Marines make kamikazes more valuable
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.
Had a chance to look over some of the specs. I’m not familiar with the mod as a whole, but a lot of the individual rules and some of the objectives it uses. Looks pretty solid. Sounds to me like the most complex part of it is probably the rules surrounding Vichy, and Guerrilla Chinese since those introduce concepts that don’t really have analogs in the OOB situation.
One thing I’d suggest, make Sierra Leone a starting British territory!
Having Sierra Leone neutral, as it is OOB, is an oversight/error of the boxed game.
True neutral makes no sense for this territory, both from an historical and a gameplay perspective.
Sierra Leone was a British Colony “At War” with the Axis from 1939, and played a major role as a convoy staging area. The capital Freetown was heavily militarized after the fall of France. There was also a large RAF presence in this broader area of West Africa, that involved the colonies of Gambia, Nigeria and Gold Coast as well, it was called the West African Reinforcement Route (WARR).
Getting Aircraft to Egypt and the middle east was a major logistical challenge of the British war effort, and a major part of the way they solved it was to use the West African Reinforcement Route. Aircraft were actually shipped in pieces to West Africa, assembled there and then flown in stages all the way to Cairo and beyond.
It makes complete sense for the British to be able to build bases in Sierra Leone! I can’t think of a single reason why Sierra Leone should not be made a normal British Territory from the outset, so they could build bases there from the very first turn. This would improve the Allies situation considerably. The historical and gameplay justifications are compelling, and it only requires a single roundel change, and moreover it allows you to sidestep the French West Africa exception under your Vichy Rules for territory control.
An Airbase in Sierra Leone would allow fighters to move between that territory and Egypt in one move.
A Naval Base in Sierra Leone, would allow transports to cycle between sz 101 and sz 87 in one rotation.
I think I have to post a Sierra Leone Question, to see if we can get to the bottom of this…
Ps. Ok posted the Q in couple places, it’d be nice if they included the change as official, but if not I’d still suggest you do so in the mod. It gives the Allies a decent alternative to Gibraltar for staging their expeditionary forces.
Thank you, sir. I find the marine idea interesting, but I’m not a fan of loading troops onto warships….why not just give transports the ability to carry a marine in addition to their normal compliment (infantry, tank, marine)?
I would advocate a cheaper Marines unit, but I’m not writing any Triple A codes.
Here is also an explanation for Marines aboard Warships:
From a game perspective, an interesting and very specialized unit would be like this one.
It has low cost but also lower combat values to balance with its carrying capacity on Cruiser and Battleship.
Try to see the game at army group level, Marines combat unit division are certainly smaller than a full fledge army unit. That is why I suggest low offense / defense values except in the one combat situations which gives Marines their reputation: amphibious assault.
Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1
Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.
No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.
That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.
And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.
Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.
So, it provides a different kind of tactical combat with 2 Marines on TP and still keeping Inf+Art a competitive combination too.
D1 was to reflect the smaller number of soldiers involved per unit compared to standard Infantry unit.
It is not for lesser morale but for less logistics and support required by this unit.
Lower defense @1, come from the lesser number of individuals being less equiped than regular Infantry unit.
Attack @2 on amphibious assault is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser and Battleship carrying capacity. This unit have a better attacking factor because of abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldiers. They can do a lot with less but not for an extended period.
In addition, their lower defense factor would make them amongst the first casualty during counter-attack which can figure for they high risk mission they undertake.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1476045#msg1476045
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_Hayanami
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!
@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.:)
