G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

[Amon-Sul]

@akreider2 said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

Does a marine also activate a friendly neutral? I’m thinking about the BM 3.0 rules.

yes, why not. only aa guns dont.

[trulpen]

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

yes, why not. only aa guns dont.

Just has to have an attack value.

[trulpen]

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

Vichy question

Round 1: Germany takes normandy and the bitish move a mech to syria. At french turn vichy is activated while syria stays french and the french infantry stays put in syria

Round 2: The british move away the mech from syria. Given that vichy can be activated in any round why isnt the french dude in syria becoming pro axis in round 2? all conditions for vichy are met

It should, if it stayed.

Sorry, didn’t read carefully enough. The Vichy conversion only happens once (but may be activated again, I guess, if France has been liberated and S France never controlled by Axis). In rounds after it, no further conversion should happen since Vichy isn’t instituted then.

[trulpen]

@regularkid

In the notes (client) it says:

“Transports if unloading for amphibious assault, must unload all their units, and may not hold back some units while offloading other units.”

While there is no such writing in the rules. Rather the rules state:

“If a transport loads land units during the Combat Move phase, it must offload those units to attack a hostile territory as part of an amphibious assault during the Conduct Combat phase […]”

In practise, if a unit is preloaded on a tr it doesn’t have to be unloaded in an amphibious assault during CM, although the tr needs to unload atleast one unit.

Likely this discussion is found somewhere already, but I don’t know where, and I think it would be wise to rephrase the notes.

[Adam514]

@trulpen Those are vanilla G40 notes though, that’s why. We don’t control what’s in the G40 notes.

[simon33]

They can be updated.

If it isn’t done in a week or so, bug me again.

[simon33]

Update is live. You’ll need to delete and re-download your map packs.

Also fixed up some of the missing combat move 1st bugs for the relevant maps.

[trulpen]

An idea that came up in the P2V-discussions:

@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

A PR-touch on the issue of land-lease could be that if Russia DOWs on J before say turn 5 (when Axis megalomania should be evident), then they will permanently lose all their land-leases, and a JDOW would mean Russia gets the sympathy from the world and the active land-leases are doubled. That’s kind of neat.

I came to think that an even neater solution would be that if R DOWs on J before they are at war with either UK or US (F doesn’t count) they lose all the land-leases forever.

I’m trying to discern what that would make for playability, and I believe it’s a pretty good mechanic.

[trulpen]

Should add that if R DOWs after J is at war with UK and/or US, they won’t lose their land-leases, but those will also not be boosted.

Thematically it could be that if J DOWs, the extra IPC comes from the neutral states around the world, while if RDOW before the others are at war it’s a sign of the Soviet aggressive strife for world dominance.

[oysteilo]

The Soviet Union should never lose their land lease objectives if they declare war against Japan. That is a japanese sub in sz 5 should not remove the lend lease objective. However a japanese sub in sz 80 can remove the Persia lend lease. In this way there are some incentives for an early ussr dow on Japan. Today this is non existing. In addition the Burma road should stay at 6, not 3.

[simon33]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

The Soviet Union should never lose their land lease objectives if they declare war against Japan. That is a japanese sub in sz 5 should not remove the lend lease objective. However a japanese sub in sz 80 can remove the Persia lend lease. In this way there are some incentives for an early ussr dow on Japan. Today this is non existing. In addition the Burma road should stay at 6, not 3.

Curious why Japanese subs in SZ5 shouldn’t remove Siberian lend lease if at war?

Agree that the reduction in Burma Road hasn’t been a good move.

[CaptainNapalm]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

@oysteilo Every land unit that stops guerillas is listed. AA are omitted.

I understand. I think a different wording is better to avoid confusion.

I just spent 15 minutes looking through posts for this answer, and agree that this could easily be more clearly worded.

“At the start of China’s turn, a Chinese infantry is spawned in each non-coastal Chinese territory under Axis control that is not garrisoned by at least one Axis land unit (i.e., infantry, marine, mech infantry, artillery, or armor)."

I don’t know what “i.e.” means, but I thought it meant something like “for example.” Thus, listing any number of land units does not answer the question of whether AA qualify as land units, other than they obviously ARE land units, because it appears it could be a list of examples.

Simply replacing the list of units in parentheses with “(except anti-aircraft artillery)” would be much clearer.

[regularkid]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

In this way there are some incentives for an early ussr dow on Japan.

There is always the possibility, depending on what the Axis do, that Russia will have a strong incentive to declare war early on Japan (for example, if Japan completely abandons northern China/Korea to push India). But we would not want to add an incentive that applies in every game, for an ahistorical outcome. The way the Lend Lease objectives currently work in Balance Mod is pretty much the balance we are aiming for. They create a meaningful disincentive to early war between Japan and Russia, while still leaving it a viable options under the right circumstances. If there is a compelling reason to change this, I haven’t seen it and don’t foresee any changes in the immediate future.

[oysteilo]

Its fine @regularkid . This has been discussed carefully in the past and i am not looking for a rematch. I am just babling mye opinions

The sz 5 lend lease does only one thing. It discourages a ussr dow. After many bm game i am absolutely convinced it is in japans interest if ussr dow on Japan. There are 0 long term long gains for ussr with the strategy of entering Korea and or manchuria. Long term is past 2 rounds

@simon33 For the sz 5 lend lease. It should be given as long as amur is controlled by ussr. The sub restriction should be lifted for sz 5 because it is not a convoy zone

[simon33]

I guess the SZ5 block of lend lease weakens the disincentive for Japan to DOW on USSR, because if Archangel and SZ5 are blocked then the USSR income state is the same after the DOW.

[simon33]

In that sense, it weakens the purpose of the bonus for the Japanese DOW. Meh. Was a solution without a problem IMO.

[majikforce]

Anyone ever seen Russia still get the Siberian bonus even though I have a sub in sz5? Is this a bug or am I missing something? Thanks.
triplea_35543_5rus.tsvg

[wizmark]

@majikforce Japan and russia need to be at war for that to happen…or you have to get a german or italian sub there!

[majikforce]

@wizmark Thanks. Is that because my sub is not considered an “enemy warship” since we are still neutral. If so that’s a mighty broken NO and cheap way for Russia to get income. But so be it.

[oysteilo]

@majikforce said in League General Discussion Thread:

@wizmark Thanks. Is that because my sub is not considered an “enemy warship” since we are still neutral. If so that’s a mighty broken NO and cheap way for Russia to get income. But so be it.

yeah! the BM objective regarding USSR/Japan lend leaseeee is broken