Just how balanced is the Balanced Mod?

[Young Grasshopper]

Also, why not have marines double as paratroopers?… 1 per strategic bomber, but both units must start in the same territory. In order to use paratroopers, there must be enemy unit/s on the targeted territory, and they must be supported by land units attacking from ground or by amphibious assault. Bombers used in this way surrender all attack capabilities for that turn, and they would be vulnerable to AA artillery before the drop.

This might be a good way to get a common tactical strategy into the game as well as giving more value to an infantry unit worth 5 IPCs, or if that’s too powerful… you could charge 6 for them. It would also go a lot further to justify adding a new unit like this to begin with… not that it needs more justification, but if only one unit is to be added… why not have it do more than just 1 thing. Another plus would be that it’s a great reason to finally bump strategic bombers to the 14 IPC value they should be at.

[Young Grasshopper]

For table toppers, I’m thinking Marines could be represented by 1 common white infantry sculp for all nations, the same way AA guns and factories were the same common unit in earlier editions. The only way needed to recognize who owns who is by where the unit is… for example: a white marine unit on an American territory, or on an American ship would belong to the US. when multi national forces are on the same territory, roundels could be used to identify them. I have nice ivory standing army units I use for neutrals that would work fine if HBG has enough of them.

[Young Grasshopper]

@regularkid:

@Young:

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it.

Oh right… I forgot you button rollers were limited by code  :evil:

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

This was conditional with keeping all planes fighting @1.
It improves the odds of damage in favor of attacker compared to Balanced Mode SBR (yet reduced the attrition rate of dogfight against StBs), but keeps odds near zero when fighting 1 StB A1 damage D6 vs 1 interceptor Def 1.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Young:

@variance:

G40b

Yep…

G40B (Global 1940 Balanced)

I would get behind that.

G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?

[cyanight]

@regularkid:

@Young:

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it. Below is the relevant portion of the XML, showing the values that can be edited:

<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � <option name=“movement” value=“6”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“isAir” value=“true”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“attack” value=“4”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“defense” value=“1”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“isAirTransport” value=“true”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“canBeGivenByTerritoryTo” value=“British”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“airAttack” value=“1”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option></attatchment>

There’s not an obvious way to make the “bombingBonus” value contingent on interception.

Cant you do something like this?

<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �   <option name=“movement” value=“6”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“isAir” value=“true”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“attack” value=“4”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“defense” value=“1”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“isAirTransport” value=“true”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“bombingMaxDieSides” value=“6”><if><then></then></if></option></attatchment>

[Young Grasshopper]

@Baron:

@Young:

@variance:

G40b

Yep…

G40B (Global 1940 Balanced)

I would get behind that.

G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?

Sure, the name is mostly for table toppers anyway as online players put many different things in the title of their gameplay threads.

[Wolfshanze]

@Baron:

G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?

I really don’t think you want to call it a BM… just sayin…  :-D

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

Wolf, don’t poop on his acronym usage with your dirty mind.

[regularkid]

haha. i’m glad i’m not the only one who saw the scatological implications of BM.

G40b it is.

[gamerman01]

Consider G40U, for ULTIMATE, or no, how about G40+

[Young Grasshopper]

G40+ has a ring to it.

[regularkid]

I like G40balanced cuz it immediately describes what it is, and cuz of the implied indictment of G40 second edition. :P. The fact that leagers can continue to use “balanced” in their game headings is just icing on the cake

[SubmersedElk]

or we can call it G40 Vichy because that sounds weak and effeminate

not that there’s anything wrong with that

[Wolfshanze]

If I heard of a G40 Vichy mod, I would think it just collaborates with what I had in mind.

[regularkid]

Hey all. G40 Balanced (Balance Mod 2.0) is now available for download and play! Thanks to all those who gave feedback. :) :) :)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.msg1535679#msg1535679

[regularkid]

Hey all. The link to the Download for G40 Balanced (Balance Mod 2.0) has changed. Here is the working link: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37883.0

[Young Grasshopper]

I didn’t realize that players were basically inventing a bid system in G40B by taking the Allies and excluding certain NOs. I’m trying to incorporate all these new national objectives into my table top games just to find out that the main promoters of this variant are playing without some of the NOs. What gives? What NOs are being left out? Is it balanced or not?

[gamerman01]

Whoa, whoa,

First, how many different games have you seen where people are giving up NO’s?
I don’t know of anyone besides me, but maybe there are - you tell me
I gave up NO’s on only 2 separate occasions vs. 1 player who is not on the modsquad, I believe.  I did it unilaterally because I thought that the Allies had too many new NO’s and were too strong and I didn’t really want all the new NO’s.  Are there other people doing this too?  And are they imitating me?  I hope not, because I think it would be better to keep all the NO’s and bid IPC’s as normal.

[Young Grasshopper]

No, I have not seen what other players do, I only saw one thread title where you were playing with -3 NOs. Sorry if I was assuming wrong, I just thought league games were equal game conditions but I don’t play and shouldn’t have assumed. What are the 3 NOs? is this something that should be considered for table tops when playing Allies less skilled than Axis?