Here’s the Armies vs Navies idea I came up with!
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
I think Russia is strong enough as it is in BM3. Might be room for an extra NO or such, but if Russia is too strong there’ll be no strategic incentive at all for the other allies in helping them out. Which of course means lots of resources put into other areas. Curtain Axis.
-
My point is this game should be a struggle strewn with tough decisions.
-
@WindowWasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
For BM4, I’d love to see cruisers reduced to 11 IPCs, and battleships to 18 IPCs.
Also, it would be cool if it were easier for Japan to win and harder for Germany to win that way the game could be consistently won on both sides, not majority Europe like it is currently.
I also do not think that the game needs to be balanced to the point where no bid is necessary. I think bids are fun and make each game different.
Also think it’s great if the cost of a tac is reduced to 10, like in P2V. They’re definitely not as attractive as figs in OOB with the changed air-battle value.
-
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@WindowWasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
For BM4, I’d love to see cruisers reduced to 11 IPCs, and battleships to 18 IPCs.
Also, it would be cool if it were easier for Japan to win and harder for Germany to win that way the game could be consistently won on both sides, not majority Europe like it is currently.
I also do not think that the game needs to be balanced to the point where no bid is necessary. I think bids are fun and make each game different.
Also think it’s great if the cost of a tac is reduced to 10, like in P2V. They’re definitely not as attractive as figs in OOB with the changed air-battle value.
Strangely put. Meant BM3, not OOB.
-
@trulpen In designing BM, we shied away from changing the unit roster too much because we still wanted it to be recognizably g40. That’s why we saved the major unit-cost overhaul for WW2 Path to Victory, which has all the changes mentioned above.
-
@farmboy said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I certainly don’t mind if folks want to add in another optional NO, but I would probably prefer playing with the bid since I like the variation provided by bid placement. A stronger USSR is also going to narrow the Axis options early which may make the game more scripted. And I think Ksmckay is right. A heavy focus on Moscow makes Germany vulnerable to the allies in the Atlantic. Attempting to preempt the allies in the Atlantic, makes the USSR more dangerous. That creates a nice tension I think.
thats what i ve been sayin all along.
we should bid 30+ with allies
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.
nobody bids a fig to scotland
-
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I think Russia is strong enough as it is in BM3. Might be room for an extra NO or such, but if Russia is too strong there’ll be no strategic incentive at all for the other allies in helping them out. Which of course means lots of resources put into other areas. Curtain Axis.
it seems like u re playin allies all along :tongue:
-
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.
nobody bids a fig to scotland
I do!
-
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.
nobody bids a fig to scotland
I do!
U play allies once in 20 games xd
-
Yes, but when/if I get a +10 bid, a fig in Scotland is top priority.
-
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Yes, but when/if I get a +10 bid, a fig in Scotland is top priority.
i do not see other dudes follow ur steps
-
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Yes, but when/if I get a +10 bid, a fig in Scotland is top priority.
i do not see other dudes follow ur steps
It’s likely because I don’t know what I’m doing as Allies. I think I’m tier 2 there and maybe E as Axis. 😜
-
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
i do not see other dudes follow ur steps
It is in our play group in Seattle of about 15-20 active Players. The first $10 always goes for a fighter in Scotland.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
though I prefer to play in the Lobby because I don’t have the patience to wait for emails.
Interesting viewpoint.
Anyway, I’ve finally (and reluctantly) made this change. You will need to delete and re-download the map pack to get it working for you. It will be called version 4.0 (but still “Mod3” because it has the same objectives).
To get bombers at 12 you will have to play combat move first. Or not download the new map. Or something.
Combat move 1st was not updated as that is what the Mod Squad were thinking of.
So now that this is done, is anyone upset? I personally think it’s a bit messy with no option to play with bombers at 12 in purchase first and no update to combat move 1st. If path to victory kicks off, I guess no one will mind.
Dislike CM1st.
A simple way to handle the issue is to just add 2 IPC by edit for every sb purchase.
-
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Dislike CM1st.
It has a couple of limitations. The ideal would be a mega phase of Purchase+Combat Move which allows either to be changed and also repair of factories to be changed. Repair of inoperative bases needs to happen first because of the effect on movement.
I think CM1st is the least worst option because if you change your mind about a move in purchase you can always load up autosave while with purchase 1st if you change your mind on a purchase during move you have to start over again.
-
It also carries a few anomalies with it. Without, for me, giving much benefit for the thought process.
-
I like the combat move first. I actually prefer it over normal
-
There is currently a discussion going on in the PtV thread, and I really feel that it would be applicable to OOB/BM.
It’s a problem that the axis can completely evacuate France, and not worry about the allies taking it because it’s a disadvantage. And it’s a problem that the allies don’t want to liberate an allied nation even if they could hold their ground.
If the allies hold 2 french factories in Western Europe, they should be able to produce 6 infantry a round at a minimum. Currently, liberating France prevents that, limiting 2-3 factories to 4-5 infantry at most.
My proposed fix is a +5 NO for France for holding France and Normandy or Southern France. The french earn 7 from Africa, 1 from Syria, and 6 from holding Normandy and France, which gives them a total of 14. You can only buy 4 infantry a turn consistently with this, on 2 factories. With the +5 NO it gives the french 19 so they have the capability to produce 6 Infantry, making it a feasible strategy for the allies to liberate Paris.
I Believe that this idea doesn’t fundamentally change the game too much to be included into BM, and also makes the game more fun for the allies. It makes the western front more dynamic, and could bring the balance a little bit closer to even. This also could make it harder to win in the Europe side, which might bring more action to the Japanese side.
-
I like what you are suggesting although I don’t get the 4 inf part. Normandy+France+Sth France is 3 inf and if you through in Africa and Syria+Madagascar you get 17 IPC and 5 inf.
Suggested Topics
