@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?
Precisely, it would need to have been preloaded otherwise.
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?
Correct.
I don’t think the marines were particularly well advised due the uncomfortable fit they have in the game mechanics. They don’t really add much, although they do make some of the island hopping encouraged by the new NOs easier to get.
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?
Correct.
I don’t think the marines were particularly well advised due the uncomfortable fit they have in the game mechanics. They don’t really add much, although they do make some of the island hopping encouraged by the new NOs easier to get.
I agree with this simon33. Marines are useful for Japan and partially sometimes for Italy. I see people buy marines with germany and 5 rounds later the marine is still sitting in western germany. This happens among players at all tiers
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?
Correct.
I don’t think the marines were particularly well advised due the uncomfortable fit they have in the game mechanics. They don’t really add much, although they do make some of the island hopping encouraged by the new NOs easier to get.
I agree with this simon33. Marines are useful for Japan and partially sometimes for Italy. I see people buy marines with germany and 5 rounds later the marine is still sitting in western germany. This happens among players at all tiers
I think the marines contribute with an interesting flavour and mechanic. I like that it increases the value of heavy war ships. Not enough to out-compete the subs, but still. And this feature is of course less useful since the ships can’t use marines in NCM if moving in CM. Maybe that could be a rule change? Making them a bit more flexible. On the other hand it’s nice that the marine rules align with rules for transports, so I’m not a strong advocate for this solution. It’s just an idea.
I believe they can be rather useful for US, but then more on the EU-side of the board. Kamikaze areas makes them very limited in the pacific.
It can get wasted in Germany to have them, but for 5 IPCs, it is one extra defensive unit that can be moved between W Germany and Norway and the allies have to account for it when they are looking at the risk to London and Gibraltar. The issue with the NCMs can be awkward, but there is a work around which is just to remember to keep the marines loaded.
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?
Correct.
I don’t think the marines were particularly well advised due the uncomfortable fit they have in the game mechanics. They don’t really add much, although they do make some of the island hopping encouraged by the new NOs easier to get.
I agree with this simon33. Marines are useful for Japan and partially sometimes for Italy. I see people buy marines with germany and 5 rounds later the marine is still sitting in western germany. This happens among players at all tiers
@farmboy said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
It can get wasted in Germany to have them, but for 5 IPCs, it is one extra defensive unit that can be moved between W Germany and Norway and the allies have to account for it when they are looking at the risk to London and Gibraltar. The issue with the NCMs can be awkward, but there is a work around which is just to remember to keep the marines loaded.
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?
Correct.
I don’t think the marines were particularly well advised due the uncomfortable fit they have in the game mechanics. They don’t really add much, although they do make some of the island hopping encouraged by the new NOs easier to get.
I agree with this simon33. Marines are useful for Japan and partially sometimes for Italy. I see people buy marines with germany and 5 rounds later the marine is still sitting in western germany. This happens among players at all tiers
I am not sure I understand this. Isnt an infantry doing the same job? In most cases germany also have a tranny. Or are you talking offensive moves
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I am not sure I understand this. Isnt an infantry doing the same job? In most cases germany also have a tranny. Or are you talking offensive moves
It would be 3 units instead of 2, without having to invest in a tr.
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I am not sure I understand this. Isnt an infantry doing the same job? In most cases germany also have a tranny. Or are you talking offensive moves
It would be 3 units instead of 2, without having to invest in a tr.
yeah. It is also not just about what it does but that allied choices have to react to what it might do (on both attack and defense). Its only one unit so its impact will be small, but it is also only 5 ipcs so the risk of purchasing it is low. At worst, you have bought a more expensive inf.
Marine is a good and interesting unit and I like to buy them, but still they are overpriced for what U get.
@Adam514 so battleship is different than AC in the fact that while being dmg, it can do both combine bombardment and/or puting marines to battle?
@Amon-Sul Yeah, a damaged BB can do everything an undamaged BB can do.
After playing a few games I definitely agree that bombers are too cheap with only 12 IPC cost. They should cost 14.
But I repeat again, it will not make tac bombers much more attractive to people, nor will they buy them much.
Tacs should cost 10. Even at 10 figs would be a better buy. Can please someone tell me why tac costs more then a fig?
It can not do escort, it can not intercept, it defends and attacks at 3 (4 if paired with fig or tank), but fig does not defend on 3, but on 4. And that is very important for AC, airfields and stuff.
As for cruiser, why should cruiser cost 12? It is too much. It should cost 10. If destroyer costs 8, and has anti sub ability, why should cruiser cost 12? It`s cost should be maximum 11 IPC, but I personally think that a way to help make marine more cost effective is to lower the price of cruisers.
As for battleships they are too expensive too. They should cost 16-18 IPC.
And we should even consider making AC cost a bit (1 IPC or 2) more, or not if we lower the price of battleship to 16.
Amon
In OOB tacs does have the combined unit ability and may also SBR non-IC facilities. Figs and tacs are there equal in air battles.
So in OOB it depends on what you want. If attacking, like for Germany, they’re actually pretty good. If mainly defending, figs are of course the way to go, like for Russia.
The same goes for the Pac. Atleast in the beginning of the game US is mainly interested in protecting it’s fleet, hence figs. Japan already has a shitload of tacs, so don’t need to buy more really, but the tacs definitely put some spice to threats.
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
In OOB tacs does have the combined unit ability and may also SBR non-IC facilities. Figs and tacs are there equal in air battles.
So in OOB it depends on what you want. If attacking, like for Germany, they’re actually pretty good. If mainly defending, figs are of course the way to go, like for Russia.
The same goes for the Pac. Atleast in the beginning of the game US is mainly interested in protecting it’s fleet, hence figs. Japan already has a shitload of tacs, so don’t need to buy more really, but the tacs definitely put some spice to threats.
I am of course speaking about BM only.
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
In OOB tacs does have the combined unit ability and may also SBR non-IC facilities. Figs and tacs are there equal in air battles.
So in OOB it depends on what you want. If attacking, like for Germany, they’re actually pretty good. If mainly defending, figs are of course the way to go, like for Russia.
The same goes for the Pac. Atleast in the beginning of the game US is mainly interested in protecting it’s fleet, hence figs. Japan already has a shitload of tacs, so don’t need to buy more really, but the tacs definitely put some spice to threats.
I think people buy more harbours and airfields then tacs. Who buys them in BM ?
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I am of course speaking about BM only.
Then I agree that tacs are utterly useless. In a SBR you still want to accompany the sb’s with figs only. Makes the tac ability of SBR rather useless, so does take away a lot of their appeal. The combined arms is not sufficient. For 10 tacs you get 11 figs. And defence is usually a lot more sensitive, since you’re at the mercy of your opponent.
thank you all for your feedback to the proposed rule change! there does seem to be pretty much unanimous support (or at least no strident objections) to changing the bomber cost to 14.
Since proposing this change a few weeks ago, i personally played the updated mod at least a dozen times with good results. bombers were still purchased by both sides in most games (they weren’t prohibitively expensive), there were no instances of bomber spam, and a notable increase in use of tac bombers (especially in the European theater). I know Adam has also playtested the new mod (e.g., https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35038/bm3-bombers-cost-14-adam514-axis-vs-farmboy-allies-10/208), and it appears reasonable bomber buys and strategic bombing are alive and well, despite the increased cost.
Based on the foregoing, we will be updating the mod soon to increase the bomber cost as aforesaid.
Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with. Y’all’s feedback would be appreciated on this last point. thanks!
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with.
As I previously said, see below, I think SBR should be reduced to +1. Adding ANOTHER point of damage (1d6+3 vs 1d6+2) on average adds another 5 points of bomber damage versus a loss of the $2 increase of the bomber itself or $3 more overall points of damage for bombing. That makes it plus $18.5 for SBR over time. Why would we want to incentify strategic bombing so much?
Previously:
In Classic a bomber cost $15 and did 1d6 for Strategic Bombing. Assuming 1 loss out of 6 bombing raids then that was +$17.5 vs -$15 or a mere $2.5 advantage or $0.5 gained for each individual attack which was too low considering the bomber usually could have been more effective elsewhere. In AA50 the price dropped to $12 which IMHO was the right balance. Now Strategic Bombing was still doing $17.5 with a loss of just $12 or a $5.5 advantage or $1.1 gained for each individual attack which probably was about the same it could do elsewhere. Of course in Classic damage was taken in IPC Loss versus AA50 were the damage did not necessarily have to be taken though with so few Industrial Complexes damage usually had to be bought off. Karelia being a good exception to that rule. In Global it is now 1D6+2 for Strategic Bombing or a whopping +$27.5 versus a loss of $12 or a $15.5 advantage. Basically a free infantry kill every attack. Attacking a lone infantry with a bomber is definitely not a good idea yet Strategic Bombing is. Moving the bomber to $14 and reducing the attack to 1d6+1 takes that +15.5 down to +$8.5. Still good enough for those that want to use it as a tactic it yet the game is not forcing SBR attacks the way it does now.
+2 is good. Previously we were at +2.6 (expectation value for bombing run) to a major factory, or +2.2 for a minor factory (for 12 cost bombers). Making it +3 would mean +3.1 for major, or +2.25 for minor (14 cost). So +3 would make strat bombing more effective.
You could argue that that is a good thing for the allies but I think it would actually favor axis, which is opposite of what we are going for. Most of the axis major factories are well protected and not often subjected to bombing as axis generally has a more protected position (both locationally and due to a large central air force), they also tend to have lots of production options. I would say that allies are a little more susceptible to major factory bombing (London and Moscow). So the +3 would probably not do a ton but would probably give a slight edge to axis.
I think 14 is good, and should just let things go like that.
I dont really want to get into a back and forth about this, but you cant compare classic (or AA50) and global. In classic and AA50, you couldnt intercept so there was no defense against SBRs.
