Hi, these rules are cool. I did not base my rules off of this. This was developed independently.
A different take on “free for all”. Being able to make alliances though means it should be called “shifting alliances” rather than “free for all”.
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
Ok, but those are the official rules.
I’m going to take that to mean that there’s no interest in expanding USSR lend lease to be blocked by a Japanese blockade of the Middle East when Japan is at war with US+UK but not USSR.
-
@simon33 Then why wouldn’t it extend to sz5 and Amur also? Japan didn’t want to block ships destined to the USSR in order to avoid provoking the USSR into a war with them after all.
-
That is probably a fair point. Although I think it is plausible that they would have attacked in Indian Ocean and argued that the ships might be helping the British hold Persia or for anti-Iraq etc. Might not too. I think an inspection regime is pretty implausible so far from home.
-
Rules question regarding Marines; TripleA is allowing you to bombard with a ship in the combat phase and then unload a marine from the same ship in the non-combat phase. This is illegal by the rules if the marine was loaded the same combat phase but what if the marine was pre-loaded?
-
@Misterblue said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Rules question regarding Marines; TripleA is allowing you to bombard with a ship in the combat phase and then unload a marine from the same ship in the non-combat phase. This is illegal by the rules if the marine was loaded the same combat phase but what if the marine was pre-loaded?
“Transports can move to friendly coastal territories and load or
offload cargo, unless they loaded, moved, offloaded, or were
involved in combat during the Combat Move or Conduct
Combat phase.”Looks to me like you can’t. The cruiser/BB participated in combat therefore can’t unload.
-
@Misterblue Transport or ship can’t do anything else that turn if it did anything during the combat move phase (moving, bombard, battle).
-
I thought about something regarding the Vichy rules. Might be crazy, but what if the garrison in S France expanded with 1 inf each round beginning the turn after it turned Vichy?
That could give Axis an incentive to keep S France intact longer, instead of just finishing the Vichy with entering S France once most of the other Vichy territories had been converted.
Not saying it’s a great idea - no other neutral territories function in that way - but it’s a thought of flavour.
-
Is it legal to bid artillery to China?
-
@Amon-Sul Yes.
-
You should never allow axis to take malta, crete and cyprus. One or two of the three might be OK, but NEVER all three. I am convinced of this
-
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
You should never allow axis to take malta, crete and cyprus. One or two of the three might be OK, but NEVER all three. I am convinced of this
I’m a fan of taking Cyprus I1 now. This way you can block 2 UK objectives and they are hard to reclaim.
I think you’re overstating the value of the 3IPC bonus for all 3 islands though. If Italy can do that, they’re largely controlling the Med.
-
@simon33 no i am not. You need huge compensation to allow this. An even position is not even close.
-
NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD
Hey all. The Mod Squad is contemplating a new change to Balance Mod, and would like to solicit your feedback. The proposed change: increase the cost of strategic bombers from 12 to 14 PUs.
The rationale for this proposed change is as follows: It appears, from the increasing number of BM league games wherein players have agreed to an Allied bid (albeit smaller bids than we typically see in vanilla games) and from the slightly skewed win/loss ratio in favor of Axis, that our goal of balancing the game hasn’t been totally realized.
One of the reasons for this is the Axis’s continuing positional advantage on the map; they are able more readily to project threat across the board, to multiple key points at once. This advantage is particularly pronounced when it comes to bombers, with their long range, high attack value, and added utility as strategic bombers. We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. But bomber spam remains a viable strategy, and continues to be OP, especially for Germany.
Increasing the cost of strategic bombers to 14, we think, would more accurately reflect the unit’s strategic value and go a long way to rectifying the foregoing issues. We would be interested to hear the community’s thoughts on this.
Thanks!
-
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD
Hey all. The Mod Squad is contemplating a new change to Balance Mod, and would like to solicit your feedback. The proposed change: increase the cost of strategic bombers from 12 to 14 PUs.
The rationale for this proposed change is as follows: It appears, from the increasing number of BM league games wherein players have agreed to an Allied bid (albeit smaller bids than we typically see in vanilla games) and from the slightly skewed win/loss ratio in favor of Axis, that our goal of balancing the game hasn’t been totally realized.
One of the reasons for this is the Axis’s continuing positional advantage on the map; they are able more readily to project threat across the board, to multiple key points at once. This advantage is particularly pronounced when it comes to bombers, with their long range, high attack value, and added utility as strategic bombers. We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. But bomber spam remains a viable strategy, and continues to be OP, especially for Germany.
Increasing the cost of strategic bombers to 14, we think, would more accurately reflect the unit’s strategic value and go a long way to rectifying the foregoing issues. We would be interested to hear the community’s thoughts on this.
Thanks!
The cost is also better in line with fighter and tactical bomber cost for its effectiveness. Currently, bombers are a much better deal for the price compared to tactical bombers in nearly every situation.
-
To be honest, I would rather reduce their attack value. Last night actually I discovered there was an incidence of a B-17 actually hitting a surface ship. Never heard of that before.
Still, an increase in their cost may be an improvement on the status quo.
This idea was a bit out of left field.
-
Sounds like a proposition worth trying.
It does impact US as well (but likely more for Germany) and makes the crazy guerilla bombing a zero sum game (which is a good thing).
-
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD
We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. >
Yeah, it is a good idea to give figs 2 on defense in air raids, but U also gave 2 to figs that are on escort during air raids.
i think it is better to reduce the fig escorts from 2 to 1 during air raids, and it will mean more than just making bomber cost 2 ipc more.
-
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD
Hey all. The Mod Squad is contemplating a new change to Balance Mod, and would like to solicit your feedback. The proposed change: increase the cost of strategic bombers from 12 to 14 PUs.
The rationale for this proposed change is as follows: It appears, from the increasing number of BM league games wherein players have agreed to an Allied bid (albeit smaller bids than we typically see in vanilla games) and from the slightly skewed win/loss ratio in favor of Axis, that our goal of balancing the game hasn’t been totally realized.
One of the reasons for this is the Axis’s continuing positional advantage on the map; they are able more readily to project threat across the board, to multiple key points at once. This advantage is particularly pronounced when it comes to bombers, with their long range, high attack value, and added utility as strategic bombers. We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. But bomber spam remains a viable strategy, and continues to be OP, especially for Germany.
Increasing the cost of strategic bombers to 14, we think, would more accurately reflect the unit’s strategic value and go a long way to rectifying the foregoing issues. We would be interested to hear the community’s thoughts on this.
Thanks!
The cost is also better in line with fighter and tactical bomber cost for its effectiveness. Currently, bombers are a much better deal for the price compared to tactical bombers in nearly every situation.
then i vote for 13.
-
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
i think it is better to reduce the fig escorts from 2 to 1 during air raids
I believe that would make most SBR obsolete. It’s not feasible to muster the double amount of air, just in order to commit for a risky bombing. I think the rule is good as it is with figs having a value of 2 in air battles. Makes sense as well. Although figs then do outclass tacs.
-
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
i think it is better to reduce the fig escorts from 2 to 1 during air raids
I believe that would make most SBR obsolete. It’s not feasible to muster the double amount of air, just in order to commit for a risky bombing. I think the rule is good as it is with figs having a value of 2 in air battles. Makes sense as well. Although figs then do outclass tacs.
tacs should cost 10.
cruiser 11
tank should have defence at 4.
those units are (too) rarely bought.
maybe do something for battleship and marine as well.
Suggested Topics
