Here’s the Armies vs Navies idea I came up with!
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Russia:
If Japan declares war on Russia and they are at war with the european axis then they get +1 IPC in the supply zones(down from 2)Then we’re back to the situation where game economics almost always favor an early JAP dow of Russia (or, at least, fail to deter it). An ahistorical outcome. The boost needs to be +2 for there to be a possible net benefit to Russia. That is, if the boost is only +1, simply blocking sz 5 with a sub, or taking Amur, completely negates Russia’s benefit, and Russia is back to facing a two-front war with no extra help…
As far as your other two changes, you seem to be operating under the assumption that Allies need to be nerfed. Game statistics don’t bear out that conclusion at all.
I just have to throw in my two cents again. BM has done 0 -zero- in order to enhance playability for Russia. yes, you trow in some ekstra money, but Russia does not have a saying in how much of this they get. In my opinion Russia is much more fun to play under the original rule set
-
@oysteilo I don’t completely agree. Yes, it isn’t as good as the extra fighter and tank, but the extra money makes it possible for USSR to fight when OOB they would be running or dying.
-
@oysteilo, assuming the typical case of a G3 DOW (with a German sub in sz 1), Russia’s income is 7 PUs higher in BM than in vanilla. And this income differential typically lasts multiple rounds. I don’t really understand what you mean by “but Russia does not have a saying in how much of this they get.” They get all of it.
-
I think he’s saying that USSR can’t really open their own lend lease lanes. It’s really up to the other allies to prevent their closure.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I think he’s saying that USSR can’t really open their own lend lease lanes. It’s really up to the other allies to prevent their closure.
EXACTELY. This makes it less fun.
-
@oysteilo I personally like the lend lease rule. The russians are supposed to be hanging on for dear life until the allies arrive. There are many aspects of the mod that I feel are necessary and the extra russian money is one of them. Getting 7 extra dollars off multiple turns far out-ways getting an extra 16 from a fighter and tank right from the get-go. If you clear out sz125 and still hold archangel thats another 4(assuming that japan declared war).
-
Either way I’m having Barnee make up my suggestions into a series of mods.
The china change really should be examined by yourself kid and adam. It actually makes china fun to play and again it is basically +3 ipcs every turn to china.
I guess leave the lend lease lanes alone, I may have jumped the gun on that one.
The US north africa one is just too easy to get for 5 extra ipcs to be completely honest. That’s why i proposed +3 instead.
And something needs to be done with Italy and I stand by this one like I do the china one.
If not +3 for holding all original territories then +2 or +3 for holding sicily and sardinia or maybe if they own less than 6 territories. Italy can either be very powerful or so weak they can’t do anything. -
@Mursilis if vichy is activated, north africa is not easy. Well, easy in a way that you will get it if you go for it. But many times you loose a lot of momentum by doing it
-
Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.
-
@Adam514 I agree. However now China is the most boring nation with zero choices. Every game you just stack up infantry in one territory and sit there since you can’t buy artillery and don’t have enough money to do anything. It is also very boring for Japan to fight in china since you just move a unit in and sit there. Then leap frog another mech in front of that.
My China suggestion will help fix this. Maybe each burma road territory needs to be +2 instead of +1. Either way my suggestion makes china a fun place to play.
-
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.
I think it’s still pretty boring in BM. There’s a big disincentive to do anything in Asia with the loss of the potential lend lease income. Perhaps it’s less a of a obstacle to go after Scandinavia but still there’s a big hurdle there. A few players will go hard after Japan anyway but they make a sacrifice to do so.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.
I think it’s still pretty boring in BM. There’s a big disincentive to do anything in Asia with the loss of the potential lend lease income. Perhaps it’s less a of a obstacle to go after Scandinavia but still there’s a big hurdle there. A few players will go hard after Japan anyway but they make a sacrifice to do so.
Simon, for a more dynamic Russian theater, you should try the 1941 v 3 anniversary edition. The territories are drawn in such a way that games do not always devolve into monollithic, competing stacks in the Far East. Unfortunately, other aspects of the game prove a bit flatter than Global (e.g., absence of airbases/seaports, no convoy zones, lack of politics, etc.).
-
Speaking for myself only (and no one else on the Mod Squad), i would be willing to consider enhancing China by making artillery a permanent item on its unit roster–i.e., not tying it to the Burma Road. With this change, the Burma road would be a simple cash National Objective (+3 if open at the end of the round).
This might require an offsetting NO of some kind for Japan, because I do think it would make an Axis win in the Pacific much more challenging. But I can see benefits for gameplay, historicality, and simplicity.
-
@regularkid
Well the idea was give china the +3 income with the theory of getting artillery for most the game and removing guerrillas till the road is closed. If you just give china artillery alone AND still have the guerrillas spawn I feel that it might be too strong.If you give the chinese artillery AND +3 for the burma road not being closed and remove guerrillas completely then that would probably be a balanced game without the need to include an additional japanese NO. The logic being that the japanese don’t need to have a unit sit on a chinese territory for the whole game.
Perhaps giving china a +2 if the burma road is not COMPLETELY controlled by the axis and they can have artillery no matter what.
Either way my concept was to give china the extra infantry instead of having japan lose the infantry sitting on a territory.
-
@Mursilis i dont think works. Japan will just mop up all of china and leave them with one Burma road territory.
-
@oysteilo Well that’s why I want to make sure china can still have extra income if burma or yunaan is controlled. Japan starts with a lot of stuff and if china does not have that constant +3 or +2 income, even if they can build artillery, they will get crushed by japan’s air and ground.
If you keep the guerrillas and let china buy artillery they could put 1 inf and 1 artillery up in northern china, against russian territory and slowly push up defeating the japanese 1 territory at a time since they would be so stretched thin.
Whatever the solution is, letting china have artillery, allowing a few extra ipc’s for them, and removing guerrillas should make china more fun to play in since there will be a world of new options especially for china.
-
Tying guerillas to territory ownership is not a good idea.
-
Yes I agree with you. My concern is if you keep the guerrillas in and give china artillery will this make china too strong. The thought is to remove the guerrillas completely and just give china a +2 or +3 if the burma road is not completely controlled by the axis and no matter what let the chinese place artillery.
I think giving that extra infantry to china is better than having a japanese unit stuck in a territory all game.
-
@Mursilis i know what ur idea is. lol. I’m saying removing guerrillas is a nonstarter. If you feel that China is still uninteresting to play, and your proposed solution is to add more artillery, why not just give china the option to build artillery at any point in the game, rather than tying it to an NO. (Having a tiered NO, based on the Burma road being “partially” opened sounds way too complicated for the benefit it would bring. . . a difference of 1 or 2 PUs).
You say that allowing artillery as a permanent unit option would make China too strong. For what its worth, other members of the Mod Squad think it would have very little effect. The only way to really answer that question is to playtest it. So if there is really an interest in that aspect of your idea, its something I would amenable to trying.
-
@regularkid Alright. Well let’s playtest this thing then!
If just adding in the artillery makes china more enjoyable to play without screwing with the balance then I’m in!
Suggested Topics
