will agree that Germany buying too many bombers is very difficult to counter and it gives Germany the option to threaten many areas at the same time. I see that

The solution to this is not changing the cost of bombers as bombers are are not too cheap for other nations such as russia, british, italy and ansaz.

The solution is to change the objectives for Germany. THAT is the real problem.

It still does not answer who really wants this change. Is it only you @Adam514 and what is @regularkid role here

It would be nice to have that sorted out