I’m playing an opponent who is preventing Vichy from occurring by having the UK attack Italy’s destroyer and transport in SZ96 from SZ98 with a destroyer, cruiser, tactical from aircraft carrier in SZ98 and a fighter from Malta. Italy’s destroyer is sunk (and transport). Then in the Non-Combat phase, UK loads the transport in SZ98 and lands UK troops in Southern France. Since France is still an ally at this point, this is legal and effectively prevents Vichy mode, since Germany will now have to take Southern France on its next turn. There isn’t any way to prevent this as far as I can tell.
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
@Shin:
Adam’s just a really really good player. People like you and I, Axis, just aren’t on their level. We’d have to see how someone at that level feels about it, or even better - look at the stats among the top tier players.
yes he’s a very good player, but i wouldn’t say i’m not at least close to his level. many times when we play, our games are quite competitive. most of my BM games have been experimental in nature, and therefore, i have lost more games than i would otherwise. for example, when i first started playing BM i was scrambling a lot on purpose to push for SL games. i had a whole bunch of those in a row and got to experience for myself SL in BM (and for the benefit of improving BM). lately i’ve been experimenting with G1 and G2 DOWs along with late J4 DOWs to experience how those work in BM. as i’ve discussed with adam and others in the past, i really don’t like it when games feel very scripted, especially in the opening turns. one of the best things about global is that its opening playbook is quite rich, since it introduced the DOW mechanism, and of course the bid offers more variation in strategies (something the BM lacks, but makes up in other ways). so i’ve been playing around with various strategies to get a good feel for what works and what doesn’t in BM, and so far i’m feeling like the opening options for axis are more limited than the vanilla version we’ve been playing for years. of course all this experimenting has cost me league status, but earlier in the season i had already accepted that i would not be caring so much about my ranking and status. i’ve also been taking more risks because of this attitude. i’m more here to have fun playing and hopefully improving on the game i love most.
-
G1 and G2 declarations might be a little less optimal in BM because of the extra Russian NO money (which cannot be denied by parking a sub off Norway). Of course, there’s a similar dynamic in normal G40 because G1 and G2 declarations allow Russia to push for the Iraq/Africa NO money sooner. So the difference may not be all that great, but at first glance it seems G1/G2 are a little less optimal than in vanilla.
I’m looking forward to experimenting with BM. Overall, I’m in favor of innovations that improve the game, and the Vichy and China changes might fall into this category. But I’m partial to bids as a means of “balancing” the game because bidding can improve gaming diversity in the long run. If the average bid is really high, then that could lead to some epic gaming where the bid strategy comes as a surprise and potentially radically changes the flow of the game. But most likely the majority of players would not share this opinion–most tabletop gamers would probably prefer to play a game that is fair without a bid and BM seems to meet that demand.
-
welcome to BM, i think you’ll find it a good innovation in many ways. i feel the same as you about the bidding, that it can be a good thing for increasing the variety of strategic options. it is something i do miss sometimes, and of course it’s not ruled out by the BM–in fact i’m starting to feel i may need a bid for axis against someone as good as adam lol. i don’t think axis are able to compete–or maybe if they are, then only within a very narrow range of options–but i’d love for you (an axis expert) to prove me wrong by playing BM against adam.
G1 and G2 declarations might be a little less optimal in BM because of the extra Russian NO money (which cannot be denied by parking a sub off Norway). Of course, there’s a similar dynamic in normal G40 because G1 and G2 declarations allow Russia to push for the Iraq/Africa NO money sooner. So the difference may not be all that great, but at first glance it seems G1/G2 are a little less optimal than in vanilla.
I’m looking forward to experimenting with BM. Overall, I’m in favor of innovations that improve the game, and the Vichy and China changes might fall into this category. But I’m partial to bids as a means of “balancing” the game because bidding can improve gaming diversity in the long run. If the average bid is really high, then that could lead to some epic gaming where the bid strategy comes as a surprise and potentially radically changes the flow of the game. But most likely the majority of players would not share this opinion–most tabletop gamers would probably prefer to play a game that is fair without a bid and BM seems to meet that demand.
-
And with a 47 to 45 Allied to Axis win ratio league-wide, I don’t think we can say anything conclusive regarding the need for further adjustments at this point.
the near perfect balance that you cite might have more to do with adam having played and won 14 games as axis versus only 5 as allies. i think this may be masking an imbalance with the axis. think about it…
-
Only been playing BM versus the AI atm, but I kind of like the China thing… Seems to slow the Japanese down a bit, pulling some pressure off of India. Also like that Russia is getting some serious coin. So tired of Russia getting the short end of the stick financially in each iteration of the game (in my opinion).
Seems to me, that a major aspect is establishing superiority in the Atlantic quickly…unlike before when you could ignore the Atlantic and rely on your air power to keep the Allies at bay while you took out Russia. Could be wrong, again, only paying the AI (or against myself) to try some things…just my first impressions
-
Again, for the record, Gamer lost his first game as allies where gave up NOs (to nerq). Zhuk, isn’t it yer turn in our game :)
And yes, i have been wanting a Zhukov vs Adam bm game for sometime
-
Again, for the record, Gamer lost his first game as allies where gave up NOs (to nerq). Zhuk, isn’t it yer turn in our game :)
And yes, i have been wanting a Zhukov vs Adam bm game for sometime
Yah but in that game he gave up too much, being rather overconfident he could beat nerquen who at the time was a newcomer to the league, and was mistaken as inexperienced lol
-
That’s true, and you also neglected to mention the extreme dice on UK1 at Tobruk that enabled Italy to go crazy and help take India early - quick Japan victory. Oh, and following that up, I kept getting bad dice in Southeast Asia. AA shooting me down immediately, and territory trades going bad
There is too much Allied money, and I knew that before I ever played a single game or watched any. I agree with dominion
And yes, nerquen is a lurking veteran. If you look at his results over the years, and there aren’t many, they are great. He did ambush me in game 1 because I started the game thinking he was average.
I am playing game 2 (on hold right now) minus multiple NO’s again
-
Now now now, we all know that bad dice beat good tactics all the time, but it is rather bad form to complain about the dice gods! :P
-
-
@Cmdr:
Now now now, we all know that bad dice beat good tactics all the time, but it is rather bad form to complain about the dice gods! :P
My point is, anecdotal evidence is very weak evidence. And a single game is as anecdotal as it gets
-
@Cmdr:
Now now now, we all know that bad dice beat good tactics all the time, but it is rather bad form to complain about the dice gods! :P
My point is, anecdotal evidence is very weak evidence. And a single game is as anecdotal as it gets
I was trying to be funny :P I’ve oft complained about the evil dice gods (except in navy battles, somehow I always have unbelievably good luck in naval battles! If there were some victory cities in the water I’d OWN this game!!!) hehe
-
Wasn’t Hitler looking for Atlantis or something?
:-D
-
yah. history channel had a thing on that. so must be legit
-
There a few things I hate about Balanced Mod, all to do with Amphibious Assaults.
- Why on earth should you be able to assault from a Cruiser or Battleship? None of those ships would carry the assault boats needed. Indeed, even boarding or alighting as an NCM away from a naval base is dubious
- Why should Marines get to attack on a 2? The combined arms artillery bonus is pretty silly too in an amphibious assault. It doesn’t really reflect the real world IMO.
Just thought I’d give that feedback. Maybe I’m wrong.
-
Who would buy a marine thar attacked at 1?
And it’s all abstracted. Their boats come with the 5 ipc cost.
-
There a few things I hate about Balanced Mod, all to do with Amphibious Assaults.
- Why on earth should you be able to assault from a Cruiser or Battleship? None of those ships would carry the assault boats needed. Indeed, even boarding or alighting as an NCM away from a naval base is dubious
- Why should Marines get to attack on a 2? The combined arms artillery bonus is pretty silly too in an amphibious assault. It doesn’t really reflect the real world IMO.
Just thought I’d give that feedback. Maybe I’m wrong.
Simon, there is significant historical precedent for warships carrying detachments of marines into combat. For starters, virtually all US battleships, during World War II, carried marine detachments (between 50 and 100 men), who, in addition to manning ship guns, served as ship expeditionary forces. See, e.g., http://seastories.battleshipnc.com/marines/
Smaller warships also carried marines. For example, it was a group of ship-borne Royal Marines that proved decisive in the Battle for Madagascar. From the relevant wikipedia article:
“The French defence was highly effective in the beginning and the main Allied force was brought to a halt by the morning of 6 May. The deadlock was broken when the old destroyer HMS Anthony dashed straight past the harbour defences of Diego Suarez and landed 50 Royal Marines amidst the Vichy rear area. The Marines created “disturbance in the town out of all proportion to their numbers” and the Vichy defence was soon broken.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar
Also noteworthy, the Japanese’ made extensive use of cruisers, destroyers, and even battleships as troop transports throughout the war. A few examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Kitakami
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kirishima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_HayanamiSo, yah, the idea of cruisers and battleships transporting small land forces is not only fun and good for the game, its historically accurate! HF!
-
The Tokyo Express also really comes in handy in the Pacific. It’s annoying enough to go out island collecting, if you can send a cruiser with a marine on it instead of a cruiser and a transport it helps speed game play up a bit as well. (Thinking Marshals, Jonah, Guam, Midway, Formosa, etcetera…islands you may want to collect but don’t want to dedicate a fleet to getting and are probably un, or under, defended)
-
Interesting points - note a couple of things:
- The Kitakami lost 40% of its torpedo tubes to fit in 2 assault boats
- The first link notes that the Marines transferred to a transport when they were planned to assault a beach
- I’d have thought an infantry represents significantly more than 100 troops.
But if you reckon it’s more fun that way, might give it a go.
-
But if you reckon it’s more fun that way, might give it a go.
haha. so you haven’t even tried the mod yet. . . :roll:
Suggested Topics
