Best posts made by simon33

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

ICs cannot be built on islands, same rule as G40.

Manilla, Sumatra, Java, Borneo are no longer islands under the G40 definition.

Regarding Canada, I really hate the part that the income becomes lost to the allies in the event of a Sea Lion. Weakens the allies certainly.

Regarding paratroopers, there are some maps with “air_transport” carrying a special infantry. These things work but you require edit mode and/or player enforced rules under some circumstances.

Regarding Sicily<->Rome I would have thought that weakens Italy too much and it lacks logic to be able to walk across the water without a transport. Yes, that applies Eire-Scotland but the effect on game play is minimal.

Sorry about the delayed reaction.

@taamvan said in [House Rules] China Convoy Zones?:

The need would be that most of Germany’s income isn’t vulnerable, which makes the KGF unfavorable. But I do agree with you, most house rules (esp. those invented by others) seem like extras and complications, to me.

In part I see what you’re getting at. It gives the allies an incentive to park 4+ subs in SZ125 and/or a fleet with CVs. However, if they can do that, then wouldn’t they be doing an amphibious assault? I suppose in the case where there is a huge land force on Norway, which I have done once, it may make sense.

@trulpen said in BM3 trulpen (X) vs simon33 (A+9), no guerilla:

I have a compromising question. I didn’t calculate the situation in sz97, but was just thinking that I’d have plenty of enough defense with 2 filled carriers and 3 scramble units. Looks like I was wrong. Battles have been done in Russia and dice rolled, but my question is simply if you’ll allow me to change my buy with Germany from 1 ac -> 2 des? Seems I desperately need a blocker. :skull:

Still seems a pretty dogdy attack on SZ97.

Anyway, I’ll allow it, even though you’re winning!

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

@simon33 Thanks for the suggestion. Not sure what the Xmx and Xms options mean, but I doubled the memory allocated to each and the game does seem to scroll along much nicer.

-Xmx means maximum memory and -Xms means minimum memory for a certain type of memory (Java heap space). Not sure why “s” means minimum; small perhaps.

What? The Mongolian rule still activates unless it has been nullified. And it’s still Soviet troops who spring up, even if they have no other units on the board.

Normally Japan will wait until Germany can run a tank to Amur in that situation but perhaps not always.

I’m going to concede the game right there.

Japan is too strong, USA is too weak and needs to work hard just to defend San Francisco! India will probably fall in 3 rounds or so. Perhaps I can kill your German spearhead in the Middle East but this is not at all assured. Would have been nice if USA could have taken Iraq but I really needed to kill the SZ93 fleet with a 50/50, preferably with a decent force surviving.

Not sure where I lost this one but I think not going to take down Western Europe US3 was a major blunder.

I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.

@M36 said in [House Rules] Should allies receive a bid?:

Well here’s my two cents. I don’t play online or competitively, I just play for fun with friends so we have never once used a bid. It’s far more fun coming up with creative strategies to counter the sheer power Japan starts with.

That’s all well and good but once you start playing people with much more optimal axis strategies you really do need a bid.

Alternatively, your group’s allied play is more optimal than online. This is highly unlikely, albeit possible.

Perhaps the allies need more than +9 to compensate for no guerillas.

@WindowWasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

My suggestion applies to very common scenario i see of the allies holding either Normandy, and not being able to expand due to the Italians holding southern France. If the allies could take France, and keep normandy, the french earn 14 (+5 with the suggested NO makes it 19, enough to produce on the two factories)

So make it original owner “Neutral - pro allies”? Actually I quite like the idea and why not Southern France too. It’s similar to the Chinese coastal territories like Kwangsi so totally doable.

Perhaps a bit illogical though, in the sense that French territories don’t give their income to France. I wonder if it would be better to reduce the IPC value to 0 and give the money to France via objectives. Also, probably should give the allied player the option to give these territories back to France??

Throwing ideas into the air there. Not advocating anything in particular.

I reckon a bomber buy G1 is useful for keeping the UK honest and also for bombing Moscow but I wouldn’t go so far as to buy a CV unless it’s to move into the Med and/or stop a UK scramble G1. Of course, the CV buy is great for Sea Lion.

In answer to the OP question, the most efficient buy is CV+2TT for Sea Lion. But that commits too much to what is likely to be a sub-optimal Axis plan.

@trulpen said in BM3 trulpen (X+3) vs axis-dominion (A) #1:

In that case I simply miscalculated. Wasn’t aware. A bad move by me, but the dice still were pretty severe, right?

There is no way of attacking both fleets without having a positive TUV from scrambling at least one. You have to decide how to balance both attacks and it’s normally SZ110 that has the largest swings, also it has the naval base so if you don’t finish of the BB there it is instantly repaired. That’s a major problem. In some cases people will only attack one fleet, normally SZ110.

They can be updated.

If it isn’t done in a week or so, bug me again.

Artillery can always be bought G1. Buying too much artillery G2 can mean not getting on Bryansk G5,. although that may not be a problem. Some games I’ve played Axis, I’ve moved into Bryansk G6 and Moscow G7. I’m in too minds about it to be honest. It’s always good to take Bryansk and Ukraine by G5. But artillery is really useful in a Moscow assault. Much better value than tanks, which you do need some of.

But yes, the dice were against you. You have to worry about this more than a potential attack on you. If you have a potential 70% attack on you, there is a good chance that the attack won’t be made. This reduces the chance of the battle going against you. Whereas when you are attacking there is no chance of the attack not being made obviously - just a ~10% chance of a disaster in this case.

Update is live. You’ll need to delete and re-download your map packs.

Also fixed up some of the missing combat move 1st bugs for the relevant maps.

@weddingsinger yeah but once you start delaying the Moscow assault more troops will be bought by USSR and so you’ll need to invest much more in taking Moscow. So I think that it is indeed a problem. Perhaps you can do something with the CV that makes it worthwhile, I’m just not convinced of that.

Taking Gibraltar pretty much requires a J3 (or later) DOW. Otherwise USA will smash you in SZ91. So for all that Axis sacrifice, are you getting Egypt? Not that likely.

@trulpen said in BM3 trulpen (X+3) vs axis-dominion (A) #1:

@simon33 said in BM3 trulpen (X+3) vs axis-dominion (A) #1:

Scrambling SZ110 had a +7 TUV expectation.

Am I doing something wrong here? According to my analysis before the battle I had a +90 % win with full scramble in sz110 and a TUV swing of +25-30.

Thought this was pretty ok, hypothetically, but I think we can conclude that I was heavily diced in both sea zones. ;) It happens and I’m not bitter about it, but I think I agree with that sz110 needed another tac. I’ll try and learn from it.

Yeah we can conclude that the dice were a fair bit away from average. You didn’t continue the attack (perhaps wisely) and a few % of that 90% win would have included the battle going against you then reversing.

Doing the math it turned out that it was 7IPCs TUV worse to not scramble.

My point is that I would have scrambled to that attack also with no hesitation. Every hit by the RAF kills a valuable Luftwaffe. You could have expected to lose 4 planes with a scramble which only costs 3 planes. I guess Axis-dom already said this more or less.

Then there needs to be a notes update.

No, G3 is about right in most cases. G2 can be good too though.