G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@Misterblue Transport or ship can’t do anything else that turn if it did anything during the combat move phase (moving, bombard, battle).

I thought about something regarding the Vichy rules. Might be crazy, but what if the garrison in S France expanded with 1 inf each round beginning the turn after it turned Vichy?

That could give Axis an incentive to keep S France intact longer, instead of just finishing the Vichy with entering S France once most of the other Vichy territories had been converted.

Not saying it’s a great idea - no other neutral territories function in that way - but it’s a thought of flavour.

Is it legal to bid artillery to China?

@Amon-Sul Yes.

You should never allow axis to take malta, crete and cyprus. One or two of the three might be OK, but NEVER all three. I am convinced of this

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

You should never allow axis to take malta, crete and cyprus. One or two of the three might be OK, but NEVER all three. I am convinced of this

I’m a fan of taking Cyprus I1 now. This way you can block 2 UK objectives and they are hard to reclaim.

I think you’re overstating the value of the 3IPC bonus for all 3 islands though. If Italy can do that, they’re largely controlling the Med.

@simon33 no i am not. You need huge compensation to allow this. An even position is not even close.

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD

Hey all. The Mod Squad is contemplating a new change to Balance Mod, and would like to solicit your feedback. The proposed change: increase the cost of strategic bombers from 12 to 14 PUs.

The rationale for this proposed change is as follows: It appears, from the increasing number of BM league games wherein players have agreed to an Allied bid (albeit smaller bids than we typically see in vanilla games) and from the slightly skewed win/loss ratio in favor of Axis, that our goal of balancing the game hasn’t been totally realized.

One of the reasons for this is the Axis’s continuing positional advantage on the map; they are able more readily to project threat across the board, to multiple key points at once. This advantage is particularly pronounced when it comes to bombers, with their long range, high attack value, and added utility as strategic bombers. We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. But bomber spam remains a viable strategy, and continues to be OP, especially for Germany.

Increasing the cost of strategic bombers to 14, we think, would more accurately reflect the unit’s strategic value and go a long way to rectifying the foregoing issues. We would be interested to hear the community’s thoughts on this.

Thanks!

The cost is also better in line with fighter and tactical bomber cost for its effectiveness. Currently, bombers are a much better deal for the price compared to tactical bombers in nearly every situation.

To be honest, I would rather reduce their attack value. Last night actually I discovered there was an incidence of a B-17 actually hitting a surface ship. Never heard of that before.

Still, an increase in their cost may be an improvement on the status quo.

This idea was a bit out of left field.

Sounds like a proposition worth trying.

It does impact US as well (but likely more for Germany) and makes the crazy guerilla bombing a zero sum game (which is a good thing).

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD

We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. >

Yeah, it is a good idea to give figs 2 on defense in air raids, but U also gave 2 to figs that are on escort during air raids.

i think it is better to reduce the fig escorts from 2 to 1 during air raids, and it will mean more than just making bomber cost 2 ipc more.

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD

Hey all. The Mod Squad is contemplating a new change to Balance Mod, and would like to solicit your feedback. The proposed change: increase the cost of strategic bombers from 12 to 14 PUs.

The rationale for this proposed change is as follows: It appears, from the increasing number of BM league games wherein players have agreed to an Allied bid (albeit smaller bids than we typically see in vanilla games) and from the slightly skewed win/loss ratio in favor of Axis, that our goal of balancing the game hasn’t been totally realized.

One of the reasons for this is the Axis’s continuing positional advantage on the map; they are able more readily to project threat across the board, to multiple key points at once. This advantage is particularly pronounced when it comes to bombers, with their long range, high attack value, and added utility as strategic bombers. We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. But bomber spam remains a viable strategy, and continues to be OP, especially for Germany.

Increasing the cost of strategic bombers to 14, we think, would more accurately reflect the unit’s strategic value and go a long way to rectifying the foregoing issues. We would be interested to hear the community’s thoughts on this.

Thanks!

The cost is also better in line with fighter and tactical bomber cost for its effectiveness. Currently, bombers are a much better deal for the price compared to tactical bombers in nearly every situation.

then i vote for 13.

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

i think it is better to reduce the fig escorts from 2 to 1 during air raids

I believe that would make most SBR obsolete. It’s not feasible to muster the double amount of air, just in order to commit for a risky bombing. I think the rule is good as it is with figs having a value of 2 in air battles. Makes sense as well. Although figs then do outclass tacs.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

i think it is better to reduce the fig escorts from 2 to 1 during air raids

I believe that would make most SBR obsolete. It’s not feasible to muster the double amount of air, just in order to commit for a risky bombing. I think the rule is good as it is with figs having a value of 2 in air battles. Makes sense as well. Although figs then do outclass tacs.

tacs should cost 10.

cruiser 11

tank should have defence at 4.

those units are (too) rarely bought.

maybe do something for battleship and marine as well.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

i think it is better to reduce the fig escorts from 2 to 1 during air raids

I believe that would make most SBR obsolete. It’s not feasible to muster the double amount of air, just in order to commit for a risky bombing. I think the rule is good as it is with figs having a value of 2 in air battles. Makes sense as well. Although figs then do outclass tacs.

russia is doomed in this scenario . germany can do heavy sbr on her.

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

russia is doomed in this scenario . germany can do heavy sbr on her.

Which is one reason why the change would be a retrograde step.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

To be honest, I would rather reduce their attack value. …

Yea one could boost them back to 4 when paired with a ftr. Same as how tacs work. Just a thought

@barnee said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

To be honest, I would rather reduce their attack value. …

Yea one could boost them back to 4 when paired with a ftr. Same as how tacs work. Just a thought

then figs would be too strong

@barnee Not sure of too many examples of effective uses of B-17s, Lancasters, He-111, Do-17, Halifaxes, B-29s in support of either naval or army attacks. I’m sure someone is going to say this or that but isn’t that example an outlier, like <ducks> marines attacking Madagascar? Sure, some long range land based planes could be torpedo armed, B-26, G4M, G3M though. I think the strategic bomber is (or should be) more of a B-17 or Lancaster than the smaller twin engined bombers.