Are the Canadian units in the out of box rules also converted into American units?
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
I agree that a sz 5 convoy lane would decrease the incentive for USSR to DOW on Japan. However it is not important as in most cases USSR will loose control of Amur in the next couple of rounds anyway
It seems like a “no change” to the original set up is holy and there are many good arguments for that, I agree. But then way handle it in a way that is illogical? (At least to me.)
There are ways arounds this, why not just say that the USSR gets it lend lease objective as long as they control Archangel, Persia and Amur? (without the sub limitation for sz 125 and sz 80)
After all the Allies need more money in BM3 (and +2 for USSR seems fair) and in this way, all the lend lease lanes are handled more similar. Maybe it would even be an argument for G1 or G2 DOW on USSR, isn’t that a good thing?
-
So why is this bad:
USSR should collect +2 for each of archangel, persia and Amur (allied controlled). No war ship limitation on sz 125, 80 and 5. Also no doubling of lend lease if Japan dow on USSR.
I think it does the following
- Gives in most cases +2 to USSR. I think many people start to see that allies need more money
- The lend lease are handled the same way, less confusing
- It will encourage G1 and G2 dow.
- USSR will try to fight archangel. Now it wont bother in most cases, because of sz 125
-
The interaction between land territory and sea zone for the Lend Lease is what makes it interesting and dynamic in my opinion.
-
@oysteilo the lend lease is fun cuz you can chose to block it by devoting a sub to the sz, or taking the territory. I’ve played many games where Japan never invaded the middle east, but managed to block lend lease by putting a sub in sz 80. Seems like a reasonable strategic option.
-
@regularkid But only if the USSR declares war on Japan, or you’re prepared to risk incurring the USSR lend lease bonus.
-
here is another improvement to make BM more playable
The allies objective for
UK Europe if Allies control two of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece, Southern Italy, and Allies have at least one land unit in any of these territories
should include 4 of: gib, southern france, greece and egypt
This is to encourge attack on the neutrals by the allies. I am sure however, the team has a good expelenation why this is not a good idea (would love to hear it though)
-
@oysteilo Don’t you know that you can’t change the sacred texts!
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo Don’t you know that you can’t change the sacred texts!
I dont understand. Did i do something wrong?
-
Just a sarcastic comment.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Just a sarcastic comment.
hahaha, thanks, but what about my point?
-
I think it would be functionally similar to the status quo. Normally, the allies hold Gibraltar and Egypt so unless there’s a landing in both Sth France and Greece there wouldn’t be much change to the present.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I think it would be functionally similar to the status quo. Normally, the allies hold Gibraltar and Egypt so unless there’s a landing in both Sth France and Greece there wouldn’t be much change to the present.
I disagree
I think this improvment would make a difference, against G1 or G2 DOW, but especially against G1 AND J1 DOW
-
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I think it would be functionally similar to the status quo. Normally, the allies hold Gibraltar and Egypt so unless there’s a landing in both Sth France and Greece there wouldn’t be much change to the present.
I disagree
I think this improvment would make a difference, against G1 or G2 DOW, but especially against G1 AND J1 DOW
the point is DOW on the neutrals.
-
The true neutrals? I don’t see how it affects it.
-
-
but seriously, i also fail to see how the proposed objective would encourage Allied DOW’s on the true neutrals (or why that is a desirable outcome, in any event)?
-
What’s that pic from?
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
What’s that pic from?
seriously? hahaha. you made the “sacred text” reference! its a very popular meme from Star Wars: The Las Jedi.
-
I don’t recall that scene. Oh well.
-
I was wondering if a change could be implemented to make Cruiser’s 11 IPC’s and remove 1 infantry from northern italy and add one mechanized infantry. The cruiser change would just give a bit of incentive to buy it because why buy 2 cruisers when you could get 3 destroyers. The second change about northern italy is that that one mech would give italy/germany the option for italy to take normandy round one instead of just germany taking it and france. I don’t think it would change the eastern front at all.
The 11 IPC cruiser would be somewhat more beneficial to anzac and UK PAC. UK could buy a cruiser and sub on round one if they chose to stack a fleet round 1.
I’m reading that the mod is somehow still in axis favor and I"m wondering if that it because of europe or pacific?
If it is truly an balance issue you could modify the cruiser to be 12 IPC’s and A4 D4 when paired with a BB and be able to move 1 infantry OR marine. This would make anzac slightly more powerful to balance out japan if there is a balance issue there.
I feel the board is pretty well balanced but I’m probably an intermediate player.
Hope to get a response since this thread has been dead for a month…
Suggested Topics
