makes sense. i appreciate the consideration.
there’s no doubt BM is superior in many ways, and hopefully by the close of this year all top-ranking players will have come to this. it’s understandable, nonetheless, that some top players are in a certain comfort zone and will therefore hold out a bit longer. it’s just a matter of time.
There can only be one champion…
For the top, main playoff, default has to be 2nd edition because the league rules are set for the year at the onset. I’m not willing to change the game on someone who insists on playing 2nd edition this year because the league rules were set.I only see 2-3 players right now who are likely to be in the “official” playoff who haven’t posted balanced mod results yet, Zhukov and Me1945 and maybe Alexgreat. I’m hoping everyone in the playoffs will agree to play balanced mod, however, I’m not willing to force anyone to, again, because the league rules were set at the beginning of the year. Top 8 players will likely be adaptable to playing balanced mod if their opponent really wants to play balanced mod, because players like Zhukov and Me1945 are so skilled and experienced it wouldn’t be much of a handicap even if they play the balanced mod for the first time in the playoff.
However, the 2nd and 3rd playoffs (or however many there are) are not to played to determine the league champion for the year, and are primarily for the enjoyment of the players. I would be happy to set up a balanced mod only playoff(s) and 2nd edition default (could still play balanced mod if both players want to) playoff(s) according to the number of signups, but the main playoff needs to be 2nd edition default (balanced mod is fine if both players agree) because otherwise we’re changing the rules in the middle of the year. I know you understand this, and that’s why you’re proposing parallel playoffs, however I hesitate to take away from the top players by diluting it at all from 1 official playoff.
I realize it would be a problem if we have someone who’s been playing balanced mod only for awhile, run up against someone who’s never played it and refuses to play it. However, before the games start and after we know who the top 8 who are participating are, I will ask everyone then about their position on the balanced mod, and think we can resolve this concern before any matches start.
I don’t know if Me1945 or Zhukov or Alexgreat read this thread, so I should talk to them about this. If they are willing to play balanced mod in the playoffs, then there is no issue. If they are not willing, well, their opponent is going to have to play 2nd edition against them. Everyone’s played that one several times.
Exactly :-)
My 2 cents regarding Russia and BM
I think the new no middle east/africa rule for russia is the poorest change in BM. Everyone agrees that this has no historic interest, but if you look for it you will probably find many other things with little historic relevance in this game. So for me this is no big deal. What this change does is, it reduces playabliity for Russia. There is no incentive for Russia to take these territories, better to leave them for UK. I also think it was kind of fun to defend these territories for the allies after Russia captured some of them. Secondlly, after Russia loose most of its territories this was a good way to keep Russia at around 20 IPC. Now, you might only get 2 from sz 80 if Russia decleres war on Japan. Russia is REALLY stripped from money in the later rounds. The second change affecting Russia is also not so good I think from a playability standpoint. In the original version Russia could put fast moving units into china, no incentive for that anymore either. This way you can make J1 hard, especially if you buy 3 mechs for volgograd R1. The new objective discourage R1 DOW on Japan. Does this change enhance playability for Russia? I don’t think so. Then the new China rules is a way to compensate for this as Japan must occupy every territory with a land unit. I don’t think this does much for playability either way for Japan or China (or the allies). So all in all I think BM has stripped Russia from the few options they had and reduced it just to buy infantry and buckle up against Germany. Of course this is more historic correct but it becomes predictable and somewhat boring after a few games. Of course you reward UK hugely in the new version and also USA and you are somewhat compensated here. But don’t get me wrong, it is really impressive work from you guys! I just wanted to share my opinion regarding BM and Russia. I am not presenting any fixes, just a mild criticism!
My 2 cents regarding Russia and BM
I think the new no middle east/africa rule for russia is the poorest change in BM. Everyone agrees that this has no historic interest, but if you look for it you will probably find many other things with little historic relevance in this game. So for me this is no big deal. What this change does is, it reduces playabliity for Russia. There is no incentive for Russia to take these territories, better to leave them for UK. I also think it was kind of fun to defend these territories for the allies after Russia captured some of them. Secondlly, after Russia loose most of its territories this was a good way to keep Russia at around 20 IPC. Now, you might only get 2 from sz 80 if Russia decleres war on Japan. Russia is REALLY stripped from money in the later rounds. The second change affecting Russia is also not so good I think from a playability standpoint. In the original version Russia could put fast moving units into china, no incentive for that anymore either. This way you can make J1 hard, especially if you buy 3 mechs for volgograd R1. The new objective discourage R1 DOW on Japan. Does this change enhance playability for Russia? I don’t think so. Then the new China rules is a way to compensate for this as Japan must occupy every territory with a land unit. I don’t think this does much for playability either way for Japan or China (or the allies). So all in all I think BM has stripped Russia from the few options they had and reduced it just to buy infantry and buckle up against Germany. Of course this is more historic correct but it becomes predictable and somewhat boring after a few games. Of course you reward UK hugely in the new version and also USA and you are somewhat compensated here. But don’t get me wrong, it is really impressive work from you guys! I just wanted to share my opinion regarding BM and Russia. I am not presenting any fixes, just a mild criticism!
We didn’t remove it strictly because it wasn’t historical, it also generated cheesy situations such as the Italians camping out there for the sole purpose of delaying Russia from acquiring the African territories. I found it fun as well because there was strategy to it. However, instead of fighting for the African territories, Russia should fight Germany in order to keep its original territories and its income up, which was not possible in vanilla. I’d trade African shenanigans for actual Eastern front back and forth gameplay any day, and it is a choice because if Russia sends 4 units to Africa their ability to put up a fight against Germany is significantly hampered.
On your point regarding China and Japan, look at it this way: it was a no brainer in vanilla for Russia to be involved in China and in the Eastern territories bordering Korea. The new objective creates a drawback so players need to think about what they want to do and what their plan is before going through with it. And believe it or not, I think it’s probably still better for the Allies if Russia declares war against Japan early, so I think Russia is faced with a lot more real options in BM than in vanilla.
Playability for China and Japan has increased with the garrison rule. China can plan for US air strikes to stack a certain territory in its overall strategy instead of the being simply pushed back by Japan, and Japan needs to think if it really wants to capture a territory, since they’ll need to sacrifice an inf to do sosince it can’t retreat without giving China and inf.
So yeah in vanilla Russia had one best strategy: buy inf, take African territories and Iraq and help Allies out against Japan. In BM, it depends a lot more on the situation and what your overall game plan is. I’ve played a lot of BM and I don’t know what the best strategy is yet, and I highly doubt someone can find one that can address most situations in BM.
Criticism is always welcome when its goal is to improve the mod, I don’t take it personally. So no need for anyone to be shy.
I mostly agree with Oystello but I’ll take Adam’s comments on board.
I do agree about the USSR taking Italian African territories being cheesy and it is a good thing that was removed.
BTW, with a G2 DOW, it’s only one unit needed - the tank starting in Stalingrad; preferably borrowing at least one plane, probably the tac. Iraq is captured with the inf from activating Persia. Downside being that you can’t put a UK IC in the middle east but if you have one in Egypt it is usually enough.
I agree with Adams post and I think Russia is way way stronger in BM. Especially the extra money in the first rounds after the DOW makes a big difference. At a certain point then Russia in fact might be suffocated. However, it is the nature of the game that this might happen, otherwise the Axis would not be able to win at all.
BM was not designed to make Moscow invincible but to make it harder for the Axis to get an economic advantage. This is clearly the case in BM compared to Vanilla.
Next to that I do not find claiming African money and sending units to China was a no brainer by default for Russia in Vanilla. Sending 3-4 fast units away is a very big price for Russia in order to fight the Germans penetrating Russia and the reward comes very delayed. Sending units to China early is more viable in my opinion but als has a price tag especially if Germans play DOW1 or 2 on Russia.
And as Adam said, don’t overestimate the double up option on the Land Lease NOs. Early strategic gains are often more important than a couple of IPCs many rounds later. I don’t say economy doesn’t matter, but it certainly comes after strategic gains and position of units.
As I said before, I for instance to not hesitate to invade Korea or Manchuria with Russia in case I believe this is a direct strategic impact on the development of Japan. Cutting 3-6 IPCs from Japan and distracting them in their genocide plans in China and the Pacific is in most cases better than trying to collect few IPCs many turns later.
Next to that I do not find claiming African money and sending units to China was a no brainer by default for Russia in Vanilla. Sending 3-4 fast units away is a very big price for Russia in order to fight the Germans penetrating Russia and the reward comes very delayed. Sending units to China early is more viable in my opinion but also has a price tag especially if Germans play DOW1 or 2 on Russia.
This is what I think too. And who does G1’s besides us, JDOW? :-)
And as Adam said, don’t overestimate the double up option on the Land Lease NOs.
Sounds like a lot of people do overestimate them, yes
Early strategic gains are often more important than a couple of IPCs many rounds later. I don’t say economy doesn’t matter, but it certainly comes after strategic gains and position of units.
Don’t give away all the secrets! That’s the mistake I made :wink:
Okey
Good feedback here! My point is not to disagree with Adam and JDOW. Obviously they post good, strong and valid points. It is possible I underestimate R1, R2 or even R3 DOW on Japan. I will check that out! But as a side note, there is only one nation in BM that has no saying on their own NOs and that is Russia. Why did the developers choose to do this?
This must take strategies, tactics and playability away from Russia (or complicate it too much). I think this is one reason why the ME and Africa was included in Russia’s NOs in the vanilla game. This compensation is not directly (or clearly) seen in BM in my opinion.
I will honor that the early income boost for Russia is nice. But I think It does not change much as keeping Bryansk is a lost case against any determined German player
The game isn’t over if Bryansk is German controlled. In fact it’s true, against a German player which is not entirely incompetent and that has a minimum of dedication to play against the Russians, Bryansk is sooner or later German controlled. But here comes the difference of BM now.
While in vanilla Germans can simply go South from there, in case the Russians turtle, the economic advantage was very very hard to stop.
Now, in BM this is way tougher for the Germans, even if Germans are at 75-80 income, they now often have to match 15-20 additional IPCs by Russia/UK/US which makes it not as easy as before to turn the position into an economic edge.
Also the +3 for India makes a big difference. In vanilla Japan often could stack Burma after 6-8 turns without making an big concessions (such as e.g. use all transports for that). Now, in BM India has 4-6 extra units in average until this happens which makes it way harder to Japan to take India. (That-äs why I btw believe it is a bad idea to send the Russians home, it simply makes it too easy for Japan then to push towards Burma and keep the Chinese controlled.)
Still, if Japan is totally dedicated to get India, it often might not be stoppable. The game is not designed to make such things impossible, it just puts a higher price on the price tag.
I’m still doing the Russian wall, not sending them home. Personally. Just pull the units back one territory away from Japan, leave a single picket infantry there. Pulls the infantry away from the coast so you aren’t at risk of being bombarded to death, also should pull you out of aircraft range (but I doubt someone’s attacking that stack with just aircraft anyway). Still able to push forward and cause issues, invites Japan to make Mongolia yours (more infantry) etcetera.
Also, with the income increase, Russia should be able to send a few tanks over to assist. Seen some deadly Russian invasions into China early in the game! Really makes it a nightmare for Japan.
Keeping in mind, my idea of KJF is just making sure Japan doesn’t get big. Keeping them in China is very effective in neutralizing them, and with pressure off America in the Pacific (not completely off, but reduced?) then American can use those ungodly sums of money to pound Germany.
Again, the above are just my opinions, if you don’t agree that’s fine. What makes this game fun is that you don’t have to do it a certain way!
i have done about 6 or 7 G1s in BM and have had great success except against Adam of course :) it’s a dicey opening but fun strategy, and it seems a bit underpowered compared to later DOWs.
Next to that I do not find claiming African money and sending units to China was a no brainer by default for Russia in Vanilla. Sending 3-4 fast units away is a very big price for Russia in order to fight the Germans penetrating Russia and the reward comes very delayed. Sending units to China early is more viable in my opinion but also has a price tag especially if Germans play DOW1 or 2 on Russia.
This is what I think too. And who does G1’s besides us, JDOW? :-)
i just beat Karl7 doing an R1 on japan and sending A LOT of russian units over to support china. the strategy included sacrificing all of the siberian stack on the first round as well as a shiny russian strategic bomber turn 1 :-)
My 2 cents regarding Russia and BM
…
The second change affecting Russia is also not so good I think from a playability standpoint. In the original version Russia could put fast moving units into china, no incentive for that anymore either. This way you can make J1 hard, especially if you buy 3 mechs for volgograd R1. The new objective discourage R1 DOW on Japan. Does this change enhance playability for Russia? I don’t think so. Then the new China rules is a way to compensate for this as Japan must occupy every territory with a land unit. I don’t think this does much for playability either way for Japan or China (or the allies). So all in all I think BM has stripped Russia from the few options they had and reduced it just to buy infantry and buckle up against Germany. Of course this is more historic correct but it becomes predictable and somewhat boring after a few games. Of course you reward UK hugely in the new version and also USA and you are somewhat compensated here. But don’t get me wrong, it is really impressive work from you guys! I just wanted to share my opinion regarding BM and Russia. I am not presenting any fixes, just a mild criticism!
i just beat Karl7 doing an R1 on japan and sending A LOT of russian units over to support china. the strategy included sacrificing all of the siberian stack on the first round as well as a shiny russian strategic bomber turn 1 :-)
My 2 cents regarding Russia and BM
…
The second change affecting Russia is also not so good I think from a playability standpoint. In the original version Russia could put fast moving units into china, no incentive for that anymore either. This way you can make J1 hard, especially if you buy 3 mechs for volgograd R1. The new objective discourage R1 DOW on Japan. Does this change enhance playability for Russia? I don’t think so. Then the new China rules is a way to compensate for this as Japan must occupy every territory with a land unit. I don’t think this does much for playability either way for Japan or China (or the allies). So all in all I think BM has stripped Russia from the few options they had and reduced it just to buy infantry and buckle up against Germany. Of course this is more historic correct but it becomes predictable and somewhat boring after a few games. Of course you reward UK hugely in the new version and also USA and you are somewhat compensated here. But don’t get me wrong, it is really impressive work from you guys! I just wanted to share my opinion regarding BM and Russia. I am not presenting any fixes, just a mild criticism!
Yeah, Japan hit Amur and killed it, but that meant giving up Yunnan in the long run. Also Germany had pretty bad G1, basically giving up Egypt.
Should there be a requirement for the Axis to hold 7 Victory cities for the win if the Allies hold Rome for any part of the turn? Maybe 8 if they hold Berlin.
Rome is too easy to take, I think.
Should there be a requirement for the Axis to hold 7 Victory cities for the win if the Allies hold Rome for any part of the turn? Maybe 8 if they hold Berlin.
We considered it, but Rome is too easy to take, and 7 Pac VCs just because of Rome would be quite harsh.
I’ve been bidding for the Axis lately. Small bids - the 6 range - but still. ANyone else been doing that?
I would like two or three NOs removed from the Allies. I can’t win as the Axis, with the allied NOs as they are. Then I would feel I had half a chance.
I hear that, but that would require remembering and using edit mode. Too likely that we’ll forget.
It’s not hard to remember. If the Allied player forgets, the Axis player will remember
Yes there are a couple too many NO’s - too many islands, too many in the Med
