Correction: sea zone 5
Actually Japan let through every lend-lease ship through to Russia as it didn’t want to go to war with Russia, so it’s accurate.
Didn’t they inspect those ships to make sure there were no arms onboard though?
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ll post something on github.
I would think a bunch of unescorted american trade ships in sea sone 6 would just be sunk in the real war. Seems unlikely that Japan would allow those ships to contain anything but fresh water. So of course the objective is not historical accurate. Although history is not my field of expertice i find this hard to believe to be accurate
Well look it up. Japan inspected the passing shipment and let everything through to Russia to avoid provoking a war with Russia.
From Wikipedia: “The Pacific Route opened in August 1941, but was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the US; after December 1941, only Soviet ships could be used, and, as Japan and the USSR observed a strict neutrality towards each other, only non-military goods could be transported.[40] Nevertheless, some 8,244,000 tons of goods went by this route, 50% of the total.”
I dont understand why the USA accepted this. Seems completely ridic.
While waiting for my turn earlier this morning I googled this and came across this conference presentation on the topic: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/paperno/index.htm
Thought folks here might find it interesting. The major point of it (for the purposes of the discussion here) is that there was more than one Pacific route. The one going to Vladivostok came close to the Japanese Islands and was inspected. So it only took non military cargo. The ones with military cargo went further north to avoid the Japanese. More details are in the link.
Also of interest, 23 Soviet cargo ships sunk in the pacific. 8 were destroyed by the Japanese (4 because they were in Hong Kong when the Japanese attacked) and 6 were hit mistakenly by American submarines.
The route via the Bering strait was small tonnage wise. I’ll bet that’s because it was closed due to ice for a good portion of the year. Still interesting that there was such a route at all.
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.
So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:
or we can add more bonus instead :-P
BM3 is too difficult for my skill set playing as the Axis (probably the minority here). I have only played it like 5x, but have played Global 40 150+ games. Expert regular league players will of course disagree with me (probably because they created it).
1. Russia seems to collect a lot of money = tons of troops. Should we tone it down…or maybe tone down the China thing…one or the other at least please.
Any missteps like helping Italy capture Cairo could easily result in Russia being more powerful than Germany by turn 6-7 (espcially if the Allies also come over to slow Germany down). Whereas in Global 40, Germany could still make it vis-Ã -vis slower; and maybe not be able to capture Moscow, but could push them back. Now of course I’m sure there is more finesse to doing both in BM3 compared to Global, but gosh, sure seems it like it doesn’t take much for Russia to become super powerful.
2. Cairo: To me, the UK National Objectives money seems to make Cairo not very important to the UK as compared to Global 40 (where losing any original territory cost them 5). I don’t know what the consensus here is on this.
Getting it doesn’t seem to have a huge reward…it’s like how Sea Lion can be pyrrhic in Global. I kind of think a bonus should go to BOTH Italy and Germany for capturing it (whether or not Germany or Italy has a land unit in it. Germany gets 5 if Italy or Japan captures Caucasus).
Negative National Objective for the UK: Makes the UK lose an 2 additional IPCs (2 for territory + 2 more) for losing control of Cairo (I believe the UK considered the fight in North Africa to be a decisive theater of war). Do both things and again, Cairo would be decisive for the UK. Less players will stop NOT doing Taranto or Toronto.
I like that negative objective for Cairo! Is it over the top though? If Cairo falls early, Axis victory is usually the result.
On your point that USSR becomes too strong, well that was my first impression too. Practice (and advice from the forums) makes for perfect Barbarossa strategies. Still I think the idea is that a defence of Moscow becomes more viable. I’m inclined to think this makes A&A a better game. There’s a couple of features which go the other way but the net benefit is a positive.
A well orchestrated Barbarossa will kill Moscow no problem.
And consider this: You don’t essentially need to capture Moscow - if you’re able to siege them while taking everything else, that’s usually enough to win the game.
But the point you’re making is still true: If Russia is not pushed hard, they make a lot of money. So if you invest too much into your German Navy, you might be in some trouble. I think that’s a good adaptation to the original rules though. Before, it was too easy to hold off an Allied invasion of Western / Southern Europe while still sieging Moscow.
I like that negative objective for Cairo! Is it over the top though? If Cairo falls early, Axis victory is usually the result.
On your point that USSR becomes too strong, well that was my first impression too. Practice (and advice from the forums) makes for perfect Barbarossa strategies. Still I think the idea is that a defence of Moscow becomes more viable. I’m inclined to think this makes A&A a better game. There’s a couple of features which go the other way but the net benefit is a positive.
I think with the negative objective for Cairo; assuming subs killed, that the UK will still break even or still collect more IPCs than when having lost Cairo in Global 40. I don’t think it over the top.
What’s over the top is that the UK can lose Cairo in BM3 and it’s not decisive. I see lots of people just kill the Italian destroyer and transport in SZ 96 and that is it. And then a few rounds later evacuate. And sometimes they aren’t even doing the Gibraltar Air Base thing. If Cairo was decisive for the UK, they’d again have to sacrifice they’re expensive Navy in the med to neuter Italy (keeping the Navy is like 50+ bid - didn’t add it up).
I’m an easy win in a league game or just for fun. I’ll play allies straight up to gain more experience anytime.
Thank You!
A well orchestrated Barbarossa will kill Moscow no problem.
And consider this: You don’t essentially need to capture Moscow - if you’re able to siege them while taking everything else, that’s usually enough to win the game.But the point you’re making is still true: If Russia is not pushed hard, they make a lot of money. So if you invest too much into your German Navy, you might be in some trouble. I think that’s a good adaptation to the original rules though. Before, it was too easy to hold off an Allied invasion of Western / Southern Europe while still sieging Moscow.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Good gosh though, Russia can stack up quick in BM3.
Please play me sometime. I need to get better at the Allies while experiencing better Axis play. League or just for fun.
Straight up of course. I don’t think the Axis should get a bid.
If the consensus is that they should get a bid, than something should just be turned off for the Allies or that I might be right.
In order to better expose the Balance Mod to the community, this thread has been moved to “Other Axis & Allies Variants”.
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.
So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:
- Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia to USA
- Japan DOW bonus on Persia and Northern lend lease to USSR
- Carolines etc bonus to USA
- Sicily/Sardinia etc bonus to UK
- Iwo Jima/Okinawa bonus to Japan
- Perhaps some people want to disable the Indian Ocean objective to UK_Pacific?
No replies, not even a like? Seems the care factor is low to zero.
Simon,
I’m the only one who agrees with it, LOL.
But I don’t count of course because I’m new to league and really of the opinion that the Axis are outmatched in BM3.
Whatever the case, I don’t agree that Balanced Mod is “balanced.”
Heck, I just started a game; and the opponent typed, “No bid” in the initial post. What is the Axis normally entitled to a bid? If so, than people should be in agreement with me that the BM3 needs to tone down the “balancing” factors.
@P@nther:
In order to better expose the Balance Mod to the community, this thread has been moved to “Other Axis & Allies Variants”.
might be better to stickie it under “House Rules”. Seems more apropriate and probably more viewed than “other …variants” imo
Or maybe both. : )
Appreciate your time P@nther
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.
So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:
- Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia to USA
- Japan DOW bonus on Persia and Northern lend lease to USSR
- Carolines etc bonus to USA
- Sicily/Sardinia etc bonus to UK
- Iwo Jima/Okinawa bonus to Japan
- Perhaps some people want to disable the Indian Ocean objective to UK_Pacific?
No replies, not even a like? Seems the care factor is low to zero.
Too bad. seemed as if it was a good idea.
well, I was thinking more along the lines of, making it configurable so that players can choose what to flip on and off in the game options dialog. so yea that would require a ui change and some coding, but offer max flexibility.
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.
So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:
- Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia to USA
- Japan DOW bonus on Persia and Northern lend lease to USSR
- Carolines etc bonus to USA
- Sicily/Sardinia etc bonus to UK
- Iwo Jima/Okinawa bonus to Japan
- Perhaps some people want to disable the Indian Ocean objective to UK_Pacific?
No replies, not even a like? Seems the care factor is low to zero.
Too bad. seemed as if it was a good idea.
Can’t imagine that happening. There’s a reasonable way of doing enough.
Ok, I’ve made several things from Balanced Mod optional:
If you want these changes right away, you’ll have to delete the global map pack and download it again. Hopefully, users will be prompted to download it soon.
