Best posts made by simon33

@Ichabod said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Are Axis wins up to a ratio of 54:46 now?

That’s a 10% spread. Does this meant that people may stop giving a small bid to the Axis?

55:45 now.

@MrRoboto said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

The Guerilla fighters in China work similarly: While in 2nd edition, Axis players usually throw everything asap against India, in BM you’d be punished by spawning Chinese fighters, if you move too many of your troops to India.

I didn’t say this before but I disagree with this point. The guerilla fighters provide increased incentive to go after India ASAP - just avoid taking unnecessary Chinese territory and they don’t trouble you much if at all.

I’m also unsure about the reduction in the IPC value of the Burma Road from 6 to 3. China fights on for a while with only a few territories with the 6IPC NO.

I don’t know, I guess I’ve done a lot whining about BM and the guerilla fighters in particular. It doesn’t look like anything is changing anytime soon. I’m not the best player but not the worst either and why should the top players listen to me! I agree with many points and the point about Italy being more fun under BM is a great one. I just wish we didn’t have to make the sacrifices that I don’t like to get all that’s good in BM.

One additional thing from what Argothair said is that you can go for the Med objective AND the Roman Empire objective if the Brits use this gambit. Hitting the fleet doesn’t prevent the amphibious assaults. I’d be thinking of that but it does likely cost you a transport to take Gibraltar.

I still think this needs a bid unit to make sense. Not building infantry in London doesn’t seem smart but I’m not focusing on the UK buy part - it doesn’t seem central.

I don’t think 18 is enough. And the allies still need a bid in BM3 IMO.

One thing I have only recently noticed about BM3’s IJ/Okinawa objective, it allows a J2 purchase of an IC/NB/AB without any money saved J1. If you also have bought 3TT 1 marine J1, it’s difficult to stop the J3 Calcutta crush. This also means taking out China can be done faster with the 3 extra units you can build on Asia from having the IC a turn earlier. Doesn’t sound like much but these things do have an effect.

So perhaps there is a problem with the IJ objective. I guess the other argument is that perhaps you should be able to stop the J3 Calcutta crush then there’s no point to the AB/NB/IC purchase. I don’t find that particularly convincing though.

@DermMannInDerHochburg said in Opinions of Bad Guy plans for new game:

@simon33 There exists a pacing that can get the ANZAC fighters, and certainly the starting ones, to Russia proper in time for a turn 6 defense, without using any islands.

You mean Queensland -> Malaya/Shan State? It’s possible but the fighters are still pretty exposed there. Japan can and almost certainly should hit those.

I’m also interested in playing allies again, if anyone is looking.

And can open for Germany in USSR. Don’t forget that. Italy is often under a tonne of pressure and does indeed need a bunch of infantry to survive.

Taking Iwo Jima US1 usually costs you a transport though. I think that’s a bad trade. A third TT for the Pacific could be a worthwhile investment. I guess you could bring across the Atlantic one just as quickly.

Japan might not be able to build any more Navy until J4 with what I’m outlining. J1: buy 3TTs, J2, buy naval base and air base in FIC (maybe), J3 buy IC in FIC. So if you lose all your DDs, you aren’t getting a new one for a while. That certainly means it won’t have much to buy J3. Perhaps it will buy another IC in China? It may be optimal for Japan to avoid buying an artillery so it can buy the two facilities and an IC for FIC. Hadn’t thought about that before.

You actually only really need one DD to hit SZ6 and devastate a sub force, even if it’s part of a mixed fleet.

I actually kind of like your plan - I wasn’t looking to criticise it. I would be cautious about putting a bunch of subs in SZ6 though. They can so easily be trapped and not able to escape. Running to Midway is only any good if you can stand and fight there. You would need a force able to strike a DD+scramble every US turn so I think you should be thinking of taking Korea, best done as USA. Otherwise Japan could even build an airbase there. The bigger threat is the IJN though.

Norway was a heartbreaker!

Wow. That’s true. Only the French islands of Madagascar and New Hebrides don’t have NOs I think. Oh and Greenland, Ceylon, Hainan and Formosa. Far out.

Running from Moscow makes sense if you can’t defend it and won’t kill many troops standing firm, but the probability is that you won’t get to the Middle East before the Germans will unless you go down via Kazakhstan and Eastern Persia. Going that way doesn’t really save Egypt in any likely scenario.

So I’ve certainly seen it done. And there are times it makes sense to do so. It just isn’t as good as holding Moscow and closing in on the Germans and Italians from Norway, Greece and/or Normandy. And convoying off the Italians’ income.

Just rolled it, but I don’t think you could have seen the results. You said final answer so I’ll roll the fighter by “Roll Dice”.

I don’t get why this is such a great idea. If the allies are beating down Japan enough that they hold FIC & Kwangtung, then the guerilla fighters are unlikely to be a factor.

Guerilla fighters don’t slow down the Calcutta crush and in fact focus Japan on Calcutta.

If Germany keeps its troops together, there is no way that USSR can counter attack. End of story really.

Regarding Moscow falling G6, the allies need a plan to prevent this because it’s really hard to win if this happens. The normal plan is the allies, particularly UK, flying a bunch of fighters to Moscow, normally done out of the Middle East. Going via Scandinavia is also possible but a lot more difficult.

Thanks for the game. Perhaps it was a mistake to give you the shot at London G2. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that. UK was stretched pretty thin, but when it held on in London, I think the Axis were pretty doomed, unless Japan could bring out the victory. Would have been a more interesting game if you’d won. USA would have had to go hard to liberate London and Italy would have gone hog wild. I got unlucky in China when it counted and you looked like cleaning them up easily but India wasn’t in any danger anytime soon. USA was in danger of taking back money islands or at least making Japan fight for them.

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.

I think it’s still pretty boring in BM. There’s a big disincentive to do anything in Asia with the loss of the potential lend lease income. Perhaps it’s less a of a obstacle to go after Scandinavia but still there’s a big hurdle there. A few players will go hard after Japan anyway but they make a sacrifice to do so.

In a recent game, someone did a Java stack turn 1 with 3inf 1AAA 1tac and 5 fighters. Also, SZ42 had a DD to prevent bombardment. Now, the attack on the Philippines, with a J1 DOW, had a triple hit against the Japanese so only an artillery remained. Also, the Borneo transport could only bring inf. This made the attack on Java a 45% probability.

Perhaps optimal Axis moves would have meant losing a plane in the Philippines battle to keep an art and a tank (which could have been used rather than 2 art). Also, leaving an inf on Siam. Such moves would mean that an attack on Java would be a +7IPC battle on average https://goo.gl/ScnPJT .

So would such an attack be worth it for Japan? Did I leave a gap for the allies by keeping my planes in the Philippines battle? I’m inclined to think it probably would be worth it to trade plane for plane for Japan in this case.

Now if you have a bid, should you spend 10 of it to block such an attack by Japan? It then becomes a 40% battle. Perhaps the battle is still viable for Japan? Should you spend 20 to make it even harder?

Next thing is if the Allied planes get back to India, it becomes a very dodgy battle to take India J3, typically costing more than half the Japanese air force. Really don’t think that is worth it.

@Cow previously commented that the J3 India crush should work or at worst be deferred to J4. Perhaps he’s right if the Axis play optimally and there’s no bid units. Curious if he has any additional thoughts?

MrCunego (Allies+6) over Simon33 (Axis) BM3

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33219/mrcunego-allies-6-vs-simon33-axis-bm3/97

You know what, you’re on if you still want.

maybe. You get a benefit of zero as USSR from the point you lose Moscow. Sending a big chunk of troops to Finland and Norway makes this likely G6.

I love going after Norway as USA, but unless USA or UK help, it’s too much of a weakening of Moscow.