I’m playing an opponent who is preventing Vichy from occurring by having the UK attack Italy’s destroyer and transport in SZ96 from SZ98 with a destroyer, cruiser, tactical from aircraft carrier in SZ98 and a fighter from Malta. Italy’s destroyer is sunk (and transport). Then in the Non-Combat phase, UK loads the transport in SZ98 and lands UK troops in Southern France. Since France is still an ally at this point, this is legal and effectively prevents Vichy mode, since Germany will now have to take Southern France on its next turn. There isn’t any way to prevent this as far as I can tell.
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
The effect is so slight that it isn’t really noticed.
-
@fasthard said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Thanks @simon33 , @trulpen. So the average bid stays the same in BM4? I thought the European Axis is mostly affected to this change, isn’t it?
Perhaps early on if you consider Black Skies being less viable, but it also affects especially US to not as easily spam bombers.
It’s actually not a small change. Bombers are still built, but to a far lesser extent than when they cost 12.
-
I’m curious about that the troops in S Fr are disbanded and not converted when Axis ends the Armistice by entering the territory, while they are converted in other territories during NCM (Axis keeps those).
I believe the rules/notes has to be clear about this regarding the Zone Libre.
As the wording is now it only states that the fleet at Toulon is disbanded. The land units in S Fr are not mentioned to be disbanded before the end of the Axis turn, but obviously should since they are (or change the mechanics of 3A so they stay as converts).
-
@trulpen i see what you mean. the rule does state that all remaining vichy units are removed from the board, but does not specify that this takes place before the land units in Southern France can turn. Will clarify in future versions.
-
Hi there, I’ve got another question: What happens to an uk pacific unit if it enters French Indo China when the Japanese enter it (1) with declaring war to UK Pacific and (2) without declaring war to UK Pacific? Thx
-
@fasthard said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Hi there, I’ve got another question: What happens to an uk pacific unit if it enters French Indo China when the Japanese enter it (1) with declaring war to UK Pacific and (2) without declaring war to UK Pacific? Thx
If UK_Pac have a unit in FIC Japan can’t enter it without declaring war on UK.
If Japan declares war, the usual rules apply.
-
F FlyingBadger referenced this topic on
-
F FlyingBadger referenced this topic on
-
Hi there,
I’ve got another question. Following situation:
Russia is at war with Germany, but not with Japan.
UK Pacific is at war with Japan.
Japan attacks Burma with Russian units in it without declaring war to Russia.
Do the Russian units support defending the territory?
If not, what happens to the Russian units, when Japan occupies Burma?
(I now it’s not a special BM question, but due to the 2/4IPC Land lease NO I post it here.)Thanks is advanced!
-
@fasthard if Russia is not at war with Japan, Russia can not move into Chinese territory to Support them.
RUSSIA MUST dow on Japan first to do so. -
@aequitas-et-veritas Chinese territory is clear, but what about UK territories like Burma, India, etc?
-
If Russia is not at war with Japan then my understanding is that those units wouldn’t participate in any combat, it would just be the Japanese units attacking the UK Pacific ones. But looking in Powers Not at War with One Another of the A&A manual it states:
A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.
Which would suggest that Japan can’t attack a UK Pacific territory which contains Russian units without first going to war with Russia.
-
The rules say this:
“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.” (this is from page 36 of the Europe rule book)
If you go to page 15 it restricts the movement of neutral powers so that they cannot enter the territory of other powers (friendly or otherwise) until they are at war.
So soviet units must stay inside the Soviet Union on the pacific map (which includes Burma and India) until they are at war with Japan.
I’m fairly certain that this was not changed for BM, but others can confirm.
-
@farmboy said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
The rules say this:
“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.” (this is from page 36 of the Europe rule book)
If you go to page 15 it restricts the movement of neutral powers so that they cannot enter the territory of other powers (friendly or otherwise) until they are at war.
So soviet units must stay inside the Soviet Union on the pacific map (which includes Burma and India) until they are at war with Japan.
I’m fairly certain that this was not changed for BM, but others can confirm.
Precisely, same in BM.
-
Thx a lot for your answers.
So Russian units can also not support the UK and will be ignored in the UK Europe territory (e.g. Persia) if Japan attacks the Brits there? Will the Soviets stay there when JPN occupies Persia (Japan is not at war with Soviet Union)?Found s.th. here, is this answer correct?
"however, the russians can be at war with germany, and take iran, and the japanese cant hit it without declaring war on ussr.or UK can take iran, and ussr can put units there, and japan cant hit it without war
or ussr can take iran, and uk can put units there, and japan cant hit it without declaring on the british."
-
Any advices?
-
@fasthard said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Thx a lot for your answers.
So Russian units can also not support the UK and will be ignored in the UK Europe territory (e.g. Persia) if Japan attacks the Brits there? Will the Soviets stay there when JPN occupies Persia (Japan is not at war with Soviet Union)?Found s.th. here, is this answer correct?
"however, the russians can be at war with germany, and take iran, and the japanese cant hit it without declaring war on ussr.or UK can take iran, and ussr can put units there, and japan cant hit it without war
or ussr can take iran, and uk can put units there, and japan cant hit it without declaring on the british."
Not sure I completely understand but if there are Soviet units in Persia when anyone attacks, they must first DOW on USSR. If they do not DOW they cannot attack. This is in the rules somewhere. It is different at sea though.
USSR also need to be at war in Europe to move into Persia.
Do you still have questions?
-
@simon33 Thx for your answer. Just wanted to make sure that Japan can’t attack there without DOW on the soviets.
-
@fasthard said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 Thx for your answer. Just wanted to make sure that Japan can’t attack there without DOW on the soviets.
If there are soviet units in Persia, Japan must dow on ussr to attack Persia.
-
All:
After several years of playing BM (on and off) I am interested in hearing peoples view on marines. Are they useful? Do they add something to the game?
I struggle with finding how to use them.
Honestly one of the best purpose I have found is to buy with Russia before german DOW just to distract germany so they cant leave land open.
It may be usefull to buy with Japan and take guam and it also may make a differance against an early assault on India.
For the USA it it may make sense to buy on the east coast and put on the cruiser there (maybe the best use I think)
In the pacific it sounds cool because you can island jump and claim several undefended japanese islands, but in reality it does not work because your cruiser (or battleship) is very volunerable for counter attacks.
For the british i have found no or little use for marines, may be useful in special situations where you have several cruisers, but keep in mind 3 cruisers require 15 IPC which is eq. to a transport and inf +art and you get to keep the tranny
For italy? I have little input. Very rearly a lonely cruiser can enter open sea in the med. It needs to be protected by the fleet, then it may make sense.
Anzac: I have never bought a marine with ANZAC
So, in summary I find it useful for some nations in the early game, but I hardly ever, or never, buy a marine past round 2
(sorry for the spelling)
-
@oysteilo the Nation were I buy them the most are indeed the US and Japan and only occassionally with UK and Italy.
As you said, in the Mid and Late game they will be bought more unlikely.
But I saw a game were Adam514 is buying them even in the Midgame and not only a single one but a few.
PtV on the other Hand opens up much more variety to the game and therefore you need to buy them more frequentlier then in BM.
My opinion is, that the Map layout of BM and the IPC’s you gain does not emphasis a huge Marine Unit build. You allways want to bring cheap and en mass units on the Board as quick as possible. That is why they changed the Bmbr cost.
I know 12 and 14 IPC are a lot but way better in effectiveness on the Board, rather then a mass Mrine build with only having a bonus on Amphib.Assaults.
That is why a Dark Sky Strategy works (you have a long term effect).
It would be interesting to know if they would be purchased more often w. a cost of only 4 IPC, bc to buy them for 5 IPC and only having that bonus on amphib is what probably scares away a lot of Players including me. -
@aequitas-et-veritas
To add on to this - by mid game, your CA and BB are generally out in a theater of war. And you do not buy CA’s, and rarely bb’s. So you need a transport to shuttle the marine out to the ca and bb. Why not just by an inf and save the 2 IPC’s.
In addition, without a bonus if attached to an ART, they are not terribly useful after that initial assault, so not a useful buy to help the long game except in very niche situations.Lowering the cost of both the ca and the marine would probably help, or keep the cost of the marine, but throw in a bonus if paired with artillery so after an amphib when a marine, inf and art hit the shore, and you take an inf for casualty, the marine is still worth while for the next battle.
Or have DD’s able to carry marines. That is a cost of 13 for one 2 on an amphib assault with no bombard vs 14 ipc’s for a tt with 2 @ 2 attack with an art and inf, so that is not going to unbalance the game, but make it more worth while as a purchase here and there depending on the overall situation.
None of these adjustments make it so it’s worth spamming marines, but gives them more opportunities to be a worth while purchase. Going from extreme one off situations to a small but worthwhile part of a combined arms approach to long term goals. More inline with the effect that lowering tacs to 10 had in P2V
I don’t have enough P2V experience to make comment on marines in that version, but my gut tells me that CA’s cost lowering to 11 while still not offering longer term advantage to the marine unit (paired with art) is not enough to make it worth buying regularly as the game progresses.
Suggested Topics
