Best posts made by trulpen

Not worth it.

Finalized.

@Karl7 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@axis-dominion said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I like the idea of beefing up Russia some more and giving Germany more of a sense of urgency to go after the mother bear. Otherwise you will have the @trulpen ’s of the world Who will stack like 8 to 10 euro carriers and like Karl said, block any allied progress in the west and med whilst ever slowly choking Russia like a python.

Yes, I experienced that. It hurt.

It’s oh so sweet! 😁

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

@trulpen said in trulpen (X) vs oysteilo (A+5) BM3:
it is what it is, we both need to be more careful if our records matter to us.

Hear, hear! Or like when I let you take down Berlin the first time in our present game…

I want to get the bomber-production going. When having Norway, it’s great for staging multiple SBRs all over Germany.

@WindowWasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

For BM4, I’d love to see cruisers reduced to 11 IPCs, and battleships to 18 IPCs.

Also, it would be cool if it were easier for Japan to win and harder for Germany to win that way the game could be consistently won on both sides, not majority Europe like it is currently.

I also do not think that the game needs to be balanced to the point where no bid is necessary. I think bids are fun and make each game different.

Also think it’s great if the cost of a tac is reduced to 10, like in P2V. They’re definitely not as attractive as figs in OOB with the changed air-battle value.

I know change is hard, but I’ve noted some internal and external frustration with the ranking system. It doesn’t really allow for play were opponents have a big gap. Being, say, tier E and playing tier 3 means that the higher ranked player will lose ranking no matter what.

Even though it’s neat and functional, the present ranking system is actually flawed in this respect.

I think that implementing something like the chess Elo-rating system could solve this? I believe the algorithm could be incorporated as it is.

The point of difference is that with Elo a tier 3 could easily play against an E or M player, without the ranking being an issue. The higher player would most likely win, gaining a very small rating increase, but lose a lot if the game was lost. By the same measure the lower ranked player would gain a lot with a win, but lose a little with a loss.

I’m planning to have 1-2 aussie figs on a US carrier, which makes a higher need for J to protect tr’s.

Yes, but when/if I get a +10 bid, a fig in Scotland is top priority.

@wizmark said in L20 trulpen (X) vs Wizmark (A+9) BM3:

@trulpen I had a feeling that you would roll well in 111 and sink the fleet in one go hence the no scramble. Can hit that wounded bb now!

Wizguy! ;)

May also add that it was great to sink that cr z92 and keep the sub. Well worth it to bring in the fig there. And very nice to bomb Ukraine for 6 dmg, especially with G on a 49 income-level. I think it looks pretty tough now for Germany.

Good changes.

I don’t seem to be playing very well. How did I not see that those 2 subs were exposed from sz92?

I also slipped during CM. Changed my buy before executing, so restarted. Then I missed to launch a walk on into Ukraine during the second try. Maybe because it’s 3 AM here? I did an edit and hope it’s ok. Anyway a very obvious move for me, so don’t think it’s fishy.

I wanted to secure Algeria, since the fig was meant to land there. Norway thereby gets 2 aa, which is good against 5 german air. The units in northern Africa may be picked up by tr later.

As it is now skirmishes are heavily reduced.

I’m thinking one strategy for G could be, although pretty expensive, to put up an ab in Saratov, Vologda and S Belarus respectively.

Russia would be pretty much jailed in, only affording to hit one area. Of course, G has to be able to complete the feat of containing the commies as first base.

The same goes with Normandie and Holland. Keeping 3 fig in Paris is very strong now. Maybe not bad in that instance though.

Well, the Allies does have some trumps at hand, like a super-strong Russia.

No dice rolled, so hope you’re ok with that change of purchase.

What do the hive-mind think of this?

@gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Or better yet (although this would be a new rule) don’t allow Russian and American ground troops to occupy the same territory on the Pacific map (because of history). I could even see a rule that no allied GROUND units are allowed to enter Russian territories (entire world), and no I don’t expect anyone to listen to me. Some things to think about… But since you’ve buffed Russia and made it bigger, maybe it’s time to get more historical and make her operate with no allied ground troops. (Still have the NO for no Allied units at all in Russia, with allied air still being allowed)

I think it’s a good historical approach, but would be taxing on playability. Besides, if history would’ve been different and Japan started an invasion of Siberia and Germany succeeding better by Leningrad and such, then I’m sure Mother Russia would’ve welcomed any additions whatsoever to it’s battered teets.

Has history went, they just didn’t have to. Or?

Yeah, but Japan can’t be everywhere at once. It’s their curse. I just wanted to put some serious pressure on Calcutta and not lose half my fleet like I usually do.

My suggestion.

1 fig, 1 sub.

Convoy disrupting in 3 locations, although J can hit all three, it’s usually annoying as hell and displaces all his 3 des, of which one already is displaced though.

Consolidating everything else with the rest of the fleet. The 3 figs land on US-carriers. The fleet is extremely secure what I can see, so the third fig may leave and we won’t need any blockers.

Both aussie and french inf move up through the ME.

The french des will find a haven in z92, helping to rid Italy of their NO. Might this be the time for an ab in Gibraltar? It will be vulnerable to the east and we want to be able to move the UK-fleet without sacrificing our little companion.

Inf in UK protect the sb.

I would say more or less no. It’s longer distances, so more difficult. Russia is stronger, so not as needed. But, in some instances I believe it would make sence.

Also the situation of US building a mIC in Norway. Oh, they can’t move their land units further than Finland? Oups, that just made the mIC so much less good. :)

Maybe that would be for the better though? Taking some sting out of the powerful Norwegian Enterprise. Although I suspect it would be for the worse, making Normandie the only rational option and thereby limiting play in that area.