G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

[oysteilo]

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)

[simon33]

@oysteilo Don’t you know that you can’t change the sacred texts!

[oysteilo]

@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?

[simon33]

Just a sarcastic comment.

[oysteilo]

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Just a sarcastic comment.

hahaha, thanks, but what about my point?

[simon33]

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.

[oysteilo]

@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]

@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.

[simon33]

The true neutrals? I don’t see how it affects it.

[regularkid]

[regularkid]

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)?

[simon33]

What’s that pic from?

[regularkid]

@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.

[simon33]

I don’t recall that scene. Oh well.

[Mursilis]

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…

[Adam514]

We don’t want to change unit values and make setup changes.

Italy can and has taken Normandy in many BM games on round 1, it doesn’t need the mech.

Marines at least make buying cruisers or BBs something to think about.

[regularkid]

@Mursilis responding to your points, in turn:

1. Speaking from my own experience with the mod, cruisers are already an attractive enough buy at 12 IPCs (with marine transport capabilities), that I will buy them, especially with the US. I don’t think making them a “frequent” purchase is a goal, however, due to their relative obsolescence during WW2.

2. Balance Mod avoids changes to the starting unit-setup, because it acts as a barrier to new players. And I don’t think we would break that rule in order to encourage ahistorical outcomes.

3. The Mod does not appear to favor the Axis. To the contrary, many league games include a small bid for the Axis player. Whether, and to what extent, the mod favors either side is hardly a settled question.

4. The justification for allowing battleships/cruisers to carry marines is that most capital ships usually carried a small company of marines that could carry out amphibious operations. They did not, however, carry ground infantry.

5. This thread is never dead.

Have you played balance mod?

[Mursilis]

@regularkid
Yes, I play it mainly IRL.

I think that it is fantastic and if you are fine with the cruiser then all is well.

The next point is if the axis get a bid why not slightly decrease the NO dollars that the US gets from guam/islands and morroco/north africa from 5 to 3 ipc’s.

I would like there to be no bid at all really. I don’t play with a bid and i feel that the US NO’s might be the issue if the axis are getting a small bid now. OR giving an additional NO of 2 IPC’s to Italy. Something easy like holding yugoslavia and greece.

I just don’t know what the data says. I feel like japan is where it needs to be along with everyone else except italy still seems a bit weak and US a bit too strong as far as NO bonus bucks.

The vichy rule balances out italy a bit but if the uk lands an S france that vichy rule is done. So you could change it to if ITALY controls southern france and normandy or something else they receive 2 IPC’s.

What do you think?

[oysteilo]

@Mursilis I dont think @regularkid and @Adam514 are interested in changing anything about BM right now and that is fine. The discussion about who has the advantage in BM3 is as long as this thread!

I think Axis are overpowered by a good margin in BM3, but maybe that is more because I play Allies incorrectly. I dont know. It can also be that it is much easier to play the Axis than the Allies and a competent Axis player will always make life difficult for any Allied player. So maybe it is as simple as this. I dont know

[Mursilis]

@oysteilo Well a few posts back there was data that the axis are winning 56% of the time. But they also said that the axis was getting a bid.

So… that would imply to me that the allies might have a bit too much money from NO’s now. But I’m not sure if this is totally accurate. Feelings and hard data a two different things.

However not being open to changes or suggestions is not a good way to be. I mean what if changing a NO by one dollar dramatically changes and balances the whole game.

But again I’m not sure if there really is a balance issue or not. With the marine this makes anzac a pain in the ass for the japanese now. Get 2 of em first round and make cruisers and take islands. Cool.

I think the +5 IPC’s stated in my above post should come down to 3 for the us. I could be wrong though.