@barnee said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
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
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry
But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry
But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)
and it is a pretty big question will people massively buy tacs once bombers go to 14 ipc. think not.
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry
But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)
battleships, cruisers, tacs, tanks and marines need a change. that change would make people buy them often, and it would make the game more interesting, and people wouldn`t just swarming inf/mechs, figs/ACs and des/subs
Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.
Thank U. By change I mean either the cost or the abilities.
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry
But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)
battleships, cruisers, tacs, tanks and marines need a change. that change would make people buy them often, and it would make the game more interesting, and people wouldn`t just swarming inf/mechs, figs/ACs and des/subs
Nothing wrong with tanks. Solid offensive and defensive stats for their cost, mobility and blitz capability is a strong plus. Plenty of reason to buy tanks.
Cruisers and BB are a different story, almost no reason to get them ever. Marines make them a little more useful but marines are a bit expensive. I think cruisers at 11 and bbs at 18 could make them more interesting. Cant make marines cheaper, but maybe if you bumped up their attack to 3 and cost to 6 that could make them more interesting.
@ksmckay said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry
But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)
battleships, cruisers, tacs, tanks and marines need a change. that change would make people buy them often, and it would make the game more interesting, and people wouldn`t just swarming inf/mechs, figs/ACs and des/subs
Nothing wrong with tanks. Solid offensive and defensive stats for their cost, mobility and blitz capability is a strong plus. Plenty of reason to buy tanks.
Cruisers and BB are a different story, almost no reason to get them ever. Marines make them a little more useful but marines are a bit expensive. I think cruisers at 11 and bbs at 18 could make them more interesting. Cant make marines cheaper, but maybe if you bumped up their attack to 3 and cost to 6 that could make them more interesting.
Totally agree with this. Maybe crusiers should be even lower, maybe 10. If marines where at 6 and 3 attack, thats a big deal. (Maybe armor should be at 7…)
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.
hmmm. I think I’d rather focus the conversation on this discrete issue: will increasing the cost of bombers to 14 improve balance and gameplay? If there is a general consensus that it will, then we will incorporate it. (Briefly addressing battleships/cruisers, from a historical standpoint i’m ok with new capital shops not being frequently purchased, because WWII did see a decline in their utility… aircraft carries supplanting them as the centerpiece of naval combat).
Also, like others, I am apprehensive about changing other bomber stats like range and attack power. Among other things, doing so would upset opening moves with God-knows-what unintended consequences.
