Just how balanced is the Balanced Mod?
-
Gentlemen, this topic is about how balanced the new introduced Mod on this Forum is.
Please let us not get away or off the thematic of it.Thank you
-
Marine carrying capacity was added to cruisers so there might actually be a reason to buy cruisers. Still isn’t, IMO, but it does buff the initial cruisers a little bit and doesn’t make the purchase quite as bad as it is OOB.
Given that it’s a balance mod, it seems appropriate to make an effort to balance the least purchased unit in the game by making it a little bit more useful.
-
I don’t think marines were transported by destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, or made beach assaults from the same. I see your point with the extra capacity for a transport though, it would be annoying having everyone just buying marines lol.
In fact, 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!
-
@aequitas:
Gentlemen, this topic is about how balanced the new introduced Mod on this Forum is.
Please let us not get away or off the thematic of it.Thank you
This.
-
5 IPCs Marines is not consistent with the historical intent of Balance Mode, given in NOs and Vichy rules.
It is a gamey unit put at 5 IPCs to balance its high combat and mobility values. -
The USA NOs are very powerful. Balanced Mod is great because it forces the axis to do their thing FAST before the allies get the economic advantage. Just as it should be.
Exactly!
Also, cyan, the +5 for german control of London has not been implemented yet. Just an idea were tossing around
I stand corrected, I thought I read that somewhere then I thought I saw it in the game I was playing.
-
I like the idea of having BB and CA transport marines. It ups the value of a CA too.
A few possible ideas…
-
Paratroopers just as the Tech rule is written.
-
Elite Infantry - Same stats as marine but can be transported on a tank
-
-
@Baron:
5 IPCs Marines is not consistent with the historical intent of Balance Mode, given in NOs and Vichy rules.
It is a gamey unit put at 5 IPCs to balance is high combat and mobility values.Brother, you need to play the mod, or at least play the standard game against a human opponent (which you have not) before you can make such blanket assertions and be taken seriously.
-
@Baron:
5 IPCs Marines is not consistent with the historical intent of Balance Mode, given in NOs and Vichy rules.
It is a gamey unit put at 5 IPCs to balance is high combat and mobility values.Brother, you need to play the mod, or at least play the standard game against a human opponent (which you have not) before you can make such blanket assertions and be taken seriously.
By that logic, we might as well put the whole house rules forum in the trash.
-
So, 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 balanced mod has other elements that bring the game closer to reality and are even more interesting.
For example, the Chinese spawn rule makes China a much more difficult nut for Japan to crack.
And the Vichy France rules add a swathe of possibilities that I am still discovering.
It’s a great addition to the A&A toolkit and I congratulate those responsible.
Thanks mates!
-
I think as an aspirational thing balance by sides is good to strive for, but I don’t know how you’d really make that determination until the exact changes are set in stone and you can run a large enough sample of test games, or hold a couple tournaments to tally the wins.
Instead I’d suggest that the impression of fairness, and the entertainment value, comes about when players feel like there are multiple viable routes to victory for either side, and not just one or two scripted openings you have to follow for one side or the other to have a chance of winning. In that respect you can basically substitute newness for balance, because it takes a while for players to learn the new systems and get used to them.
This mod at least addresses a few of the normal complaints with the boxed game, namely that America is too cash strapped and slow on the uptakes, that China is too weak, that France is rather boring and irrelevant after the opening round, that it’s hard (particularly for the Allies) to develop enough transport capacity to be effective against bombers, and that the Russian NOs feel too difficult to achieve.
There are several HR proposals that have been made for global, but absent a popular mod that organizes them together and makes them easy to implement and test, it’s hard to get enough traction and bring the player base behind them. If this mod gains in popularity and more people decide to try it, I’d say that’s probably a good thing, whatever the ultimate determination about balance by sides ends up being.
My only other suggestion, beyond the Sierra Leone thing, is not to make too many updates too quickly, or be too quick to accept annectodatal or passionate initial reactions as a reason to make significant or sweeping alterations in rapid succession, before people have a chance to really sink their teeth into it. This can derail the progress of the mod into a state of perpetual alpha testing. If it produces entertaining gameplay and satisfies the basic desire to have multiple viable paths to victory, then you can always address the balance by sides later, with the introduction of a new NO, or the elimination of an NO, or simply by changing the value of an existing NO. Tweaking the objective money is fairly simple (compared to a rule change say). But its hard to see which side might need the tweak until the core mod has been played more or less to death for a year haha
-
Elk, I think the balanced mod is already a little more established than you know.
You made GREAT points about making changes based on anecdotal evidence, but I think the balanced mod rules are pretty much set at this point.
As of today, the A&A.org league has completed 50 games (of balanced mod), and that is involvement by 24 different players. This does not count however many are in progress.
Axis vs. Allies are 25-25 at this point. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying this is a perfectly balanced mod or that perfect balance can be attained or is even all that desireable (when you can always bid), but it does just so happen that after 50 games, the sides are tied.I don’t think they’re making changes at this point, and all talk here about tweaks and further house rules as far as I know is just for fun and armchair quarterbacking - it’s not like helping Larry develop the Alphas
-
A 50/50 split after 50 games bodes pretty well I’d say.
Well if no other changes are under consideration, then time will tell as to the ultimate balance assesment. At the very least it’s aptly named, because many players do seem to desire a game that provides an equal shot for Allies or Axis to prevail. If in the end it needs a bid or a boost somewhere, at least it can be modified at that point without too much difficulty.
Nice work all
-
I like the idea of having BB and CA transport marines. It ups the value of a CA too.
A few possible ideas…
-
Paratroopers just as the Tech rule is written.
-
Elite Infantry - Same stats as marine but can be transported on a tank
Regarding other unit possibilities, there is a practical reason why “marines” are the only new unit added to Balance Mod (in addition to us not wanting to muddy the waters too much). “Marines” is the only ‘new’ unit for which there already exists a .png image file in the G40 file set… It is an unused file that comes packaged with the standard version of G40. Why Bung & Veqryn opted to include this file, I don’t know–but i’m sure glad they did.
At any rate, by limiting units to those already existing in the G40 game files, we ensured that anybody who has G40 can instantly access and play Balance Mod games without further downloads/hassle. The goal was to make the Mod as accessible as possible.
We don’t presently intend to expand the unit roster further.
-
-
A 50/50 split after 50 games bodes pretty well I’d say.
Well if no other changes are under consideration, then time will tell as to the ultimate balance assesment. At the very least it’s aptly named, because many players do seem to desire a game that provides an equal shot for Allies or Axis to prevail. If in the end it needs a bid or a boost somewhere, at least it can be modified at that point without too much difficulty.
Nice work all
Its not entirely accurate to say that no other changes are under consideration. We have a “Feedback” thread for suggestions from players who have already played the Mod (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37553.0), and at least one suggestion from that thread is under serious consideration: changing Germany’s “presence in Egypt” NO to a “presence in Egypt or United Kingdom” NO. I do think we are really close to achieving what we set out to achieve, but awesome suggestions are always welcome.:)
-
How many of those Allied wins are due to the Axis surrendering vs. Achieving the victory condition?
-
Probably every single one of them - who plays til all 3 Axis capitals are down for an entire round?
-
yah, if an Allies opponent forced me to play to that point in League, I would cry shenanigans. would be bad form.
-
I’m just surprised more definitive victory conditions for the allies was not considered… basically waiting for someone to give up to validate your strategy has always been silly to me, I wanna say to them “You’ve lost, I win” not “do you give up yet?”
Suggested Topics
