G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@windowwasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

What about changing the cruiser to…

cost 10
attack 2
def 3
move 2
keep the marine ability as well as the bombard ability, but at a 2.

I think this gives people a reason to buy it without making it too powerful. it would also be cool to have more of a defensive ship that isn’t a carrier.

You would have the sub which is offensive, the destroyer which would be a middle ground, and a cruiser which would be a defensive ship making navy compositions more interesting and unique.

This could be one possible way.

@windowwasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Have we considered doubling the price of units and income from territories/bonuses in order to fine-tune pricing and stats?

Alternatively/additionally, we could use 12 sided dice in order to further increase fine-tuning.

This is less of an option, therefore PtV was made to benefit of a finetuned map with additional rules and set up.

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

i dont understand how 12 vs 14 is controlled. I have version 4.0.0, but when I start a new game bombers are at 12.

This should not be possible with a Balanced Mod, purchase first game. If you have BM4, bombers should be 14.

This change has not been put into combat move first, which is still version 3.x.

@windowwasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

What about changing the cruiser to…

cost 10
attack 2
def 3
move 2
keep the marine ability as well as the bombard ability, but at a 2.

I think this gives people a reason to buy it without making it too powerful. it would also be cool to have more of a defensive ship that isn’t a carrier.

You would have the sub which is offensive, the destroyer which would be a middle ground, and a cruiser which would be a defensive ship making navy compositions more interesting and unique.

I’ve been thinking about this and I quite like the idea. Can one of the mod devs give some feedback?

With this change, I can see myself buying cruisers in all kinds of situations without them being useful in every type of situation like a destroyer

@windowwasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@windowwasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

What about changing the cruiser to…

cost 10
attack 2
def 3
move 2
keep the marine ability as well as the bombard ability, but at a 2.

I think this gives people a reason to buy it without making it too powerful. it would also be cool to have more of a defensive ship that isn’t a carrier.

You would have the sub which is offensive, the destroyer which would be a middle ground, and a cruiser which would be a defensive ship making navy compositions more interesting and unique.

I’ve been thinking about this and I quite like the idea. Can one of the mod devs give some feedback?

With this change, I can see myself buying cruisers in all kinds of situations without them being useful in every type of situation like a destroyer

I also like this suggestion and the reasoning why it would make cruisers interesting and hopefully more frequently purchased.

Forgive my ignorance if this has been suggested before, but why not keep the stats for cruisers as they are now but just lower the cost to 10 and see how it goes, if it turns out to be an over-correction then the stats could be adjusted (and in the mean time everyone is having massive fun with loads of cruisers! :ship: :ship: :ship: ).

@flyingbadger Cruisers with the same stats costing 10 would become more cost-efficient in fleet battles than carrier+2 air which is not what we want.

@adam514 can you explain this please a little bit further.
It doesn’t click.

@aequitas-et-veritas I mean that instead of buying fighters at 10 and having to buy a carrier to host them for 3 attack 4 defense, you are better off buying cruisers instead at 10 and skipping the carrier. In other words, if you put equal TUV of cruisers costing 10 vs fighters and carriers in the battle calculator, cruisers would have the advantage.

@adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@flyingbadger Cruisers with the same stats costing 10 would become more cost-efficient in fleet battles than carrier+2 air which is not what we want.

Fair enough, I’ve not much experience or done any study into it. In my head they just felt about equal and I’d love to buy cruisers more. Would love to feel like I’d need to build balanced fleets of destroyers, cruisers and carriers but very much enjoy playing it as it is.

@flyingbadger That’s where the loading marine ability comes in. It’s still a pretty niche use, but cruisers are reasonable to purchase in some situations.

@adam514 thank you for explaining it.

@Adam514 what about the fact that carriers take two hits and itself defends at 2 or less in defense?

@pejon_88 It’s taken into account in the battle calc I proposed. They actually fight pretty evenly in the battle calc, but in a real fight there would be more fodder ships, which would advantage the cruiser fleet above the carrier-fighter fleet.

@adam514 Okay, that does make a lot of sense when it is put in terms of how fleets would actually be composed. Cheers for explaining that.

This issue has probably come up before, but since the search function here completely sucks I will put it forward anyway.

I’m thinking about marines and battleships. Think I read somewhere that a damaged battleship is not impeded when doing amphibious assaults. This seems a bit counter-intuitive, especially since own air can’t land on damaged carriers and other air are considered cargo.

Basically I think that a damaged battleship should not be able to send marines into an amphibious assault.

However, I realize that this would nerf the battleship quite a lot since sometimes it could not soak a hit during a sea-battle before an amphibious assault. Perhaps that could be an exception? An already damaged battleship would then not be able to send in the marines, while a freshly damaged one still could.

Further on there’s a question if a marine on a damaged battleship should be able to embark or disembark during NCM. I’m not sure about that one, but perhaps they should have that option, being able to change ships although it takes some time and logistics.

I think marines cause enough awkwardness without adding extra rules to them. The value to gameplay is already highly dubious IMO.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

This issue has probably come up before, but since the search function here completely sucks I will put it forward anyway.

I’m thinking about marines and battleships. Think I read somewhere that a damaged battleship is not impeded when doing amphibious assaults. This seems a bit counter-intuitive, especially since own air can’t land on damaged carriers and other air are considered cargo.

Basically I think that a damaged battleship should not be able to send marines into an amphibious assault.

However, I realize that this would nerf the battleship quite a lot since sometimes it could not soak a hit during a sea-battle before an amphibious assault. Perhaps that could be an exception? An already damaged battleship would then not be able to send in the marines, while a freshly damaged one still could.

Further on there’s a question if a marine on a damaged battleship should be able to embark or disembark during NCM. I’m not sure about that one, but perhaps they should have that option, being able to change ships although it takes some time and logistics.

Battleships can already do everything else when damaged such as bombarding, it’s not worth preventing battleships from transporting marines when damaged.

Hmm, I think marines was a great addition. Expensive land unit, but fun. Also like that cr and bs get a new function as tr.

But sure, making the rules more complex might not be advisable.

I can live with the small attack-boats not being damaged. :grin:

@adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Battleships can already do everything else when damaged such as bombarding, it’s not worth preventing battleships from transporting marines when damaged.

That’s not exactly what I suggested though. Marines could still be on a damaged battleship. Not really advocating the idea, but responding and explaining how I considered it.