Here’s the Armies vs Navies idea I came up with!
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
Wow. That’s true. Only the French islands of Madagascar and New Hebrides don’t have NOs I think. Oh and Greenland, Ceylon, Hainan and Formosa. Far out.
-
in a perfect world, historically significant islands would sit at the intersection of SZs so that they would have added in-game strategic importance, without the need for NOs or arbitrary PU values–i.e., if an island were at the intersection of two or more seasons, an airbase there would give you air-range that you couldn’t get from a carrier. Alas, redrawing the map is somewhat outside the purview of Balance Mod.
-
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Is there a plan to add some value to the few smaller islands that have no game value like the Fiji islands? Do we just keep ignoring that those exist or make them worth 1 ipc or make owning gilbert islands, fiji and johnston islands worth 3 ipc’s or 5 ipc’s to the japanese?
Just wondering.
Additionally, I can’t see why what you’re proposing actually adds value?
I’ve realised a few other things about balanced mod only recently. The allied move where they see Japan coming and move their stack from India to West India, then retake India to prevent units from being produced there, that is a new move in Balanced Mod. In vanilla, you wouldn’t do this because Japan would get the plunder money. This tended to promote a stand and fight vs evacuate. I guess Moscow is similar. Now the question is: which is better? I’m not completely sure to be honest.
Another thing is why shouldn’t you get the Major complex back when you liberate your capital? And should North Italy be different? Losing the major complex seems to be a side effect of the fix for game wrecking caused by major complexes on opposition territories, and not a desirable one.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Another thing is why shouldn’t you get the Major complex back when you liberate your capital? And should North Italy be different? Losing the major complex seems to be a side effect of the fix for game wrecking caused by major complexes on opposition territories, and not a desirable one.
I think it just represents your infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities being seriously messed up by the bad guys (or by yourself upon retreat from your capital. . . scorched earth style). That stuff obviously wouldn’t just magically re-materialize upon reentry by the good guys. It requires an investment in rebuilding, represented by paying the PUs for a Major factory upgrade. Seems reasonable to me.
-
Interesting theory. But not for Rome or Sydney!
-
Why not give the country capital a minor factory once liberated then on next turn upgrade it to a major or pay 10 icps to upgrade to a Major ?
I don’t know what happens to a captured factory in this Mod but the enemy should never get a free factory on capture unless it goes to a minor but then either can never upgrade or need to wait at least 1 a turn to upgrade with a cost for this game play if need be. Its like the London Factory. Ger captures it and now how fast are the Germans going to get supplies and minerals to London to build a minor let alone a major.
It should go to a minor on Capital Capture and cannot be upgrade period for any enemy in a game. If you liberate the Capital with enemy controlling the minor factory it is destroyed and now you need to build a factory.
And any Minor Factory captured is destroyed. -
@SS-GEN said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Why not give the country capital a minor factory once liberated then on next turn upgrade it to a major or pay 10 icps to upgrade to a Major ?
I don’t know what happens to a captured factory in this Mod but the enemy should never get a free factory on capture unless it goes to a minor but then either can never upgrade or need to wait at least 1 a turn to upgrade with a cost for this game play if need be. Its like the London Factory. Ger captures it and now how fast are the Germans going to get supplies and minerals to London to build a minor let alone a major.
It should go to a minor on Capital Capture and cannot be upgrade period for any enemy in a game. If you liberate the Capital with enemy controlling the minor factory it is destroyed and now you need to build a factory.
And any Minor Factory captured is destroyed.The factories are handled in Balance Mod the exact same way they are handled in Vanilla. This isn’t really an area where the need for a change is so obvious that it would justify fundamentally altering a game mechanic that everyone understands and seems fine with.
Also, i strongly recommend trying Balance Mod.
-
Naw. When I started playing AA about 9 years ago I only played 39 games over the years. When I saw G40 game and played once was enough for me that I’m not taking 5 steps backwards in AA and besides I don’t agree with a bunch of stuff that happens in G40.
Just me. I only post suggestions. Its to give you guys more ideas for other games if looking for a tweak here or there. Plus when I suggest something it has been play tested and played in my games.
Good Luck.
-
I have a question about the Marine. When doing an amphibious assault in a seazone occupied by enemy ships and the ship that the marine is aboard participates in the combat, can the marine then unload on the territory or is he stuck the on ship.
Second I think that simon has a slight point about the chinese guerrilla thing. If the Japanese somehow cannot immediately close off the burma road then it can become quite difficult for Japan to actually hold onto chinese territories. Say that they were forced to keep some of their army up north and spread out towards Russia. I propose that If the Burma road is open AND the allies have control of kwangtung or perhaps just FIC, not sure which, then the chinese guerrilla’s will not spawn. This will give Japan a slight chance to move those infantry and artillery and mechs sitting on territories doing nothing until they get the situation down south under control. Otherwise Japan is sitting there with 20 IPCs of units it can’t do anything with. This would also allow a bit of an option for Japan if they needed to swing north to knock out those russian infantry.
I hope you consider this change.
Third. Great mod guys. I’m really enjoying playing it and not quite sure why everyone has not picked it up. It has some really great aspects that make the game more enjoyable.
I really wish the marine was an official addition the game since it adds so much in tactical decisions especially in the pacific.
-
The Marine is stuck on the ship. Ships can’t conduct combat and then unload in the NCM phase. If the Marine wasn’t already loaded though, you can’t load it on a ship if you aren’t conducting combat with the Marine. That’s the same rule as transports.
-
Regarding Chinese guerrillas, because coastal territories in China are exempt from the garrisoning requirement, the possibility of guerrillas doesn’t put that much of a dent in Japan’s efforts to close the Burma road early on, speaking generally.
Its only if Japan elects to plunge deeper into China that the garrisoning requirement entails obvious trade offs (e.g.,a slower takedown of India, reduced ability to harass Russia). And those are precisely the kind strategic choices that Balance Mod is designed to create.
-
@Adam514
Can you add a line on the BM rules page that says something to the effect of, “The Ship carrying the Marine will work in the same way as a transport” OR “You cannot conduct sea combat with the ship carrying the Marine and then use that same marine in an amphibious assault.” Just to clarify it. -
Your question wasn’t clear then. You can use Marines in amphibious assaults just like units on a tp, doesn’t matter if there’s a battle prior or not.
-
@Mursilis I think what Adam was trying to say initially is that, during the noncombat phase, a marine cannot unload from a cruiser/battleship that has already engaged in combat that turn.
-
Adam’s answer assumes that you are talking about NCM. The marine can’t move in NCM. Nothing prevents the marine from doing an amphibious assault from that sea zone if there’s a suitable territory.
-
I’m going to hit this one more time since I’m not really sure why it would interfere with slowing japan from taking india.
If the burma road is open AND FIC is either controlled by US, UK, or ANZAC, but not france, AND japan is at war with UK AND Kwangtung is allied controlled, THEN and only then will the chinese guerrillas not spawn.
This would assume that japan has failed in the south and needs it’s northern units moved.
I hope I am being more clear this time than with the marines.Can you explain how this interferes with slowing down the Calcutta crush?
-
I don’t get why this is such a great idea. If the allies are beating down Japan enough that they hold FIC & Kwangtung, then the guerilla fighters are unlikely to be a factor.
Guerilla fighters don’t slow down the Calcutta crush and in fact focus Japan on Calcutta.
-
Wait I thought you thought the guerrilla fighter rule was a bad idea. I like the guerrilla fighter rule but I just find that if japan is having some trouble down south and things are going really badly they can at least move those 20 ipc’s worth of units back to help. Otherwise they are just stuck sitting there till they die.
It doesn’t have to be a big beatdown either, If the burma road is not closed and FIC falls kwangtung will go as well. So the japanese could possible move the units stuck in those chinese territories while doing amphib assaults to retake the territories.
Maybe it’s just too little too late but it can help japan a bit to regain some territory or hold a line before manchuria falls.
-
I do but I don’t like the idea of functionally keeping the rule but adding a few more complications to it. KISS!
Anyway, it seems like I’m in the minority on the guerilla fighters.
-
@Mursilis The way i read your suggestion is if Japan had some poor dice (or poor judgement?) Then you are going to compensate them by tossing in a new or revised rule set for this? In my opinion this violates everything that Axis&Allies is about. I dont want it.
Suggested Topics
