G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@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.

So I’d be in favour of a reduction in attack to 2 and perhaps a cost reduction to 10. But no doubt that would be too controversial for the community to accept.

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

@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

yea it’d boost their value but they can only do one attack a turn. So it means they wouldn’t be able to do something else.

@simon33

tacs as they are now shouldn`t cost more than 10 ipc.

people would still buy figs more often, not as now, but still.

so tac is definitely too expensive at 11

barnee, but fig defends on 4, both land and sea

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

So I’d be in favour of a reduction in attack to 2 and perhaps a cost reduction to 10. But no doubt that would be too controversial for the community to accept.

yea the guys have it down pretty good for the most part it seems, so you’d only want to do a small change. I guess you could always propose an optional rule such as the Marines but it’s probably best to keep everybody on the same page as much as possible.

At any rate be cool to see what they come up with.

@Amon-Sul

yea ftrs and bmbrs are the flavor for sure. Ftrs are air fodder pretty much :)

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

So I’d be in favour of a reduction in attack to 2 and perhaps a cost reduction to 10. But no doubt that would be too controversial for the community to accept.

nobody would buy tacs that way either.

@barnee said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Amon-Sul

yea ftrs and bmbrs are the flavor for sure. Ftrs are air fodder pretty much :)

people want bombers to cost 14.

that how u could buy 3 figs for the price of 2 bombers.

it would not be good.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@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.

so making bombers cost more is a retrograde since Germany cant swarm in Moscow that easily anymore?

@regularkid Seems like a reasonable incremental change. 14 seems reasonable and as Adam said, might makes tacs more viable.

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

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@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.

so making bombers cost more is a retrograde since Germany cant swarm in Moscow that easily anymore?

No, your proposed change to weaken escorts would be retrograde. SBR is right as it is. Leave it alone!

Well, except the inbuilt AA.

Is there any interest in lowering the attack value of bombers to three instead of increasing their cost?

I will prefer to keep cost of bombers at 12 and attack value at 4. There are so many reasons not to mess with any of these numbers. I agree that Germany can project threats to many areas at once with a stack of bombers. If you want to fix that you need to do something with Germany’s income. Remove the Crete objective and/or/partly change (some of) Norway, peace with USSR, Nov/Leningrad/Caucasus objectives to 4. You then achieve pretty much the same thing as increasing the cost of bombers while only targeting Germany.
Is the original post by Regularkid an April fool? I haven’t seen him around for ages and then he suddenly appears on April 1?! :blush:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Is the original post by Regularkid an April fool?

Suspect him to stick up his head any moment shouting “April, April!”. :laughing:

And Adam is part of the mod team, right? Complicit. ;)

Would have to be on Hawaii to get before 12pm local time. Doubt the April fool angle.

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I will prefer to keep cost of bombers at 12 and attack value at 4. There are so many reasons not to mess with any of these numbers. I agree that Germany can project threats to many areas at once with a stack of bombers. If you want to fix that you need to do something with Germany’s income. Remove the Crete objective and/or/partly change (some of) Norway, peace with USSR, Nov/Leningrad/Caucasus objectives to 4. You then achieve pretty much the same thing as increasing the cost of bombers while only targeting Germany.
Is the original post by Regularkid an April fool? I haven’t seen him around for ages and then he suddenly appears on April 1?! :blush:

i sign this 1/1 :)

As said before, the issue is bomber balance compared to fighters and tactical bombers, not bombers. Which is why the solution to this issue is changing bombers.

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry