G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Marine is a good and interesting unit and I like to buy them, but still they are overpriced for what U get.

@Adam514 so battleship is different than AC in the fact that while being dmg, it can do both combine bombardment and/or puting marines to battle?

@Amon-Sul Yeah, a damaged BB can do everything an undamaged BB can do.

After playing a few games I definitely agree that bombers are too cheap with only 12 IPC cost. They should cost 14.

But I repeat again, it will not make tac bombers much more attractive to people, nor will they buy them much.

Tacs should cost 10. Even at 10 figs would be a better buy. Can please someone tell me why tac costs more then a fig?

It can not do escort, it can not intercept, it defends and attacks at 3 (4 if paired with fig or tank), but fig does not defend on 3, but on 4. And that is very important for AC, airfields and stuff.

As for cruiser, why should cruiser cost 12? It is too much. It should cost 10. If destroyer costs 8, and has anti sub ability, why should cruiser cost 12? It`s cost should be maximum 11 IPC, but I personally think that a way to help make marine more cost effective is to lower the price of cruisers.

As for battleships they are too expensive too. They should cost 16-18 IPC.

And we should even consider making AC cost a bit (1 IPC or 2) more, or not if we lower the price of battleship to 16.

Amon

In OOB tacs does have the combined unit ability and may also SBR non-IC facilities. Figs and tacs are there equal in air battles.

So in OOB it depends on what you want. If attacking, like for Germany, they’re actually pretty good. If mainly defending, figs are of course the way to go, like for Russia.

The same goes for the Pac. Atleast in the beginning of the game US is mainly interested in protecting it’s fleet, hence figs. Japan already has a shitload of tacs, so don’t need to buy more really, but the tacs definitely put some spice to threats.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

In OOB tacs does have the combined unit ability and may also SBR non-IC facilities. Figs and tacs are there equal in air battles.

So in OOB it depends on what you want. If attacking, like for Germany, they’re actually pretty good. If mainly defending, figs are of course the way to go, like for Russia.

The same goes for the Pac. Atleast in the beginning of the game US is mainly interested in protecting it’s fleet, hence figs. Japan already has a shitload of tacs, so don’t need to buy more really, but the tacs definitely put some spice to threats.

I am of course speaking about BM only.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

In OOB tacs does have the combined unit ability and may also SBR non-IC facilities. Figs and tacs are there equal in air battles.

So in OOB it depends on what you want. If attacking, like for Germany, they’re actually pretty good. If mainly defending, figs are of course the way to go, like for Russia.

The same goes for the Pac. Atleast in the beginning of the game US is mainly interested in protecting it’s fleet, hence figs. Japan already has a shitload of tacs, so don’t need to buy more really, but the tacs definitely put some spice to threats.

I think people buy more harbours and airfields then tacs. Who buys them in BM ?

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

I am of course speaking about BM only.

Then I agree that tacs are utterly useless. In a SBR you still want to accompany the sb’s with figs only. Makes the tac ability of SBR rather useless, so does take away a lot of their appeal. The combined arms is not sufficient. For 10 tacs you get 11 figs. And defence is usually a lot more sensitive, since you’re at the mercy of your opponent.

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with.

As I previously said, see below, I think SBR should be reduced to +1. Adding ANOTHER point of damage (1d6+3 vs 1d6+2) on average adds another 5 points of bomber damage versus a loss of the $2 increase of the bomber itself or $3 more overall points of damage for bombing. That makes it plus $18.5 for SBR over time. Why would we want to incentify strategic bombing so much?

Previously:
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.

+2 is good. Previously we were at +2.6 (expectation value for bombing run) to a major factory, or +2.2 for a minor factory (for 12 cost bombers). Making it +3 would mean +3.1 for major, or +2.25 for minor (14 cost). So +3 would make strat bombing more effective.

You could argue that that is a good thing for the allies but I think it would actually favor axis, which is opposite of what we are going for. Most of the axis major factories are well protected and not often subjected to bombing as axis generally has a more protected position (both locationally and due to a large central air force), they also tend to have lots of production options. I would say that allies are a little more susceptible to major factory bombing (London and Moscow). So the +3 would probably not do a ton but would probably give a slight edge to axis.

I think 14 is good, and should just let things go like that.

I dont really want to get into a back and forth about this, but you cant compare classic (or AA50) and global. In classic and AA50, you couldnt intercept so there was no defense against SBRs.

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with. Y’all’s feedback would be appreciated on this last point. thanks!

+3 would make strat bombing stronger than Global. Effectively increasing the value of a raid by +0.67IPCs. Perhaps this would be a good thing though?

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with. Y’all’s feedback would be appreciated on this last point. thanks!

+3 would make strat bombing stronger than Global. Effectively increasing the value of a raid by +0.67IPCs. Perhaps this would be a good thing though?

Don’t think it would. SBR is strong as it is. +3 dmg will certainly outweigh the +2 cost.

I am not a fan of a cost change for Bmbrs.
Bmbrs are far more purchased and played than BB’s for example.
Don’t understand why there needs to be a change made.
CR’s are more discussed for usage and pricing than BB’rs.
But if Bmbrs are going to cost 14 ipc than this will be the way, even if I don’t like it.
Can we at least set it back in the map option or where ever if we decide to play it like it was?

Thanks for listening on my two Cents I had to say.
Best regards

AetV

I think its good to see AeV contribution in this discussion. First of all I support his view but wont take that as a support to what I write here

First of all I have raised critisism to BM many times and maybe this gets old. BM is better than OOB in many ways, I admit. BUT it is far from perfect. But lets face it, we will never get a perfect game!

What I find funny is when the squad want to change something in BM, THIS is what they want to change, the cost of bombers

@Adam514 514 says it is because it will reflect the strenght of bombers better than the original cost of 12. Fair enogh i think. It also raises the question about reviewing the cost of BB, Cruisers etc, which I think adam014 is open too. Then @regularkid comes along and argues the change is more about playability (maybe i misread the original post and the following discussion. I am not sure) It makes the discussion difficult when the squad has different opinions and the reason for the change is not clear. Maybe the squad can explain the reason for this change? Is it playability or is it a strenght reflection? Or is it both? If it is a strenght question why should other units not be considered? It would be nice to know.

I also want to bring up, who is the squad?? If you read the notes I have no idea who these guys are. Really, the only people playing the game is @Adam514 and @simon33, but simon33 is not really a die-hard fan of BM from what I read. So, I am unsure why @Regularkid should have a saying as I never see he participate in league games. Maybe he has great experience and everything I dont know. I just dont understand why he should decide the rules here when he never plays. Feel free to explain why your take is stronger than anyone elses given we never see you play! Bottom line, it boils down to adam514 who wants this change I think.

I also disagree that it is a lot of support in this forum for the change. I see some people has supported it, maybe 2 or 3? I am not sure if those people play frequently in the league though. I think it would be interesting to hear what frequent players in tier M E and 1 would say. Too few of these guys have raised their voice. Maybe they silently accept, I dont know.

@oysteilo Bombers were an issue in vanilla. A few years ago a player rose to the top of the league by only playing Axis and spamming German bombers. I only beat him because he got diced in an important battle. Granted vanilla was quite pro-Axis, but the game still suffers from the spam risk bombers. Bombers reach every important location from Western Germany.

Then there’s the argument for being more in line with fighters and tactical bombers. Bombers have the best range and attack while barely costing more than the other air types. 14 is simply a fair cost for what it can do.

There can be many reasons for the change, all our reasons combined is what made us decide for the change. When regularkid posts a change suggestion, it had already been heavily discussed between him and I previously.

I can’t say I understand your criticism of BM.

fair points. I have no stake in BM but it seems far better than OOB. I think as the game is played more the strategies get better and I think the ‘squad’ is addressing that with a subtle non game-changing tweak targeted at one of the strategies that has proven very effective. I dont see this as any more than that. It will have an impact but not going to have major impact.

I think there is room for changes to some other units as well but I think those are a lot more complicated to consider than the bomber change.

OK @Adam514

So it is basically you and regularkid who have come up with this change?

And regularkid never plays in the league as far as I can see. Then I think this is your change @Adam514. Isn’t it?

I think most people (including me) will agree that Germany buying too many bombers is very difficult to counter and it gives Germany the option to threaten many areas at the same time. I see that

The solution to this is not changing the cost of bombers as bombers are are not too cheap for other nations such as russia, british, italy and ansaz.

The solution is to change the objectives for Germany. THAT is the real problem.

It still does not answer who really wants this change. Is it only you @Adam514 and what is @regularkid role here

It would be nice to have that sorted out

@oysteilo Yes, thought that was obvious. It’s also not relevant who comes up with any change, as long as it’s a good change.

I disagree with your assessment of the bomber issue.