G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

I also want a UK sub in SZ98.

In there a bug in BM mode where the US factories don’t upgrade automatically? I had to do manually when Japan didn’t DOW until turn 4.

@Karl7:

In there a bug in BM mode where the US factories don’t upgrade automatically? I had to do manually when Japan didn’t DOW until turn 4.

That has always been there, I assume it gave the 9 unit limit warning and then you edited it yourself, but they upgrade before you place your units anyway.

Thanks Adam, just was worried the designers pulled a fast one and made the US PAY for the upgrade.  That would be crazy.  :-P

Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4.  A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC.  For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers.  For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.

@cyanight:

Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4.  A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC.  For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers.  For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.

With its stats the marine should cost 4, but when you add the ability to be transported on cruisers and BBs the cost needs to be higher to compensate for that ability. They are not cost-efficient units when only looking at its stats (and that is what we were aiming for), but when you have cruisers and BBs close to a factory buying marines is a good option at the current cost of 5.

There are a lot of cruisers and battleships on the board to start

@Adam514:

@cyanight:

Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4.  A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC.  For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers.  For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.

With its stats the marine should cost 4, but when you add the ability to be transported on cruisers and BBs the cost needs to be higher to compensate for that ability. They are not cost-efficient units when only looking at its stats (and that is what we were aiming for), but when you have cruisers and BBs close to a factory buying marines is a good option at the current cost of 5.

They are awesomely cost efficient from the point of view of the purchaser when doing amphibious assaults. You have to consider not needing to buy transports.

Mad if you didn’t use them.

I still think I’m correct about the balanced mod swinging the advantage back to the Allies (although not as badly as 2nd edition favors the Axis).

I think on average (across all players who’ve played balanced mod in the league), the Axis are played more effectively because it’s easier to play them effectively, thus counterbalancing the Allied advantage
I still think if you had 50 games played between evenly matched excellent, veteran players that the Allies would win a couple more than 25

Almost 140 games played (although BM 1.0 and 2.0 are mixed together), almost equal number of Axis and Allied wins
Definitely an improvement on 2nd edition in several ways, including balance, but thought I’d pre-empt Kid’s (if he’s still around) highlighting the even record at this point  :-D with an argument that the “Balanced” mod is a little bit out of balance by giving a couple too many NO’s to the Allies
But hey, it is definitely the best version of A&A that I know of, currently, although AA50 and Spring 1942 are still fantastic for faster and less complex games

Don’t want this point to be missed in my nitpicking -

The balanced mod is great!

gamer can you set up a parallel championship for BM players? so the top 8 overall would as usual qualify for the championship using the 2nd ed “vanilla” version, and then the top 8 players who only want to play BM would play for a parallel championship. Any top player who wants to play both can, and would take priority. for example, some of the masters have taken a liking to BM already, e.g. jdow, so he would qualify to play in both.

cuz i know adam doesn’t wanna play vanilla anymore, and it’d be a shame for him to miss out on the championship. he’s imo the best player around these days.

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.

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.

@Gamerman01:

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!

@oysteilo:

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.

@JDOW:

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