Best posts made by simon33

It’s interesting because when BM first came out the games were shorter for a while. I can see a link with more income and longer games though. Moscow living longer really lengthens the game.

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

@simon33 Maybe predictable isn’t the right word. I guess the term is repetitive. There will be a clear order of good to bad techs for each nation, which removes choice from the player.

I understood what you were getting at, I just don’t think you are looking at it the right way. It’s like saying that there will be an optimal path without tech so therefore the game isn’t fun without tech. Which is clearly ridiculous. Maybe I’ve overstated the point there but I don’t understand why you are defending undirected tech. Do you like playing with tech? Can’t remember ever seeing you use it.

Did he really decline to repair the factory in London or just the airbase? Was it a scramble or not g1?

No repair seems a bit of a blunder. Not surprised you won without UK getting into your planes.

@trulpen said in Trulpen (Allies) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

Sorry, but yet another edit. Forgot that I couldn’t reach S Africa with the transport. Edited the buy from 3 inf and 1 art to 2 tanks in Persia instead. Is it ok?

It’s ok.

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

One solution (as Adam alluded to with his mention of 1914 tech) would be a semi-directed tech tree–which gives you an element of control by allowing you to choose a research focus (e.g., land, sea, economy). without dictating specific technologies. What do you guys think?

G40 allowed you to pick which table you would roll on and everyone hated it.

I still don’t see much point in implementing a non directed tech system. Who would want it? Or perhaps you could support both systems via a map option (assuming that is possible). Then those who see merit in the random result (which is who?) could use that.

If UK or ANZAC attacks Japan first or moves into China, Japan can attack them and can avoid bringing USA into the war until turn 4.

After the last French turn, I looked at if this game was recoverable. Then I saw it. Allies need to take back a victory city in the Pacific. USA can theoretically do it but I can’t see any other nation with a mathematical possibility.

@freh On your point 3, if there is a scramble the sea battle must be won (or tied) for the amphibious assault to proceed. If it is lost, the amphibious assault cannot proceed. If there is no sea battle, the amphibious assault proceeds.

No scramble G1? Not sure I like that. You can still have 1 fighter on Gibraltar and a full CV in SZ92. If there’s no J1 I don’t like using the SZ39 TT to activate Persia. Probably if there is a J1 DOW I still don’t like it.

If the Axis J1 DOW you can put a US fighter on Gibraltar. I guess the second worst case for the SZ92 fleet is a single scrambler, losing a plane in SZ96 and no J1 DOW. So 2DD, 2CA, 1CV, 2ftr defending. Hmm, possibly not enough. Worst case is losing SZ96.

Varies a fair bit if Germany takes Southern France because then Italy can bring its two fighters into an attack on SZ92.

Japan has to hold 6 victory cities in the Pacific for a full round - so yes, until USSR’s next turn.

Taking Rome has no effect. In BM, taking Berlin means Japan needs a 7th victory city.

In Europe, you need to hold 8VCs or 9 in BM if you don’t have Tokyo.

@trulpen said in Trulpen (Allies) vs Simon33 (Axis) BM3:

Honestly, I have never really played with VC’s before. IRL we never do it.

Been there, done that.

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

Is Afghanistan supposed to be not connected with central India? It looks like it should be, but I tried moving units between the two areas and it did not work. Perhaps a bug?

Seems to be.

Reposting in the rules thread.

I don’t really understand why you wouldn’t take Calcutta as soon as you reasonably can. What else would Japan do? Attack China? ANZAC crush? Has no real bearing on fighting the USN, I would say.

One thing you could have done different is relied on my need to fly nearly every plane to Moscow. That would have allowed you to land planes on T-J.

Also pulling some Luftwaffe down to die in the Med reduced the pressure on Moscow. I don’t really understand what moving to T-J actually could have achieved. Better to build an IC and consolidate Egypt as Italian IMO.

@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.

Intensely dislike if that works better for you.

@weddingsinger Interesting comments but the Allies really need to do a lot to prevent a J5 take down of Calcutta. By then all the starting troops from Jehol and south can reach Calcutta, or at least the survivors plus troops produced out of FIC. If you have no transports at all helping out and a few perhaps optimal moves working out like stacking Burma UK1, taking out land units UK1, building artillery C2, killing a bunch of units in Yunnan C3 (or preventing the Japanese from even trying to move their stack in). If everything works out, you might stall it until J6 but it’s hard work.

In spite of USN actions, I reckon you should be able to bring in some amphibious units to take it J4 or J5. If I can’t get it J5 I think the allies have played a great game.

Is J6 or maybe J5 about what you’re thinking?

Oh I see. I’m in two minds about bringing in CVs if you don’t want to damage them straight off. In some ways it makes it easier to deal with bad dice but others harder because you can only retreat.

Oh, retreating to SZ46 was why New Guinea was taken.

One thing I have noticed as allies in P2V is that it is now normally possible to stack up Yunnan C2, DOW UK2 and hold Yunnan J3 and likely go on to secure the Burma Rd. Perhaps this is sub optimal Japan play although it has been happening in quite a few games. Allies should go on to win from this move unless it can be dislodged. None of these games have finished though.

@DessertFox599 said in We need an allied playbook.:

The reason to do Toronto Crockett is to get rid of the extra transport. Nobody really cares about the battleship and crusier. Its that second transport Italy has to reinforce Alexandria, take and keep Gibraltar, evacuate Africa if needed, etc.

I think it’s both. With the 4 surface ships Italy starts with, Italy can defend it’s transports against some attacks. Depends what the allies put in range of course. Without the fleet, any attack after getting Greece means suiciding transports.

I don’t want to labour the point, those things are reasons in G40 and BM2 but in BM3 you don’t need to put the sub in SZ125 until G3 so you can buy it G2. You don’t know for certain that you don’t have a surviving sub from G1 at the point you do your buy, although with the 2ftr scramble to SZ111 it was probable that it would happen that way. If you’re worrying about stopping the UK objective for no subs also, remember that you can mobilise subs into SZ110 if all the DDs are no closer than SZ106. DDs in SZ91 and SZ106 make it impossible to put a sub anywhere out of the range of a DD so you can’t always achieve this one.

Killing the USSR sub starting in SZ127 isn’t urgent. If you do a G2 DOW and it convoys off some income for one round, it isn’t the end of the world.

Sorry to go on. When I first played this game I did the same thing. Then all I found is that I needed to either retreat into the Baltic or buy lots more ships to compete with the USA. That’s not useful. When Germany tries to compete with the allies in the Atlantic it is taking its eye off the ball.

In a couple of Adam514’s games, he’s done an Anzac crush to overcome this limitation (vs regularkid and myself). 666 is doing one to me also. That does help Japan but losing China is really bad.

I’m confused why players don’t take FIC J1. Only costs 8IPC/turn for a max of 3 turns. Losing China costs Japan more than that.

Seems that if Japan can’t take either Sydney, India (unlikely) or Hawaii reasonably early, the Axis are in a lot of trouble.