It can be activated on any round, as long as S France is still French.
It would be simpler if it was round 1 or nothing, but it’s not I guess
As a practical matter, the strategic benefits of vichy france are negligible after round 1, since France will move most of its units out of its territory, and the fleet out of sz 93 on its first turn. out of scores of BM games, I can think of only one I’ve played where Germany opted to make vichy france happen on round 2.
I think Vichy helps the allies at least as much as the axis. Sure they lose a few French units but later they will get extra income from Africa.
As a practical matter, the strategic benefits of vichy france are negligible after round 1, since France will move most of its units out of its territory, and the fleet out of sz 93 on its first turn. out of scores of BM games, I can think of only one I’ve played where Germany opted to make vichy france happen on round 2.
That’s a big reason why you guys should consider simplifying the rules by saying it’s only checked on France 1
I think Vichy helps the allies at least as much as the axis. Sure they lose a few French units but later they will get extra income from Africa.
I tend to agree with you. It is also not ideal that the Axis have to take Normandy on G1 or I1. As soon as you start bleeding any units off Paris, you are raising your risks
But JDOW disagrees and thinks it’s so huge that the Axis don’t have to attack South France or Z93
And it’s not just income, it’s territory ownership so there are possibilities for building very key bases
I guess there is an argument that it could benefit the Axis, but it’s certainly not a “no-brainer” to go for it, which is probably by design
As a practical matter, the strategic benefits of vichy france are negligible after round 1, since France will move most of its units out of its territory, and the fleet out of sz 93 on its first turn. out of scores of BM games, I can think of only one I’ve played where Germany opted to make vichy france happen on round 2.
That’s a big reason why you guys should consider simplifying the rules by saying it’s only checked on France 1
Actually the rule, as it is currently structured, is at least simpler (and less arbitrary) than a rule that is round-dependent. Guess we can agree to disagree on that one.
Thanks Mod Squad for breathing new life into Global! A ton of painstaking work on your parts has certainly paid off. Every change made to our beautiful Global is well thought out, both in terms of balance and historical realism.
For some reason, even though the possible combinations of units and placements with a decent bid are humungous, the Mod feels more fresh and exciting. It’s how the game was meant to be in the first place.
To you all goes my undying love and gratitude.
-Pete
When you reach for your next game of Global, make sure it’s genuine Mod brand!
I think the balance mod is good. The biggest concern I have is why even introduce the vichy rule set. It complicates things too much. I tend to activate the vichy because I think that delays USA north africa NO by maybe two rounds and you also get 3 free inf.
It is complicated - I guess it’s its own rule-set so we could always just say “Vichy off”
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
this is true and yeah the vichy can be off. I think you did a great job with fixing a lot of the problems, but to me the historic stuff is not that important. I think there are tons of stuff with this game that does not fit with history, so why bother with vichy?
also does it fit with history that french indo should be vichy wheras new hebrides are not? History is not my strong side so I dont know. If this is just a balance question it is an argument against vichy I think
Yes. FIC remained loyal to Vichy France. French Polynesia (i.e. New Habrides) sided with the allies almost immediately.
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
this is true and yeah the vichy can be off. I think you did a great job with fixing a lot of the problems, but to me the historic stuff is not that important. I think there are tons of stuff with this game that does not fit with history, so why bother with vichy?
Well, the standard is not one of perfection. Otherwise we might simply throw our hands in the air and say why bother with any changes. The Mod Squad used four metrics to determine whether any proposed change should be incorporated or not: (1) does it improve balance? (2) does it improve fun/strategic depth? (3) does it improve historicality? (4) is it simple/easy to understand and implement? If the change satisfied all of those criteria, it was a strong candidate for inclusion.
You can read more about the disposition of France’s colonial possessions under the Vichy regime here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Colonial_struggle_with_Free_France
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
this is true and yeah the vichy can be off. I think you did a great job with fixing a lot of the problems, but to me the historic stuff is not that important. I think there are tons of stuff with this game that does not fit with history, so why bother with vichy?
One more point about Vichy France deserves mention. The inclusion of the Vichy France rule set is not merely for historical interest (though the historical dimension is obvious). We wanted to make sure that Euro-Axis continued to have multiple strategic options early on in the game (e.g., reasonable prospects in the Mediterranean) even with significantly bolstered Allied economies. Vichy France presents one such option. I think, without it, the game would be more mono-dimensional, with a smaller window of opportunity for Axis in the Med.
Why did the play testers find that Marines at a base stat line of 2/2/1 were overpowered? IMO Marines are too expensive for what you get from them. They should be a decent choice at least since cruisers and battleships are never purchased.
You start with a slug of cruisers/battleships. Even ANZAC has one for crying out loud
Marines open up a lot of options and allow your cruisers/battleships to transport. I don’t think they’re far off. Not as far off as AAA guns - Larry had them priced at 6 and I talked him into 5 :-)
Why did the play testers find that Marines at a base stat line of 2/2/1 were overpowered? IMO Marines are too expensive for what you get from them. They should be a decent choice at least since cruisers and battleships are never purchased.
ROC, to understand why the proposed stats are overpowered, consider this scenario: You’re the USA. You want the most powerful coastal strike force you can afford to break into western Europe and threaten Japan (an Island). You can buy conventional units at the standard prices, or you can have two tank-powered units on a single transport for just 1 more PU than the cost of an artillery. What units are u going to buy? Answer: your strike force will optimally consist of at least 50% marines. You can run the stats to verify.
In practice, marines (at their current stats) get purchased in virtually every Balance Mod game. So evidently players are finding them useful enough to justify the added expenditure. What we don’t want is purchased en mass, and sent in large swarms at coastal territories. That snot how marines were used (they had no involvement in the massive landing at Normandy, for example).
Hope that helps elucidate our reasoning a bit.
I buy marines early in balanced mod games because they add options. It’s not about the stats so much. It’s adding a whole new capability that makes them worth it. You have the option of taking an island or territory with a single unit without using a transport which COULD be carrying 2 units. You also have the option of leaving a single cruiser in a zone instead of an automatic kill transport, which again, could carry 2 units around. Even if marines were like infantry and attacked on a 1 and had to be supported by artillery to attack on a 2, they would STILL be worth buying sometimes for 5 because of their ability to jump on a cruiser or battleship.
I think there is a good argument for buffing their stats (always attack on a 2 - but this wouldn’t even happen that much and is a pretty small buff, or lowering cost to 4), but I have already given the good argument for the unit that is already presented in the balanced mod.
