G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

I included that.

@simon33 Meant J1DOW.

Yeah, did.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

SZ37 1ftr 1cru 2bomb Now: 99.9% A3 bomb: 99.3%

Or were you thinking of something else?

@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.

And who buys lot of tanks ?

I agree 18 for battleships.

As for marines I agree again. Can not be cheaper then 5, but if U make them cost 6 , hm I do not know.

Maybe to give them attack on 3 only on first round, or cost 4 attack 2 only in first round.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Maybe crusiers should be even lower, maybe 10.

I wouldn’t like that so much. That makes cruisers nearly as good value as a mixed carrier group 4Cru only slightly less than 1ftr 1tac 1cv if they are being attacked and the cruisers have more attack value.

Compare cruisers with destroyers, not with AC and figs. Making cruisers cost 10 would make them (almost) similarly attractive as destroyers.
At least they should cost 11.

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@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.

Might be a good idea.

Why not try it out in a series of casual games and then evaluate? All you need is a bunch of happy guinea pigs and happy editing. 🙂

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@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.

Might be a good idea.

Why not try it out in a series of casual games and then evaluate? All you need is a bunch of happy guinea pigs and happy editing. 🙂

I like Ur idea, but still I think that (for SBR) people will still take bombers and not tacs, since bombers have a better range, they can bomb ICs, and they have +2 to the dice roll per bombing. Even at 14 IPC makes them a (lot) better buy than tacs are.

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
people will still take bombers and not tacs, since bombers have a better range, they can bomb ICs, and they have +2 to the dice roll per bombing. Even at 14 IPC makes them a (lot) better buy than tacs are.

Yes, completely agree with that. The difference will only be that 6 sb for 14 would cost the same as 7 sb for 12. It’s a slight hamper on a bomber spam, but strategic bombers will still be great. Perhaps more importantly is that investing in 1 or 2 sb’s takes away 2-4 more IPC from other investments, like a mech or art.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
people will still take bombers and not tacs, since bombers have a better range, they can bomb ICs, and they have +2 to the dice roll per bombing. Even at 14 IPC makes them a (lot) better buy than tacs are.

Yes, completely agree with that. The difference will only be that 6 sb for 14 would cost the same as 7 sb for 12. It’s a slight hamper on a bomber spam, but strategic bombers will still be great. Perhaps more importantly is that investing in 1 or 2 sb’s takes away 2-4 more IPC from other investments, like a mech or art.

I agree with that. Can help Russia a bit.

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Hey all. An update. I’ve play-tested the proposed rule change in three games so far. Results were promising.

One thing I noted was how satisfying it was to shoot down a bomber, given their increased cost :)
…

heh heh :)

Regarding bombers @14

If the mood squad want the change because bombers are highly useful and have a much higher strategic value compared to fighters and tacs, even given bombers lousy defending value, I would say go for it. It’s no big deal.

Will this change improve game play and balance? No, I don’t think it will. Simple things like bombing axis minor complexes is a more viable strategy than bombing allied minor complexes. Allies will lose on this. In many games the axis do not even attempt to bomb major complexes either because they don’t want to lose bombers. It will certainly also be negative vs the garrison rule in China. Both these elements will benefit the axis more than 1 or 2 less German bombers benefit the Allies.

Overall, most likely this change will tilt the game more in favor of the axis unless some other compensation is given for the allies.

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Regarding bombers @14

If the mood squad want the change because bombers are highly useful and have a much higher strategic value compared to fighters and tacs, even given bombers lousy defending value, I would say go for it. It’s no big deal.

Will this change improve game play and balance? No, I don’t think it will. Simple things like bombing axis minor complexes is a more viable strategy than bombing allied minor complexes. Allies will lose on this. In many games the axis do not even attempt to bomb major complexes either because they don’t want to lose bombers. It will certainly also be negative vs the garrison rule in China. Both these elements will benefit the axis more than 1 or 2 less German bombers benefit the Allies.

Overall, most likely this change will tilt the game more in favor of the axis unless some other compensation is given for the allies.

Interesting. And especially people will not buy tac bombers instead of bombers, even if bombers cost 14.
tacs should cost 10.

Can U elaborate about Chinese garrison, what do U mean by that?

I don’t like the bomber as a unit. In earlier versions of A&A the bomber abstracted a combination of the dive bomber, strategic bomber and torpedo bomber. In G40, the dive & torpedo bomber become the “tactical bomber” yet the strategic bomber still attacks at a 4 against ships and land targets. Completely illogical!

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

Can U elaborate about Chinese garrison, what do U mean by that?

He’s referring to the guerrilla fighters

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I don’t like the bomber as a unit. In earlier versions of A&A the bomber abstracted a combination of the dive bomber, strategic bomber and torpedo bomber. In G40, the dive & torpedo bomber become the “tactical bomber” yet the strategic bomber still attacks at a 4 against ships and land targets. Completely illogical!

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

Can U elaborate about Chinese garrison, what do U mean by that?

He’s referring to the guerrilla fighters

i like or idea of bomber hitting differently on air/sea and land units.

guerilla fighters, that was the NO for China in vanilla when each empty chinese territory controlled by Japan become Chinese since one chinese inf arrose there?

Yeah well I don’t feel that there is any reason that a strategic bomber should roll at a 4 for either land or sea targets. Ahistorical!

If you wanted to make it 1 for land and 2 for sea, I’d be fine with that. The chance of a strat bomber hitting friendly targets in a land battle is obscene. Did it ever happen that such planes were used in this way?

Heavy bombers were used tactically by the US Army Air Forces during WW2. The most infamous land example was Operation Cobra (Wikipedia link), which saw 1800 bombers from the 8th Air Force attack German forces in Normandy in order to help the US VII and VIII Corps breakout from their narrow slice of Normandy beach.

Among the 500+ friendly fire casualties from that attack were LTG Leslie McNair (Wikipedia link), the highest ranking US Army casualty in the ETO (he was there to observe the effects of the attack - he saw them, all right).

Heavy bombers were used more successfully in tactical roles at sea. As tactics and equipment evolved, planners and fliers used B-17s and B-24s to find and sink German submarines (Wikipedia link) in the Atlantic and used “skip bombing” (Wikipedia link) techniques to accurately attack both IJN warships and Japanese transports in the Pacific.

So, heavy bombers were used, successfully at that, to support attacks on land and to sink ships at sea. I would argue that efforts to nerf heavy bombers are an attempt to “correct” something that needs no true correction.

-Midnight_Reaper

Personally I think the Strategic Bombing portion of the bomber in Global 1940 is too powerful. Any game tactic should be cost neutral. Otherwise the game is influencing game play instead of operational strategy and tactics.

In Classic a bomber cost $15 and did 1d6 for Strategic Bombing. Assuming 1 loss out of 6 bombing raids then that was +$17.5 vs -$15 or a mere $2.5 advantage or $0.5 gained for each individual attack which was too low considering the bomber usually could have been more effective elsewhere. In AA50 the price dropped to $12 which IMHO was the right balance. Now Strategic Bombing was still doing $17.5 with a loss of just $12 or a $5.5 advantage or $1.1 gained for each individual attack which probably was about the same it could do elsewhere. Of course in Classic damage was taken in IPC Loss versus AA50 were the damage did not necessarily have to be taken though with so few Industrial Complexes damage usually had to be bought off. Karelia being a good exception to that rule. In Global it is now 1D6+2 for Strategic Bombing or a whopping +$27.5 versus a loss of $12 or a $15.5 advantage. Basically a free infantry kill every attack. Attacking a lone infantry with a bomber is definitely not a good idea yet Strategic Bombing is. Moving the bomber to $14 and reducing the attack to 1d6+1 takes that +15.5 down to +$8.5. Still good enough for those that want to use it as a tactic it yet the game is not forcing SBR attacks the way it does now.

The bomber is already a very good unit. It moves 6 instead of 4 which allows it much greater projection of force than a fighter or tactical. It attacks at a 4. Who cares that if defends as a 1 since bombers are not bought for defense they are bought for offense. Adding in overpowered SBR on top of that just seems like too much to me.

@Midnight_Reaper I would say that example reinforces my contention that B-17s weren’t really useful for tactical attacks on land. Mainly B-24s did cover the Atlantic, not sure how much this was recon and how much actual bombing? I’m sure they made attempts to hit subs, probably some successful.

Feel free to consider the cost increase as a reduced effectiveness, hence requiring more planes to do the same damage.