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
-
Hi there,
I’ve got another question. Following situation:
Russia is at war with Germany, but not with Japan.
UK Pacific is at war with Japan.
Japan attacks Burma with Russian units in it without declaring war to Russia.
Do the Russian units support defending the territory?
If not, what happens to the Russian units, when Japan occupies Burma?
(I now it’s not a special BM question, but due to the 2/4IPC Land lease NO I post it here.)Thanks is advanced!
-
@fasthard if Russia is not at war with Japan, Russia can not move into Chinese territory to Support them.
RUSSIA MUST dow on Japan first to do so. -
@aequitas-et-veritas Chinese territory is clear, but what about UK territories like Burma, India, etc?
-
If Russia is not at war with Japan then my understanding is that those units wouldn’t participate in any combat, it would just be the Japanese units attacking the UK Pacific ones. But looking in Powers Not at War with One Another of the A&A manual it states:
A power can’t attack a territory controlled by or containing units belonging to a power with which it is not at war.
Which would suggest that Japan can’t attack a UK Pacific territory which contains Russian units without first going to war with Russia.
-
The rules say this:
“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.” (this is from page 36 of the Europe rule book)
If you go to page 15 it restricts the movement of neutral powers so that they cannot enter the territory of other powers (friendly or otherwise) until they are at war.
So soviet units must stay inside the Soviet Union on the pacific map (which includes Burma and India) until they are at war with Japan.
I’m fairly certain that this was not changed for BM, but others can confirm.
-
@farmboy said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
The rules say this:
“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.” (this is from page 36 of the Europe rule book)
If you go to page 15 it restricts the movement of neutral powers so that they cannot enter the territory of other powers (friendly or otherwise) until they are at war.
So soviet units must stay inside the Soviet Union on the pacific map (which includes Burma and India) until they are at war with Japan.
I’m fairly certain that this was not changed for BM, but others can confirm.
Precisely, same in BM.
-
Thx a lot for your answers.
So Russian units can also not support the UK and will be ignored in the UK Europe territory (e.g. Persia) if Japan attacks the Brits there? Will the Soviets stay there when JPN occupies Persia (Japan is not at war with Soviet Union)?Found s.th. here, is this answer correct?
"however, the russians can be at war with germany, and take iran, and the japanese cant hit it without declaring war on ussr.or UK can take iran, and ussr can put units there, and japan cant hit it without war
or ussr can take iran, and uk can put units there, and japan cant hit it without declaring on the british."
-
Any advices?
-
@fasthard said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Thx a lot for your answers.
So Russian units can also not support the UK and will be ignored in the UK Europe territory (e.g. Persia) if Japan attacks the Brits there? Will the Soviets stay there when JPN occupies Persia (Japan is not at war with Soviet Union)?Found s.th. here, is this answer correct?
"however, the russians can be at war with germany, and take iran, and the japanese cant hit it without declaring war on ussr.or UK can take iran, and ussr can put units there, and japan cant hit it without war
or ussr can take iran, and uk can put units there, and japan cant hit it without declaring on the british."
Not sure I completely understand but if there are Soviet units in Persia when anyone attacks, they must first DOW on USSR. If they do not DOW they cannot attack. This is in the rules somewhere. It is different at sea though.
USSR also need to be at war in Europe to move into Persia.
Do you still have questions?
-
@simon33 Thx for your answer. Just wanted to make sure that Japan can’t attack there without DOW on the soviets.
-
@fasthard said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 Thx for your answer. Just wanted to make sure that Japan can’t attack there without DOW on the soviets.
If there are soviet units in Persia, Japan must dow on ussr to attack Persia.
-
All:
After several years of playing BM (on and off) I am interested in hearing peoples view on marines. Are they useful? Do they add something to the game?
I struggle with finding how to use them.
Honestly one of the best purpose I have found is to buy with Russia before german DOW just to distract germany so they cant leave land open.
It may be usefull to buy with Japan and take guam and it also may make a differance against an early assault on India.
For the USA it it may make sense to buy on the east coast and put on the cruiser there (maybe the best use I think)
In the pacific it sounds cool because you can island jump and claim several undefended japanese islands, but in reality it does not work because your cruiser (or battleship) is very volunerable for counter attacks.
For the british i have found no or little use for marines, may be useful in special situations where you have several cruisers, but keep in mind 3 cruisers require 15 IPC which is eq. to a transport and inf +art and you get to keep the tranny
For italy? I have little input. Very rearly a lonely cruiser can enter open sea in the med. It needs to be protected by the fleet, then it may make sense.
Anzac: I have never bought a marine with ANZAC
So, in summary I find it useful for some nations in the early game, but I hardly ever, or never, buy a marine past round 2
(sorry for the spelling)
-
@oysteilo the Nation were I buy them the most are indeed the US and Japan and only occassionally with UK and Italy.
As you said, in the Mid and Late game they will be bought more unlikely.
But I saw a game were Adam514 is buying them even in the Midgame and not only a single one but a few.
PtV on the other Hand opens up much more variety to the game and therefore you need to buy them more frequentlier then in BM.
My opinion is, that the Map layout of BM and the IPC’s you gain does not emphasis a huge Marine Unit build. You allways want to bring cheap and en mass units on the Board as quick as possible. That is why they changed the Bmbr cost.
I know 12 and 14 IPC are a lot but way better in effectiveness on the Board, rather then a mass Mrine build with only having a bonus on Amphib.Assaults.
That is why a Dark Sky Strategy works (you have a long term effect).
It would be interesting to know if they would be purchased more often w. a cost of only 4 IPC, bc to buy them for 5 IPC and only having that bonus on amphib is what probably scares away a lot of Players including me. -
@aequitas-et-veritas
To add on to this - by mid game, your CA and BB are generally out in a theater of war. And you do not buy CA’s, and rarely bb’s. So you need a transport to shuttle the marine out to the ca and bb. Why not just by an inf and save the 2 IPC’s.
In addition, without a bonus if attached to an ART, they are not terribly useful after that initial assault, so not a useful buy to help the long game except in very niche situations.Lowering the cost of both the ca and the marine would probably help, or keep the cost of the marine, but throw in a bonus if paired with artillery so after an amphib when a marine, inf and art hit the shore, and you take an inf for casualty, the marine is still worth while for the next battle.
Or have DD’s able to carry marines. That is a cost of 13 for one 2 on an amphib assault with no bombard vs 14 ipc’s for a tt with 2 @ 2 attack with an art and inf, so that is not going to unbalance the game, but make it more worth while as a purchase here and there depending on the overall situation.
None of these adjustments make it so it’s worth spamming marines, but gives them more opportunities to be a worth while purchase. Going from extreme one off situations to a small but worthwhile part of a combined arms approach to long term goals. More inline with the effect that lowering tacs to 10 had in P2V
I don’t have enough P2V experience to make comment on marines in that version, but my gut tells me that CA’s cost lowering to 11 while still not offering longer term advantage to the marine unit (paired with art) is not enough to make it worth buying regularly as the game progresses.
-
I buy them a lot and have used them with each power. The USSR is the only one where I wouldn’t normally buy except in the rare situation where that cruiser survives and an opportunity arises for me to be able to threaten Germany with it. I agree that they are more useful early game and to go with BBs and cruisers that I expect to survive long enough to be able to use them. And I won’t buy new ones unless I have a bb and cruiser to carry them (and I don’t typically buy battleships or cruisers). Transports will often be the better buy, but mariness can be a comparatively cheap way to add (to) an amphibious threat. I’ll also typically limit the number of transports I have to the number of land units I can expect to produce to load them with (so for example, I won’t usually have more than 5 UK transports near the UK since I can never build more than 10 land units there), So having marines gives me a way to increase by attack power without building transports that will end up being wasted some turns.
I’d say the bigger issue is that cruisers and battleships are not typically worth buying. If they were, there would be more reason to buy marines.
-
I don’t really feel that they add value but they are there and seems like they will stay there.
-
sorry if this has been proposed before, but i’d like to propose that battleships can carry up to 2 marines
-
Recently, there have been rumbles in the league discussion thread about modifying a little more, like altering some other unit costs (after all, bombers were changed)
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/30807/league-general-discussion-thread/14I will remind players of this BM feedback thread.
-
Passing on an observation from a player who is examining the Balanced Mod closely for the first time.
@crockett36 is an experienced A&A player, is or has been in Larry Harris’ inner circle and has playtested games. He knows A&A, but is new to the Balanced Mod v 4.
After going over all the modified rules with him last night,
Crockett36 flatly said “the balanced mod is not balanced”(What?)
First, consider that in the league where almost TWO THOUSAND balanced mod games have been played, it is mostly settled that the Allies are taking more than 20 bid in BM4.
Crockett36 pointed out the Axis need to have urgency (should need to achieve winning conditions before the Allies become so strong the Axis are overwhelmed)
Some of the many (rather major) improvements of the Balanced Mod: making new NO’s that are quite attainable for the USA, the UK, Russia, and India, which all make total sense.
What if the Allies’ income increased automatically after some number of rounds?
In a game that introduces the detailed, thorough Vichy rules,
In a game where the USA gets 3 minor complexes turned into 3 major complexes automatically at a certain point, in a game with Mongolia rules, and Sino-Russo DOW modifications, it seems to me to be consistent to modify the rules for increasing Allied production later in the game. Perhaps the USA especially, but perhaps Russia also automatically get increasing incomes (not necessarily every round).Now I’m just brainstorming there, but I think you get the idea:
The Axis should have a situation more like Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia in the Death Star trash compactor, but of course we still want 50/50 chance to win.Gamer out, I’m supposed to be playing Adam.
-
G gamerman01 referenced this topic on
-
Does anybody think we should alter mech infantry to cost more (5) and maybe have some more benefits?
Why does marine cost 5?
Germany is constantly swarming mech infantry. Italy and Japan use it much too.
Who buys mechs with allies? Maybe UK a little, Russia a little.
I dont like those guys (mech infantry). They can blitz with a tank, they can move in NCM over newly captured territory without a tank present.
any comments?
Suggested Topics
