G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Re-playing Skyrim, this time on the console, so <gasp>haven’t been online for several hours
Yeah yeah I knew it was only a matter of time before everyone wanted a match
There’s a good chance we’ll be meeting in the playoffs in a month anyway - you know, as long as we don’t meet up with JDOW</gasp>

My two cents about the Med Islands: Sicily should be treated as an adjacent land territory to Southern Italy.  That would make things interesting!

@Karl7:

My two cents about the Med Islands: Sicily should be treated as an adjacent land territory to Southern Italy.  That would make things interesting!

I agree, but I think that’s outside the realm of BM. It might be useful to keep this idea in mind though.

It sure would, because it’s not easily accessible to the Germans like North Italy

@regularkid:

@Karl7:

My two cents about the Med Islands: Sicily should be treated as an adjacent land territory to Southern Italy.  That would make things interesting!

Woah, u just blew my mind Karl. And actually it would very easy to modify the XML so that Sicily is considered adjacent to Southern Italy for TripleA purposes. Would the consequences be staggering? How do you foresee this affecting the game?

It would provide a “soft” Allied beachhead in the south that they could give/take without having to go “all in” as if they were hitting Rome.  Attacking S. Italy straight on is a rarity these days.  The give and take of the Island would lend a little historical credibility to a Southern European campaign.

Plus it would allow Italy to deprive the UK NO, giving a lot more land-play in the Med instead of just Italy just hunkering down in Rome.

I like the idea of the Sicily link too.

The Sicily idea is cool Karl7.

I would like to see a territory value of 1 put on Mariannas.
We may take 1 out of Tokiyo to keep the same income for Japan (or somewhere else ich don’t mind).

Why and why precisely Mariannas?

@Adam514:

Why and why precisely Mariannas?

• Mariannas would be historically better embeded in the game.
• BM 2.0 provides a bigger area for new strategys and is helping to take advantage of the full size
  of the board.
• Mariannas will draw more attention being a 1 ipc territory an there for add more Salt into Japans  and US gameplay.

Why does BM require you to sacrifice Vichy to execute the Italy Strong strategy? Any sensible Allied player would keep the British tank until last defending France so they can move it to Southern France. This prevents you from retreating from France as Germany.

Is this intended or is it an accident?

Second question: Why not require units to retreat to where they came from? The retreat to a single territory rule is gameable. Is the problem here just that the engine (I guess) doesn’t support it?

@simon33:

Why does BM require you to sacrifice Vichy to execute the Italy Strong strategy? Any sensible Allied player would keep the British tank until last defending France so they can move it to Southern France. This prevents you from retreating from France as Germany.

Is this intended or is it an accident?

Second question: Why not require units to retreat to where they came from? The retreat to a single territory rule is gameable. Is the problem here just that the engine (I guess) doesn’t support it?

1. As in Italy takes France? It would indeed be a sacrifice you would have to make if you are doing that, but it’s a really shallow sacrifice in any case.

2. To my knowledge, no game on TripleA works like that so it would have to be coded by hand. But one problem with units retreating where they came from is casualty choice. At best it complicates the process, and edit mode would certainly be required for every retreat. I personally prefer the current system even without those drawbacks.

On the second point, I’m suggesting if the engine could be coerced into providing a box where you retreat and it isn’t obvious.

On the first point, I don’t really think it’s a slight change. A major reason to not play the Italy Strong strategy in G40 is that it divided the Italians too much. Yes there was also the factor of not giving the Germans enough income/money. Vichy sends the first factor out. You don’t need to attack Southern France or SZ93.This makes Italy strong a more viable strategy in BM than G40 or it would if you could combine it with Vichy. This may well be a reason to keep things as it is though.

Curious what others think?

To simon - I’m sympathetic to your point about Vichy + Italy taking Paris, so I would suggest that you houserule that no units starting the game in Paris may move

Aren’t you still going to have a problem if Britain chooses to reinforce South France with a plane or two and/or a transport load?  Perhaps you could houserule that too - that Britain is not allowed to reinforce French territories in Europe on UK1.  You might have to give your opponent a concession though, but I bet you can find people to agree to play that way with you

Another alternative that would be more elegant, is to strike the Vichy rule requirement that there are no Allied land units in South France (#3)

When were these Vichy rules changed?  With the last update I guess?  I missed the announcement, if there ever was one.

Well I have a question about the new #3 Vichy requirement about non-Allied land units in South France.
Is AAA considered a land unit for this purpose?  I would think yes, because AAA is normally considered a “regular” land unit except that it can not claim a friendly neutral by itself.

It is conceivable that an allied player would transport the AAA from Malta to South France (and no infantry)

I see now that it IS highlighted in blue in the BM rules thread, original post, but I forgot that even existed - just rely on the notes in Triple A (which were changed, but are not highlighted)

So consider this your notice, players playing BM - you may want to re-check the BM rules original post on the forums and review everything Kid highlighted in blue

Yes the AA alone would prevent Vichy.