Best posts made by oysteilo

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.

@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

@Aaron_the_Warmonger said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:

@JDOW lets say the gerrys land a couple planes in Rome, at least threatening a full 3 plane scramble against Taranto, are you saying that anything short of 90% is a no go for the UK? I’m just trying to get an idea for how you play the game!

Let me try to answer, even though i am not JDOW. The answer is yes, it’s no go.
You are better off saving your fleet at Gibraltar. Because it also protects against sea lion.

If you loose Taranto, you are in horrible shape

At Gibraltar you are threating the med and 110, even maybe Norway soon. If you are dead, none

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

@simon33 i dont think it is possible to do a better J1 than this

@Aaron_the_Warmonger said in Why is Taranto raid so popular?:

@oysteilo so its just a conservative move to try to ensure that, even though italy may start to break out quicker, the pressure is on the germans right out of the gate. And this assumes a 3 plane scamble in 110 by the UK on G1?

I am not sure it is a conservative move, if you mean conservative in the sense of not attacking I guess it is. I think the point is you are threatening many areas. What do you think happens if Italy decides to move out its fleet fram sz 97 where it has air coverage? Its dead. Does Italy want that? No, so its maybe forced to sit in 97. Maybe you force Germany to buy infantry for Paris to protect Normandy?, maybe you force germany to garrison Norway? I think that is what it is about. The axis need to consider where this fleet is and what it can do

OK. Go for the change! But it will be nice if bombers @12 is available too without too much hassle!

@Pejon_88 I’ll give it a try. If the only available landing spot is the hostile sea zone you also have to attack that sea zone. But you need not to have a realistic chance of winning that battle. However, if you do win, the AC has to pick up the fighter

@taamvan said in How many G40 games have you played?:

@simon33 calculators are for noobs. Its a waste of time and it diminishes the value of the skill you gain over time. I’m not interested in people squirming around on their phone when they should know exactly what ## of units to bring to each battle–if they cant call it by sight they need to play more.

In face to face games detailed calculations of all and everything is just annoying and no fun. You need to get a rough estimate by looking at the situation and just decide to go for it or not. Simple as that and it is just a game!

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

How do i/we play with bombers at 12 vs 14? If default is different

You will have to adjust by edit.

Come on…

@simon33 no scramble

I think the point is to save time in global games. By far round 1 is the slowest round because you are shuffling and merging and re-stacking everything. Even though you more or less know the set up after a few games it takes time because there are units everywhere. This is very much true for Germany, Russia and japan but goes for all other nations too. For france you set up a bunch of units which are removed instantly.

After Round 1, there are units in maybe half of the initial territories and this must save a lot of time.

How do i/we play with bombers at 12 vs 14? If default is different

@axis-dominion said in 19L CHAMPIONSHIP: axis-dominion vs adam (allies+19) bm3:

@oysteilo and our goal was to make this the fastest championship game in history :)

I think that is very good. In previous years it has been going on for “years”, except last year.

Only bad thing is… makes it hard to follow!

I dont know, but would think no

I think you got it right!

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

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

Initially I somehow misread your initial request. I thought you wanted an italian fighter to NM persia. I dont think the edit of one inf (from caucasus?) makes that much of a difference for my french plane

I don’t think it does, but nevermind.

So if you want the edit i don’t mind. Right now it looks like you have changed your mind anyway. I trust your extensive edits are correct, but keep in mind sometimes it is easier to do the battles over again and rather edit the outcomes…

Like I said earlier I have looked into transporting troops from east coast to west/central Africa. I have never really tried it because I think the consequences will be too big elsewhere. Once the shuttle is established you need 6 transports and this will allow you to put 2 fast movers and 2 infantries to French equatorial Africa each round: You need two transports in 89, 3 transports in 87 and 1 transport in 82. You build 2 inf and 2 fast movers in central USA each round and move to Mexico area bordering sz 89. Then you have 4 transports (2x2) shuttling 89/87 and 2 transports (1x1) shuttling 87/82 with the 2 infantries. Of course you have some starting units you can start with, but once you buy 2 infantries and 2 fast movers it takes 5 rounds for the fast movers to get to Egypt and 6 rounds for the infantries. This is the main reason why I have never tried, because it takes for ever.

But you also need more stuff: You need to control Gibraltar with a three-fighter scramble with at least a destroyer in 92 or 91, probably both. This will prevent axis sub from 93 to kill 87. Likewise, you need to control Morrocco and Algeria. Bombers from W-Germany or southern France can land here after killing 87. Or if axis control Algeria you have the same problem. Finally, you need to control the Atlantic Ocean so there are no enemy subs. In summary you need some navy and some planes.

So, what does this achieve, at best little, I think. Yes, you will get a nice number of American units to Egypt/middle east, easily 20 American land units by round 9 or 10. Like pointed out it’s possible to combine with Middle Earth and this will provide an allied fortress in the middle east. So, it can be a way to secure Cairo from axis take over and then prevent the win

Most likely there will be no pressure on Germany on the western front, and this will mean Russia is captured at the latest on G8. You also need to look out for a late sea lion. Finally, the question becomes if USA has enough resources to contain Japan. I don’t know.

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

Okey. If third party find that the caucasus edits are reasonable then go ahead. The bryansk edits are fine too