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
-
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?
-
There’s a few groups of islands which give both sides an objective. e.g. Guam/Wake Is/Midway. Going to Cyprus often means bypassing Crete which has a German objective.
I think they got a bit carried away frankly.
-
My point is, holding Malta or Cyprus by Italy/Germany removes two objectives for the British. I am wondering if this is intended?
-
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 don’t need two transports to take them! Marines!
Besides, you don’t have to forfeit any transports - just move the fleet there once, or go when the Allies aren’t in range. It’s not hard to take Crete and Cyprus with Italy - not hard at all. -
Re-post from December 3, this thread:
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 2That’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
-
Thanks Gamerman01. I missed your post from December 3. Basically my point too, thanks!
-
Responding to the Med Island concerns:
Between Allied and Axis control of the UK Med islands, there’s an 8 PU swing. Eight PUs for three islands in two sea zones may seem slightly more than what they deserve, convoys and supply lines included, but a major reason for those med NOs is to give more importance to the med–in vanilla G40, going north was almost always a better option. Indeed, even in BM with the added NOs, there is still more to gain by going north than by going into the Med as Allies in terms of income differential, not to mention that going north allows easier protection and reinforcements from UK’s capital, and also threatens Germany’s capital.’
Ultimately, the test for any NO configuration is this: What impact does it have on gameplay? And, perhaps secondarily, does it have any foundation in historical fact?
By either or both standards, the current configuration of med island NOs easily passes muster. Is there anyone who seriously argues these NOs do not create more action in the Med? Or that giving Germany and Italy the extra income in the Med creates an imbalance in Axis’s favor (no, to the contrary, the emerging consensus has been that the BM advantage goes to Allies. While it comes down to a matter of opinion, to some extent, I feel that the med Island NOs create naval engagement in the Mediterranean that is more interesting, more varied, and more intense. It expands strategic choices and opportunities for both sides.
To the historical point. even cursory research reveals the huge importance the warring parties placed on these islands. In the context of the war, they could hardly be described as “obscure.”
From the wiki article on the Siege of Malta:
**_The Siege of Malta was a military campaign in the Mediterranean Theatre of the Second World War. From 1940–42, the fight for the control of the strategically important island of Malta pitted the air forces and navies of Italy and Germany against the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.
The opening of a new front in North Africa in mid-1940 increased Malta’s already considerable value. British air and sea forces based on the island could attack Axis ships transporting vital supplies and reinforcements from Europe. General Erwin Rommel, in de facto field command of Axis forces in North Africa, recognised its importance quickly. In May 1941, he warned that “Without Malta the Axis will end by losing control of North Africa”.[1]
The Axis resolved to bomb or starve Malta into submission, by attacking its ports, towns, cities, and Allied shipping supplying the island. Malta was one of the most intensively bombed areas during the war._**
From the Wiki article on the Battle of Crete:**_British forces had initially garrisoned Crete when the Italians attacked Greece on 28 October 1940,[13] enabling the Greek government to employ the Fifth Cretan Division in the mainland campaign.[14] This arrangement suited the British: Crete could provide the Royal Navy with excellent harbours in the eastern Mediterranean, from which it could threaten the Axis south-eastern flank,[15] and the Ploieşti oil fields in Romania would be within range of British bombers based on the island.
The Italians were repulsed, but the subsequent German invasion of April 1941 (Operation Marita), succeeded in overrunning mainland Greece. At the end of the month 57,000 Allied troops were evacuated by the Royal Navy. Some were sent to Crete to bolster its garrison until fresh forces could be organised, although most had lost their heavy equipment.[16] Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, sent a telegram to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS), General Sir John Dill: “To lose Crete because we had not sufficient bulk of forces there would be a crime.”[17] . . . .
Hitler remained concerned about attacks . . . on his Romanian fuel supply,[14] and Luftwaffe commanders were enthusiastic about the idea of seizing Crete by a daring airborne attack.[19] Hitler was won over by the audacious proposal and in Directive 31 he asserted that “Crete… will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa.”[21]_**
And, regarding Cyprus, we learn from http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/10.htm:
As it had twenty-five years earlier, [Cyprus] became important as a supply and training base and as a naval station, but this time its use as an air base made it particularly significant to the overall Allied cause.
So the Med Island NO configuration is historically plausible and promotes engagement in a theater that too often was a stagnant pond in vanilla.
-
Responding to the Med Island concerns:
By either or both standards, the current configuration of med island NOs easily passes muster. Is there anyone who seriously argues these NOs do not create more action in the Med? Or that giving Germany and Italy the extra income in the Med creates an imbalance in Axis’s favor (no, to the contrary, the emerging consensus has been that the BM advantage goes to Allies. While it comes down to a matter of opinion, to some extent, I feel that the med Island NOs create naval engagement in the Mediterranean that is more interesting, more varied, and more intense. It expands strategic choices and opportunities for both sides.
Okey, I will leave this alone now after this post :-D
I don’t really disagree with what is written above, my point has the whole time been it is unreasonable that holding for examble cyprus with Italy removes two objectives for the British, the convoy lanes and the original territories. This violates with how all other NOs are set up in the game If it is important to add the extra money in the med then replace the convoy lane objective with a Crete objective, such as +3 (or+2) for British if Crete is Allied controlled.
-
Indeed we did it on purpose not to associate a lot of NOs (income) on the same territory for obvious reasons. However, we don’t think it’s fair to say that losing Cyprus or Malta means losing the original territories NO, since it is by no means the only way to lose it. That’s why we don’t really consider that multiple Allied NOs are associated to the Med islands.
Russia has 2 NOs for Berlin :wink:.
-
Russia has 2 NOs for Berlin :wink:.
Sure, that one is a terrible idea too and also violates how all other NO’s are set up in the game (Oysteilo’s language)
The original game designers apparently didn’t design NO’s to encourage action in certain areas, but you guys clearly design them to manipulate players into playing the kind of game that you want. I’m really not saying this critically, I’m saying it factually. Apparently the intent of the Harris team NO’s is to spice up the game with historical realities and to add more income to all powers.
Key examples of OOB NO’s
Germany gets bonuses for the most major Russian cities
Japan gets bonuses for the most major Allied strongholds, and controlling all money islands
Italy gets bonuses for dominating the Mediterranean - new “Roman empire”
UK gets bonus for keeping the empire intact
US gets major bonuses for being the US (They could have made the US territories worth more IPC’s, but that would give the Axis that much more money if captured - although Japan would get 15 for WUS)
Russia gets NO’s for expanding into Europe
China for Burma road
India for Malaya and Hong KongThe NO’s of the designers were pretty much restricted to major national objectives, pretty much indisputable by anyone (except for the nutty loophole that Russia could rake in money from Iraq, 4 Italian African territories, and Med islands which the mod team rightly eliminated)
The mod team went way beyond that by using NO’s to balance the game and then to encourage the type of action they wanted. It’s your mod, you can do whatever you want with it of course, but I just wanted to point out that the philosophy behind your NO’s is very much different than what we’re used to with AA50 and G40 by the A&A game designers -
after having played a good number of BM games with both sides, my simple opinion is that the NOs as is works great and is a lot of fun. the fighting in the med over the islands is interesting and fun. i really don’t see the problem. so what if UK loses two NOs after having lost malta or cyprus…that’ll just mean they might want to get their act together and prioritize more on italy’s submission…which is usually a good thing to do.
Suggested Topics
