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
-
Only if they step off the boat themselves.
-
Thanks, buddy! :-D
-
Marines do get the bonus if the battle is considered an amphibious assault, so they do not have to step off the boats themselves if other units are coming from boats.
-
Marines do get the bonus if the battle is considered an amphibious assault, so they do not have to step off the boats themselves if other units are coming from boats.
Hmm, ok. I didn’t know that.
-
Marines do get the bonus if the battle is considered an amphibious assault, so they do not have to step off the boats themselves if other units are coming from boats.
Correct. If any aspect of the battle is amphibious, marines get the bonus, even if they come from an adjacent land territory. seems legit.
-
Great! Thanks for the clarification, fellas! 8-)
-
I made a small clarifying edit to the balanced mod rules post
Kid, please let me know if you don’t like what I did - just edit it if you want
The rule does say “during amphibious assaults” but most people are probably like me and think that means the marines have to be unloaded and amphibiously assaulting themselves. It would be great if the game notes in Triple A could be edited as well - I think this will be difficult to remember otherwiseVery interesting detail…… Makes me think marines should just attack at 2 by themselves in all circumstances, but that would take a coding change
-
It’s an XML change though isn’t it, not an engine change?
I would guess this “feature” is because the engine only knows that the battle is amphibious rather than the unit.
-
coding change, XML change…… all the same to this luddite
-
XML is the data. I can change that. I can’t necessarily change the code - requires approval.
-
XML is the data. I can change that. I can’t necessarily change the code - requires approval.
please don’t make changes to the xml and then post the results as “balance mod”
-
I had no plans to do so. Don’t worry.
-
I like some of the proposals that I read in the thread, like the one Karl mentioned about being able to walk from Sicily to Southern Italy, however, it is soon for me to know how a rule change could impact this new fantastic ruleset.
I played only a few bm games in the last quarter of 2016, and I feel that for me it is a bit soon to judge if it is really balanced or not, on one hand because I need more games, and on the other hand because my Allies are weaker than my Axis.
I want to congratulate the creators of this version, the small amount of games played showed me that BM 2.0 is a lot of fun and it is a great A&A.
Just for those with curiosity, after these tests, for 2017 league I decided playing only BM, easy wins with Axis in 2nd edition is good, but not fun. I suggest all players with doubts on it, to do the same, no matter we collect a lot of defeats!!
The second decision for 2017 league has been playing only switch sides game pairs, to ensure sufficient practise with Allies (that I particularly need). I started the first pair of 2017 league games already with my friend JWW, who I think is on similar level now as mine.
I wish you all and your families a fantastic 2017! full of health and prosperity,
and including great A&A gaming moments!
Thank you all for making it not only possible, but excellent!
Juan
-
Apologies if this has been asked before, but in a Vichy situation, where Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco are all pro-Axis neutrals, can a Mech infantry that begins the turn in Tunisia move through Algeria and Morocco, activating the Inf in both places, in a single move?
-
No, because neutral rules apply, and you can never drive through a friendly neutral the turn you activated it, not even with a tank
This is true whether there is neutral infantry there or not
-
Ah, thanks!
-
I was wondering if there had been any thought about another Inf unit like the Marine i.e. for the European side such as an Elite unit?
I see Marines are used a lot but mainly on Pac. side and if used on european side it is mostly used by the US.
The Unit (Marine) is therefore more a Allied supporting unit then a general unit for all nations.
Or am I wrong about this or just missing something?? -
@aequitas:
I was wondering if there had been any thought about another Inf unit like the Marine i.e. for the European side such as an Elite unit?
I see Marines are used a lot but mainly on Pac. side and if used on european side it is mostly used by the US.
The Unit (Marine) is therefore more a Allied supporting unit then a general unit for all nations.
Or am I wrong about this or just missing something??I think they are used fairly evenly by the Axis and the Allies, and in both theaters. If there is a difference in their use between Axis and Allies, it’s sure to be small.
I don’t see the value of adding another unit, but I can listen to your case.
-
anti tank guns would b gud. 1/2 unit that gets +3 defense when being attacked by enemy armour. costs 7 IPC :-P
-
Regarding British med. NOs
They get +3 for all original territories and they get + 3 for Cyprus, Malta and Crete (at least pro allies).
This means if Italy for example takes Cyprus uk loses two NOs, listed above. Is this a good design /priority of British objectives? At the top of my head I think Malta and Cyprus are the only examples of a single territory counting for two different objectives? (I have read the prior discussion in late November) Maybe the Malta, Cyprus and Crete objective should be changed to avoid this?
Suggested Topics
