Just how balanced is the Balanced Mod?

[gamerman01]

Marines make sense to add when you’re adding several NO’s for islands that weren’t there before - both in the Med and the Pacific

[AldoRaine]

I like the ideas for making the Vichy rule set and Marines work.  Like I said I think there are some very great ideas in this mod and those two issues aside I think the mod is a very good addition to the game.

I really like the idea of using old pieces from other games as Marines, I feel most who own Global would have at least one other version in their set.  As far as the Vichy rule set I suppose you could place axis markers underneath the units that became pro-axis.  The only issue then is how to differentiate between pro-axis french territories and captured french territories.

Just one more thing to add though, my favorite thing about this mod is the rule that only allows IC’s to be captured the first time a capital has fallen.  One way you could reword this rule so that you could keep track of it on table top is to say that only IC’s can be captured from major factories on capitals.  That way there is at least some way of keeping track during those long games that span several playing sessions.  This does leave the opportunity for the IC’s to be recaptured but I feel that situations like those are not very probable.  Although this would leave ANZAC in a strange position.

[Young Grasshopper]

@AldoRaine:

Just one more thing to add though, my favorite thing about this mod is the rule that only allows IC’s to be captured the first time a capital has fallen.  One way you could reword this rule so that you could keep track of it on table top is to say that only IC’s can be captured from major factories on capitals.  That way there is at least some way of keeping track during those long games that span several playing sessions.  This does leave the opportunity for the IC’s to be recaptured but I feel that situations like those are not very probable.  Although this would leave ANZAC in a strange position.

I agree, I’m all for rules being consistent, worded well, and easily understood.

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

Tactical bomber SBR attacking at 2 would have make this new unit more appealing instead of just giving a boost to an already very useful and popular unit, Fighter (which by the way make more sense to be A2 D2).

I disagree, in oob players would bring in tactical bombers on a SBR to bomb bases, but really it was to give the formation a boost in numbers during a possible air raid. They could care less if they bombed the bases, but that’s the rule that allowed them to tag along and help fight against interceptors. In balance mod, if you want to truly protect your bombers from interceptors, you’ll need to escort with fighters, and if you do bring tac bombers in as fodder… at least they don’t get the same odds during combat.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@Baron:

Tactical bomber SBR attacking at 2 would have make this new unit more appealing instead of just giving a boost to an already very useful and popular unit, Fighter (which by the way make more sense to be A2 D2).

I disagree, in oob players would bring in tactical bombers on a SBR to bomb bases, but really it was to give the formation a boost in numbers during a possible air raid. They could care less if they bombed the bases, but that’s the rule that allowed them to tag along and help fight against interceptors. In balance mod, if you want to truly protect your bombers from interceptors, you’ll need to escort with fighters, and if you do bring tac bombers in as fodder… at least they don’t get the same odds during combat.

What is the purpose of Tactical Bombers, if not be part of SBR somehow?

Fighter is 1 IPC cheaper, better on defense and have both A2 and D2 in SBR.
Tac has no purpose for defense as interceptor, and nothing useful on offense at A1.
Far better to increase odds for damage with a 10 IPCs fodder attacking A2 than an 11 IPCs fodder.

Balance Mode with Marines now added something to Cruiser and Battleship (which were far less bought, as we all agreed upon).
But how optimizing player really want to buy TacB instead of Fighter, I don’t see.
How often were they bought?
Does someone can look at the 50 games played already and draw a conclusion on that point, compared to OOB G40 games?

[gamerman01]

Hawk, a cruiser unit does not represent one single ship  :-)

[regularkid]

@AldoRaine:

I like the ideas for making the Vichy rule set and Marines work.  Like I said I think there are some very great ideas in this mod and those two issues aside I think the mod is a very good addition to the game.

I really like the idea of using old pieces from other games as Marines, I feel most who own Global would have at least one other version in their set.  As far as the Vichy rule set I suppose you could place axis markers underneath the units that became pro-axis.  The only issue then is how to differentiate between pro-axis french territories and captured french territories.

Just one more thing to add though, my favorite thing about this mod is the rule that only allows IC’s to be captured the first time a capital has fallen.  One way you could reword this rule so that you could keep track of it on table top is to say that only IC’s can be captured from major factories on capitals.  That way there is at least some way of keeping track during those long games that span several playing sessions.  This does leave the opportunity for the IC’s to be recaptured but I feel that situations like those are not very probable.  Although this would leave ANZAC in a strange position.

If you’re playing the OOB game, you can certainly use the minor factory downgrade as a visual reminder of which capitals have been taken. (Though I think the taking of a capital is usually momentous enough that players can remember it happened). One problem with your suggested rule is that it basically would mean PUs could never be captured from Italy or Anzac.

[gamerman01]

Couldn’t you just put a roundel to the side of the IPC tracker for a power who has lost its capital before?

[Black_Elk]

The capital capture cash dynamic change is one of the things I noticed in the description that I really liked. It’s been such a huge driver in all A&A games, and the ability to loot a treasury multiple times, combined with the liberation rules post capital capture, often created a deep endgame where a player would decide not to recapture a fallen capital, but play around it instead. Also some weird anomalies I’d seen a few times in Global like leaving Normandy alone so it couldn’t be used later for US production. The capital rules (and Vichy rules) outlined in this mod go a fair way towards preventing weirdness like that.

I rather wish it had gone a little bit further though, and defined some achievable victory conditions for the Allies. That gripe has been long standing with the OOB rules, that the only victory conditions that actually matter are the ones for Axis. As we’ve discussed elswhere (and YG noted above) this means that in practice all Global games can only resolve by way of Axis victory or by concession. The Allies don’t have a way to actually win by the book, which is a little unfortunate.

CWO Marc had some pretty interesting thoughts on possible alternative ways to outline Victory conditions, based on not so much on control of cities but by campaign objectives for either side during the “deep war” period. Those are probably beyond the scope of the changes this mod was trying to make, but I still found the idea compelling. Some discussions on the subject are in the G40 redesign thread in the house rules forums.

Overall victory conditions aside, at least this mod makes a move in a positive direction, by recognizing that, absent some clearly defined new rules for the capital cash, looting is a part of the game will always be open to abuse and endgame weirdness.

[regularkid]

@ShadowHAwk:

Basicaly means japan cannot declare war on russia unless it really wants to screw over germany. But if it doesnt it also makes life hard for germany.

This is one area where an ounce of experience is worth a pound of theory. In most Balance Mod games I have seen, war does eventually break out between Russia and Japan, and, at that point, the Pacific lend lease route becomes the easiest to block (it practically runs through the Sea of Japan–as it did historically).

What the NO does deter are early declarations of war between the two powers. And that is precisely the point. It has the desired effect of giving historically based consequences to an ahistorical situation–namely, Russia declaring war on Japan at the outset of the war, or vice versa. The deterrent is hardly absolute (just ask Gamerman, who has some experience with early RDOWs against Japan. heheh). In the typical case, by mid to late game, the strategic benefits of a DOW between the two powers become too great to resist for one side, notwithstanding the NOs.

Also, there is no reason why the USA should have to be at war with the Axis in order for lend lease’ aid to flow through the Persian Corridor and Pacific Route. The whole point of the US Lend Lease program, initially, was to give aid to the Allied war effort while the US was ostensibly neutral. Requiring USA to be at war as a precondition of lend lease would be grossly ahistorical.

As for the idea of requiring allied control of multiple territories for each lend-lease route, the reason we opted against this was mostly practical: we wanted to keep the basic structure of the lend-lease NO from the OOB game–i.e., one land territory, one sea zone per lend-lease route, for simplicity’s sake.

But it can be justified on historical grounds as well. For example, a substantial portion of the aid that flowed through the Persian Corridor reached Russia’s interior via ship on the Caspian Sea. Allied control of Northen Persia (as depicted on the g40 map) obviously would not be necessary for such aid to continue flowing. Lend lease aid also reached Russia by air. You can read about the Alaska Siberia “Air Route” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Route#The_air_route. The notion that there needed to be a contiguous land path from whatever entry port to Moscow in order for the lend lease aid to be used by the Russians is simply not supported by the historical record.

[SubmersedElk]

I just thought of something that might be interesting to try to see how it impacts the game - give each nation the ability to cede one territory to an ally at the beginning of its turn. It might make for some more dynamic gameplay. Make it part of the politics phase.

[Young Grasshopper]

I like the lead lease ideas, but the execution is clumsy in my opinion. Trying to figure out how to apply my card design to this concept is difficult, I would basically have to create 6 cards for one mechanic (2 IPCs each 3 NOs, and 4 IPCs each for the same 3 NOs. I would make them 3 IPCs each no matter what the political situation is between Japan (seems like a lot of words for one declaration of war). This way a Japanese ship in SZ 5 won’t mean a lick when it comes to taking away the 3 IPCs, Japan will be forced to declare war on Russia just to make their ship in SZ 5 an enemy ship. I have not played it yet, this is my inexperienced opinion… but I like clean worded rules, and this Lend Lease bump from 2 to 4 IPCs is far from it.

[regularkid]

@Black_Elk:

The capital capture cash dynamic change is one of the things I noticed in the description that I really liked. It’s been such a huge driver in all A&A games, and the ability to loot a treasury multiple times, combined with the liberation rules post capital capture, often created a deep endgame where a player would decide not to recapture a fallen capital, but play around it instead. Also some weird anomalies I’d seen a few times in Global like leaving Normandy alone so it couldn’t be used later for US production. The capital rules (and Vichy rules) outlined in this mod go a fair way towards preventing weirdness like that.

I rather wish it had gone a little bit further though, and defined some achievable victory conditions for the Allies. That gripe has been long standing with the OOB rules, that the only victory conditions that actually matter are the ones for Axis. As we’ve discussed elswhere (and YG noted above) this means that in practice all Global games can only resolve by way of Axis victory or by concession. The Allies don’t have a way to actually win by the book, which is a little unfortunate.

CWO Marc had some pretty interesting thoughts on possible alternative ways to outline Victory conditions, based on not so much on control of cities but by campaign objectives for either side during the “deep war” period. Those are probably beyond the scope of the changes this mod was trying to make, but I still found the idea compelling. Some discussions on the subject are in the G40 redesign thread in the house rules forums.

Overall victory conditions aside, at least this mod makes a move in a positive direction, by recognizing that, absent some clearly defined new rules for the capital cash, looting is a part of the game will always be open to abuse and endgame weirdness.

Black Elk, did CWO Marc ever propose anything specific in this regard–like propose actual victory conditions that could be implemented. I remember he posted something about it the G40 Redesign thread, but what I recall was mostly conceptual (like “we could have theater based VCs for both sides”) without any specific details.

While its probably beyond the scope of what we’re doing with Balance Mod, I’d be curious to read detail proposals for this kind of thing if they’re out there. Can you provide a link?

[regularkid]

@Young:

I like the lead lease ideas, but the execution is clumsy in my opinion. Trying to figure out how to apply my card design to this concept is difficult, I would basically have to create 6 cards for one mechanic (2 IPCs each 3 NOs, and 4 IPCs each for the same 3 NOs. I would make them 3 IPCs each no matter what the political situation is between Japan (seems like a lot of words for one declaration of war). This way a Japanese ship in SZ 5 won’t mean a lick when it comes to taking away the 3 IPCs, Japan will be forced to declare war on Russia just to make their ship in SZ 5 an enemy ship. I have not played it yet, this is my inexperienced opinion… but I like clean worded rules, and this Lend Lease bump from 2 to 4 IPCs is far from it.

Grasshopper, here is the wording from the in-game Objectives Panel. The Lend Lease is captured in four bullet points:

*  2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Archangel is Russian-controlled, and sz125 has no enemy warships (“Northern Route”).

*  2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Persia is Allied-controlled, and sz80 has no enemy warships (“Persian Corridor”).

*  2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Amur is Russian-controlled, and sz5 has no enemy warships (“Pacific Route”).

*  2 PUs for each lend-lease route that is open if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

Alternatively, you could use the wording from the Balance Mod Game Notes, capturing the Lend Lease in two bullet points:

*  2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur.

*  An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane if Japan has also declared war on Russia.

Hope that helps.

[regularkid]

Making it 3 IPCs per route, regardless of the political situation between Russia and Japan, would basically guarantee an immediate Japan DOW against Russia (in order to block sz 5) in every game. Not exactly the dynamic we were going for.

[regularkid]

You could also easily make it three cards, like so:

Lend Lease Aid - Northern Route
2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Archangel is Russian-controlled, and sz125 has no enemy warships. (4 PUs if Japan has also declared war on Russia).

Lend Lease Aid - Persian Corridor
2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Persia is Allied-controlled, and sz80 has no enemy warships (4 PUs if Japan has also declared war on Russia).

Lend Lease Aid - Pacific Route
2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Amur is Russian-controlled, and sz5 has no enemy warships (4 PUs if Japan has also declared war on Russia).

Something like that?

[baron Münchhausen]

@regularkid:

Baron, we weren’t that interested in overhauling unit mechanics. The changes we made (the marines and SBR tweak) work beautifully in the mod, and make the game more fun. But they are not the heart and soul of the mod. The heart and soul of Balance Mod are the National Objectives.

I acknowledge that the main things is about NOs. And in the grand scheme BM is more balanced than G40 OOB.

But you still manage to indirectly boost Fighters (via SBR tweak), Cruisers and Battleships (via Marines tweak).
You nonetheless affects unit mechanics.

I was just hoping you were trying to balance unit combat values because you accidentally increase the values of 2 warship units which needed some small boost to have more values in play.

I just believe the game could have get finer balance tuning on Marines and TcBs.
Maybe my opinion is still marginal here, but at least I’m sure it received enough audience in a Global thread on Balance Mode.

Eventually, I will start an independant topic from Balance Mode in HR thread on the sole question on Marines combat values in conjunction with the ability of being carried 1 unit on Cruiser and Battleship. Marines can be part of 1942.2 game too.

[Young Grasshopper]

I’ve spent a lot of time and energy on victory conditions, and after play testing my victory objectives within our group many many times, and hearing from others that have adopted them… I feel that it is the best victory condition option available. I’m not saying that there isn’t a better idea, I just haven’t heard any alternatives because I don’t know of anyone else trying to tackle the problem.

[Young Grasshopper]

@regularkid:

You could also easily make it three cards, like so:

Lend Lease Aid - Northern Route
2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Archangel is Russian-controlled, and sz125 has no enemy warships. (4 PUs if Japan has also declared war on Russia).

Lend Lease Aid - Persian Corridor
2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Persia is Allied-controlled, and sz80 has no enemy warships (4 PUs if Japan has also declared war on Russia).

Lend Lease Aid - Pacific Route
2 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, Amur is Russian-controlled, and sz5 has no enemy warships (4 PUs if Japan has also declared war on Russia).

Something like that?

You’ve seen my cards, they have a big number on them with a word (2 TWO or 5 FIVE), having a sentence at the bottom of the NO discription that changes those graphics takes away from the purpose of looking at the cards and adding the big visible numbers to get a grand total of bonus income to collect. I’m by no means suggesting that a rule be changed simply because of my card designs, or that table toppers are too dumb to make the necessary adjustment… I’m just asking if it’s of the upmost importance that this concept of NO values changing during the game worth having a mechanic so different from all other NOs in the game? If it is and nothing simpler can be devised to convey the same effect, than I think I would just make 3 extra cards with the 4 FOUR which can be swapped for the 2 TWO if Russia is at war with Japan. I’m a little curious though why an open convoy route from London to Archangel would double because of a state of war between Russia and Japan.

[Young Grasshopper]

Thinking about marines (and I have not thought much about it)… instead of a separate unit, any infantry transported by a cruiser or battleship and dropped on an island during an amphibious assault could get the same combat stats as the new marine unit. The only problem is applying the cost increase for such a unit, but you could always charge the attacker the extra IPC per infantry when used in this capacity. Not that this problem exists in tripple A, but it could be a catch all way to implement marines in table top games.