First turn UK industry buy in Egypt - how do you counter it

Stratbombers and Dark Skies are so flexible and effective, that buying up to 6 is optimal play.  Strategic bombing is a bit too powerful OOB because Russia has little defense.  But on top of that, the 6 range and cheap cost makes them a bit overpowered–they are one of the few units that can consistently reach some interesting target the turn after they are built.

After almost 200 games in the last 3 years, I need to try new things.

@Amon-Sul:

@Marshmallow:

Exactly so.

It’s house rules.

what about 2nd edition? it is also an upgrade of it`s own.

yes, BM adds some more stuff, but i would say a lot more than just a house rule, since half the people play it.

If you discount the players in league (2016) standings who only played like 3-5 games, than there were about 50 players. However, there are probably around 1000 players throughout the world who play Global 40 2nd ed. (I can’t find the metric for 2017 league standings). In the Global 40 forum section, there are hundreds of threads and posts by people who haven’t played BM3 yet.

Not everyone who even comes to the site plays triplea live, let alone pbem, let alone league. Also, when league players call an Axis and Allies game that is respected and religiously played by serious regulars “vanilla,” it might come across as snobbish. Even if not intended to.

I’m trying to learn BM3. To me it’s a different game. And my jury is still out on whether or not I will like it. Played 150+ games of G40 2. A difference I’ve noticed for instance is I don’t see the majority of players do Tobruk or Taranto compared to Global 40. In G40 2, protecting Cairo is decisive. BM3 permits the UK more options. And even in this thread, right away buying a marine changes the game drastically. Now a cruiser has become a transport. Also, how many people do a J1 DOW in BM3 compared to Global 40? Not many.

There’s two basic allied responses to holding France G1.

In case (2), I say surrender, even though it may cost the allies the entire RAF. In case (1), you may be able to keep playing. I’ve got a game going now where Paris did fail, I think I should have deferred the DOW on USSR until G4 and played Japan as normal. This does allow a few allied actions like USA reaching the med or Norway. However, it is better than letting the Soviets push back all over the shop and get communism objectives for Scandinavia etc. I suppose this is a bigger deal in balanced mod because as soon as you DOW, you release the increased NOs for USSR. Also, all the money from being at war allowed the Soviets to buy enough planes to stop me from being able to effectively strat bomb Moscow.

@louprouge:

if i play whit canadian why uk pacific got 15 icp thank sorry for my englich

The UK Europe starting income is 28 IPCs, the UK Pacific starting income is 17 IPCs… all Canadian territories including BC are absorbed into the UK Europe economy, and West India is part of the UK Pacific economy.

Thank you for analyzing that statement for me. Odds favor a scramble, but my experience with it is okay. My decision depends on my mood and what I feel like doing. :)

When I am germany I throw that battleship. I don’t want to lose fighters, I will lose a battleship.  In which case the uk scramble odds are on average less than 1 fighter for 1 fighter… the battleship UK gets to kill anyway. So yeah I like that better.

@AMIGOOFD:

When you buy units, do you get to use them at that turn, or do you have to wait to place them at the end to use them. My friend argues you can use them right away after purchase.

The turn sequence is “Buy units, combat move, combat, non-combat move, deploy your purchased units”.  And then the next nation move does the same and so on.
So you can’t use them to attack, and the only way you can use them in your current turn is carriers as landing space for planes.

The initial post in this thread has to be bogus.  I play as Japan almost exclusively and what he’s saying he did - well - I’m extremely skeptical.  Perhaps the noobs he played against set up wrong, or the group misapplied certain rules, because looking at the initial Global setup, I just dont see how what he’s saying he did is actually possible.

Most of the NOs in Anniversary were simply dependent on a territory (or territories) being held by one side, so UK often gets a NO for the US controlling the Carolines in the Pacific, or the US getting a NO for the UK controlling France, or Russia getting a NO for the UK controlling Norway, Finland, and Poland.  It’s basically the same thing; ANZAC was closely connected to the UK still, having been colonies/territories in the British Commonwealth/Empire up until just before WW2, so a good deal of British economics was affected by the status of Australia and New Zealand, just as it was with Canada (which is recognized in the game as an independent nation with their own roundel, but controlled overall by the UK player).

You don’t have to have the same person control ANZAC and UK for the NO to make sense, just like you don’t have to have the same player control the US and UK in Anniversary.