what about scrapping the USA Guam NO and shifting the bonus to holding Iwo J and or Okinawa? I don’t think I’ve seen a single J1 in BM; I know I don’t like giving USA that plus 5 right off the bat cause I don’t have enough transports to capture guam J1.
At the moment the Pacific money is concentrated in the DEI and the South Pacific. I think it would result in more interesting and varied gameplay if the money was spread out a bit in the Pacific, so there would be a reason to split fleets in some cases in order to maximise gains/deny income to the enemy.
The bonus could be US, but since the statistics show an Allied advantage it would make sense to give it to Japan. Also, it goes a long way to put earlier JDOWs back on the table.
Violates historical accuracy though.
In the war, the oil was critical and in the DEI.
I agree with the comments that 1IPC each for Iwo Jima and Okinawa is already generous. If you want, you can base bombers there but that strategy hasn’t been too effective for me. Usually better to attack the IJN.
At the moment the Pacific money is concentrated in the DEI and the South Pacific. I think it would result in more interesting and varied gameplay if the money was spread out a bit in the Pacific, so there would be a reason to split fleets in some cases in order to maximise gains/deny income to the enemy.
The bonus could be US, but since the statistics show an Allied advantage it would make sense to give it to Japan. Also, it goes a long way to put earlier JDOWs back on the table.
Violates historical accuracy though.
In the war, the oil was critical and in the DEI.
I agree with the comments that 1IPC each for Iwo Jima and Okinawa is already generous. If you want, you can base bombers there but that strategy hasn’t been too effective for me. Usually better to attack the IJN.
The NO for Iwo and Okinawa would be equal to or better in terms of historical accuracy than the majority of the NOs. Japan really did not want to lose them, and sacrificed a lot to delay their loss. The historical accuracy reason isn’t a major concern anyway, gameplay is way more important.
The historical accuracy reason isn’t a major concern anyway, gameplay is way more important.
::slap::
that’sh for blashphemeh
I know enough about WWII to know that Okinawa and Iwo Jima were never attacked until 1945, months before Japan surrendered. Also note that they are considered part of the “home islands” so it’s almost like giving Japan an NO for holding Japan like JDOW said :-)
Iwo was attacked for the airbases, which harried US bombing missions
My point is Iwo and Okinawa were totally end-game for USA vs. Japan, and they can be useful in A&A for this too. Keep in mind BM now has the rule about taking Tokyo affects the Europe win conditions, so Iwo and Okinawa could be very strategically important, and even possibly affect GERMANY because of the Tokyo rule.
If you want to do something with these islands, consider adding an AIRBASE to one or both? Not an NO, please!!
I have an idea for BM
I think the kamikaze rules of G40 should be considered
Kamikazes as far as I know were involved in fleet battles where Japan always had a SURFACE FLEET presence
With the addition of marines, kamikazes severely limit the usefulness of American marines on cruisers
I would like to see the kamikaze rule changed to be that they can only be used when Japan has a surface warship defending in the zone. Then uncontested amphibious landings by the marines could be done.
Keep in mind that originally the kamikazes required a certain island to be taken by the Allies before they could be used, and then they were boosted significantly by the removal of that requirement (also simplified the game)
I realize this also keeps Japan from being able to stop ALL BOMBARDMENT on any given amphibious assault (and there could be a big one) unless they have a destroyer in the zone, but I think this is OK. You could always re-think how many kamikazes Japan starts the game with, too.
I know enough about WWII to know that Okinawa and Iwo Jima were never attacked until 1945, months before Japan surrendered. Also note that they are considered part of the “home islands” so it’s almost like giving Japan an NO for holding Japan like JDOW said :-)
Iwo was attacked for the airbases, which harried US bombing missionsMy point is Iwo and Okinawa were totally end-game for USA vs. Japan, and they can be useful in A&A for this too. Keep in mind BM now has the rule about taking Tokyo affects the Europe win conditions, so Iwo and Okinawa could be very strategically important, and even possibly affect GERMANY because of the Tokyo rule.
If you want to do something with these islands, consider adding an AIRBASE to one or both? Not an NO, please!!
I really don’t see a strong reason as far as historical accuracy goes to not put an NO on them. Both sides fought over them and sacrificed a lot because they were important. The fact that it was late in the war doesn’t change anything imo.
If someone can suggest a better NO that can do the following, I’m all ears:
-Buffs earlier JDOWs (main reason)
-Gives more importance to a region lacking some
-Spreads out the income in the Pacific a bit (bonus)
If you think buffing earlier JDOWs isn’t necessary that’s another story. J3 seems to be the best by far at the moment imo.
I don’t understand the idea that more income is needed from all over the Pacific. By the way, I often took Paulau, the Marianas, the Carolines and the Marshalls before there was an NO for them. It protected zone 33 a lot from Japanese air
Again I totally disagree that any part of the Pacific near Japan “lacks importance”. That statement, along with your statement about Med islands lacking strategic importance, kind of blows my mind coming from someone who has so much success
You want to encourage a J1? That’s easy, just let Japan collect the oil trade with the USA on J1 even if they declare war. The idea being that they still traded with the USA right up to sucker punching them. If that’s not enough, do something else too.
I am also mystified by your interest in helping Japan have multiple fleets. They don’t already? Are you one of those players (I saw two good players do this once, against each other) who goes around taking 1 island at a time with the whole fleet so that you never sacrifice a single transport? In my most recent game, my opponent was able to float about 4 separate Japanese fleets safely. We must be experiencing very, very different styles of games. But please don’t go crazy with BM trying to incentivize everything you think of. And remove that crazy Crete NO, pleeeeeease - Z99 is over the top crazy in BM2.0
I don’t understand the idea that more income is needed from all over the Pacific. By the way, I often took Paulau, the Marianas, the Carolines and the Marshalls before there was an NO for them. It protected zone 33 a lot from Japanese air
Again I totally disagree that any part of the Pacific near Japan “lacks importance”. That statement, along with your statement about Med islands lacking strategic importance, kind of blows my mind coming from someone who has so much success
You want to encourage a J1? That’s easy, just let Japan collect the oil trade with the USA on J1 even if they declare war. The idea being that they still traded with the USA right up to sucker punching them. If that’s not enough, do something else too.
I am also mystified by your interest in helping Japan have multiple fleets. They don’t already? Are you one of those players (I saw two good players do this once, against each other) who goes around taking 1 island at a time with the whole fleet so that you never sacrifice a single transport? In my most recent game, my opponent was able to float about 4 separate Japanese fleets safely. We must be experiencing very, very different styles of games. But please don’t go crazy with BM trying to incentivize everything you think of. And remove that crazy Crete NO, pleeeeeease - Z99 is over the top crazy in BM2.0
I’m inclined to agree, at this point, new NOs should be avoided unless there is an overwhelmingly strong justification for them. Not sure i’m totally convinced that “Homeland Islands” meets that high standard yet.
I also think messing with the Kamikaze rules is a nonstarter–there doesn’t seem to be an overwhelming justification for it (The fact that it would be annoying to code is a secondary consideration).
As for Germany’s Crete NO, I really really like that this NO gives a strong reason for Axis to take Crete, for historical interest. And if you take away Germany’s Crete, you would have to replace it with another, for balance purposes. I would be amenable to replacing it with the Atlantic Wall NO mentioned earlier. Other members of the Mod Squad (not represented here) are pretty pumped about keeping the Crete NO, however.
Crete is neat.
I don’t understand the idea that more income is needed from all over the Pacific. �By the way, I often took Paulau, the Marianas, the Carolines and the Marshalls before there was an NO for them. �It protected zone 33 a lot from Japanese air
Again I totally disagree that any part of the Pacific near Japan “lacks importance”. �That statement, along with your statement about Med islands lacking strategic importance, kind of blows my mind coming from someone who has so much success
You want to encourage a J1? �That’s easy, just let Japan collect the oil trade with the USA on J1 even if they declare war. �The idea being that they still traded with the USA right up to sucker punching them. �If that’s not enough, do something else too.
I am also mystified by your interest in helping Japan have multiple fleets.� They don’t already?� Are you one of those players (I saw two good players do this once, against each other) who goes around taking 1 island at a time with the whole fleet so that you never sacrifice a single transport?� In my most recent game, my opponent was able to float about 4 separate Japanese fleets safely.� We must be experiencing very, very different styles of games.� But please don’t go crazy with BM trying to incentivize everything you think of.� And remove that crazy Crete NO, pleeeeeease - Z99 is over the top crazy in BM2.0
And that’s the only use of taking those islands. In the vast majority of cases it’s a waste of time and tps to take them. Even with the BM NO I don’t see them fought over in most games, perhaps 20% of them.
It’s always relative. What can US achieve by going North instead of staying South? My answer is really not much, and they stand to lose the threat on the DEI if they go North. The small Iwo Jima NO would hardly impact this at all if it were implemented. Like I said earlier, the main reason is to put earlier JDOWs on more even footing with J3.
The change would also have to impact J2 DOW. I think the Iwo Jima NO is something else, and I don’t quite understand your vehemence against it.
It’s not helping Japan have multiple fleets, it’s more to have a different setup of opposing fleets. At the moment it’s nearly always Carolines or Queens vs Philippines or Malaya/Java, and the only islands being truly fought over are the DEI. The Iwo Jima NO could spice it up a bit.
I sacrifice a lot of Anzac tps to take islands, but I’m a bit more protective of US tps. I’ll make the move that I think is the most efficient, and I’ve never thought that taking the islands surrounding Carolines would be the most efficient move to make in vanilla.
That’s the approach I took to coming up with all the current BM NOs. After fixing early GDOWs and JDOWs I can’t think of anything else worthy to add.
What is crazy with the Crete NO? And the income swing for Z99 is only 5 PUs. That’s hardly over the top considering you need 2 tps to take them, and that zone is often covered by UK air.
There’s no need to worry, I won’t add or change something that goes against what the majority want, even if I think it’s a good modification.
And that’s the only use of taking those islands. In the vast majority of cases it’s a waste of time and tps to take them. Even with the BM NO I don’t see them fought over in most games, perhaps 20% of them.
Well they have been fought over in 100% of mine
It’s always relative. What can US achieve by going North instead of staying South? My answer is really not much, and they stand to lose the threat on the DEI if they go North. The small Iwo Jima NO would hardly impact this at all if it were implemented. Like I said earlier, the main reason is to put earlier JDOWs on more even footing with J3.
The change would also have to impact J2 DOW. I think the Iwo Jima NO is something else, and I don’t quite understand your vehemence against it.
I gave a good suggestion of giving Japan the trade NO for +10 regardless of a J1 DOW.
There is a reason to not always be at Carolines or Queensland. Sometimes neither place is safe anyway. Hawaii or Midway are good staging points (Midway with a naval base) - not everyone always has a destroyer ready to block. I think I’ve taken IWO in 2 out of 2 of my most recent 2 games, and I even declare war on Japan with Russia early every time. If Russia doesn’t DOW, then Iwo is even MORE strategic - you can threaten Z6 with new bombers on California immediately IF you control Iwo Jima.
If everyone is always going for the DEI and going south, then everyone is not playing the game the most effectively all of the time.
It’s not helping Japan have multiple fleets, it’s more to have a different setup of opposing fleets.
You said something about incentivizing Japan to have more than 1 fleet.
At the moment it’s nearly always Carolines or Queens vs Philippines or Malaya/Java, and the only islands being truly fought over are the DEI. The Iwo Jima NO could spice it up a bit.
Again, this is not my experience and not how I play, and I did win the past 2 league championships
I sacrifice a lot of Anzac tps to take islands, but I’m a bit more protective of US tps. I’ll make the move that I think is the most efficient, and I’ve never thought that taking the islands surrounding Carolines would be the most efficient move to make in vanilla.
Wow, NEVER? That’s such a strong word. I often take islands around the Carolines in “vanilla”. Throwing in the +5, and I’m just like, sweet, I take those anyway.
What is crazy with the Crete NO? And the income swing for Z99 is only 5 PUs. That’s hardly over the top considering you need 2 tps to take them, and that zone is often covered by UK air.
Cyprus is part of the original territories NO for UK, which is +3. Cyprus and Crete with Malta give UK +3 and also give Italy +3. Crete gives Germany +2. That is a total of ELEVEN, not FIVE. This is why I say Z99 is over the top crazy now. Cyprus and Crete? Seriously? So some people have some romantic notion with Crete and Germany and history? What - ever
You always talk like such a thoughtful and reasonable man and you win every game that’s not against JDOW, but all this I’ve read about tweaking balanced mod really makes me scratch my head in disbelief
What about on a J2DOW? Would Japan still get +10 from FIC?
Indeed Iwo Jima is rendered more useful in BM since Russia is not necessarily at war with Japan.
Eh I think you’d have difficulty finding an example of an expert match where going North is better than staying in Carolines or Queens (while DEI are in Japanese hands). There isn’t much up there, and it puts the fleet out of position.
What I meant to say then is that if the money in the Pac were more spread out you could see something other than the usual staging grounds for the massive fleets, which would be interesting.
I understand now your reasoning against the proposed NO since in your games those islands have seen action. It surprises me of course, because I have spectated hundreds of games and played hundreds of them too, and I don’t think I’ve seen Paulau, Marshall and Marianas taken by Allies more than 5 times in vanilla, and I would remember because it seems an odd thing to do.
Yeah never. Just goes to show how different some people play.
I don’t think you should lump original territories NO in Z99, and the Italian NO for all 3 islands. Crete NO is also for the whole Balkans region, it just so happens that Crete is the hardest and often the last one to be taken. If most people want Crete to go though I don’t mind, it isn’t an important NO.
Yup, well you need to remember that we don’t all have the same experiences and background. Both sides can be logical and come to different conclusions, however surprising they may be.
I just don’t like how a single obscure island affects multiple NO’s, and 2 of them are now in the same sea zone
If Italy simply takes Cyprus, then the UK is denied 2 NO’s
If Italy takes Cyprus and Crete at the same time, which is very easy to do, then Germany is set up for the +2, Italy is very close to the +3, and it will be difficult for the UK to get +3 X 2
That’s too much importance on Z99. Without any of these NO’s, it was already a good idea for Italy to take all these islands (didn’t have to worry about Crete unless the Allies take it) because the Allies have no place to land aircraft
I had to spell out exactly how Iwo Jima and Sicily/Sardinia could be used, for example, to open up very effective bomber threats on Rome and Z6 (which surprises me very much). It would take significant effort to spell out various ways that other islands (although I did spell out how Me1945, who is an expert, effectively used Cyprus against me, and I am also an expert as you say) are significant. You don’t have to actually land anything there for it to be strategically important - just the fact that it opens up many more attack options for your aircraft, and the possibility of being able to land aircraft there immediately, AND the possibility to be able to buy an airbase at the same time as moving your fleet there, and yes, even to a spot like Z99, are all significant.
Again, I am amazed that the balanced mod team seems to think that almost every island on the map needs an NO to make it interesting
You’ve observed hundreds of games and played hundreds of games and very rarely saw Paulau, Marshall and Marianas taken by the Allies? Well I guess I am a very rare player
What about on a J2DOW? Would Japan still get +10 from FIC?
Haven’t played too much BM yet, but I can’t believe you’d need to incentivize a J2, so no, but you have a whole team of guys - if you’re considering my idea about the +10 from oil, you can talk about whether it applies to J2 also.
If Dominion doesn’t do a J2 DOW on me again, I will be happy. So it’s conventional wisdom that J2 is off the table now? Wow. I find that hard to believe too. No wonder, with the China rules and a +3 for India and J3 DOW my India held the whole game - 13 rounds against Dominion
And if you are SELDOM doing a J2, when your opponent knows that he can take even more advantage.
If Dominion doesn’t do a J2 DOW on me again, I will be happy.
ok i made you happy :lol:
great discussion, i think you will always have people who like some objectives while hating others. best way to settle this is
ADAM VS GAMER
BEST OF 3!!!
That’s the approach I took to coming up with all the current BM NOs.
Ahem! There is no “I” in “Mod Squad”. . .
Also, if u get rid of the Crete/Balkans NO you would have to replace it with something else. As I said, I am a strong proponent of the “Atlantic Wall” NO. I don’t think the NO, as proposed, is difficult to grasp. In order for Germany tog et the bonus, Normandy and Holland would have to be Axis-controlled at the start of Germany’s turn, and Germany would have to have at least one land unit in each the end of its turn. So easy. I’ve already done the XML for this NO and it works great.
The historic justification for the NO is clear: there was, in fact, an “atlantic wall” and it played a huge role in German wartime planning and propaganda–boosted morale, etc. If the Crete NO goes, this is the one I think should replace it.
about the NOs….
Interesting discussion. First of all I agree more or less 100% with gamer. I really don’t see any need for additional NOs. Looks like the win % for allies in BM is 52-53%. That is balanced!
Secondly, I guess some of the games are played with a small axis bid, so if you should do anything just remove the malta crete cyprus objective for UK. I agree that sz 99 is over the top. Even with this modification sz 99 will se plenty of action…
And please no Iwo Jima/Okinawa for Japan
