@Pejon_88, check this out 
@Amon-Sul hey. It is probably too soon to know whether and what kind of bid is needed. Adam and I have been playing without a bid.
@trulpen yes it should say “eastern India” in the objective panel. Adam and I are aware of the typo and will be fixing it the next version.
And the Caucasus objective for Germany, I suppose it’s control of both south and north that’s needed?
@trulpen no. its just southern caucasus. Will be clarified in future release.
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen no. its just southern caucasus. Will be clarified in future release.
Thanks!
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul hey. It is probably too soon to know whether and what kind of bid is needed. Adam and I have been playing without a bid.
Well, if it stays that way, all these changes (that help the allies, and weaken the axis) just go in line with my point, that axis are overpowered in BM3, and that the bid for allies will keep growing and growing
That Axis still are stronger than Allies in BM3 is not under debate. The balanced bid is however not all clear. As you say, it will likely be bigger than 10. Maybe 20 is the level? Who knows. 50 is out of the question though. Also, there might be strategies with the Allies developed that counter this still.
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Enjoy!
G1 is finished! Yi-haa!
go for Tuva. 
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Enjoy!
G1 is finished! Yi-haa!
Changed the purchase (before commencing battles) from 1 ac, 3 inf, 1 mech to 1 ac, 1 mIC, sav 2 IPC.
Put it in Romania. Sneaky, sneaky. 
Now J1 is posted. Very different.
AeV just told me about this version - I gave it a once over and it looks fantastic, guys, brilliant, great work! Right amount of changes, substantive changes without being too fine-tuned or too complex. Nice looking skin, too.
I do believe this will make the original board obsolete for many players. Incredible.
I have an idea for a new unit. Of course off-sets things, so perhaps not realistic, but here goes: Russia can purchase militia for 2 IPC each, which got 0 attack and 1 defence.
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
I have an idea for a new unit. Of course off-sets things, so perhaps not realistic, but here goes: Russia can purchase militia for 2 IPC each, which got 0 attack and 1 defence.
We’d want to head away from massive stacks and we’re also not keen on different units for different nations.
@gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
I do believe this will make the original board obsolete for many players. Incredible.
Wow. Thanks, Gamerman. That means alot coming from you. Appreciate the kind words.
@trulpen Can build subs, transports, destroyers and cruisers without a harbor.
PtV G2 executed. Fizzled with my plan of building a tr, des and ac in z102, since I wasn’t at cue with the new rules. Lack a harbour. Darn.
@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen Can build subs, transports, destroyers and cruisers without a harbor.
Luckily understood that during CM, but before executing the battle. Thanks!
The mIC will anyway be valuable, since the ukrainian mIC will disappear soon.
Although I admit that it was a fishy purchase for G1.
Of course you’re aware that Russia’s objectives are not up to date with the sea zones.
Another thing. When I moved the fig from Rome to the English Channel the client insisted of moving it through WG instead of S Fr. What I recall it should be possible to fly over pro-axis territories, right?
@trulpen That’s a player enforced rule that you can fly over Vichy neutrals, you need to use edit mode. Global was like that too, but the WG route was 4 moves as well so no one noticed.
