G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Adam 514 said this:

3. Transports not defending: it makes effective fleets extremely costly especially for US, since their tps are often a one time use.

I’ve been thinking of a solution to this. How about:

When defending in a sea battle, a transport can be taken as a casualty before other defending units with a combat value if the defending units with the combat value are air units and/or damaged battleships or aircraft carriers….

or this:

When defending in a sea battle, a player may roll one dice at one for every two transports present in the battle, rounding down.

or this:

Transports cost 6.

Or this:

Any time a defender in a sea battle takes two or more hits, the defender may choose transports as casualties equal to the number of hits divided by two, rounding down.

So if two or three hits, get to choose 1 as a trn,

4 hits, you can choose 2 trans and so on…

That’s fairly complicated.

If I were to redesign the transport unit it would be able to take hits on attack and defense but have no combat value (like an AA gun or a BB hit point). It would probably cost 8 in this case. This would make it very inefficient in combat, so transports still won’t dominate the seas like they did in earlier AA versions while still being able to slightly affect the outcome of a battle.

One possibility sort of discussed in house rules is having transports which still defend on a 1 but are always taken last. I believe this is achievable in Triple-A.

That tends to reduce the ability of hitting fleets very slightly.

Note that Classic transports could only hold one tank or two inf. Not one tank and one inf.

@Adam514:

That’s fairly complicated.

If I were to redesign the transport unit it would be able to take hits on attack and defense but have no combat value (like an AA gun or a BB hit point). It would probably cost 8 in this case. This would make it very inefficient in combat, so transports still won’t dominate the seas like they did in earlier AA versions while still being able to slightly affect the outcome of a battle.

@simon33:

One possibility sort of discussed in house rules is having transports which still defend on a 1 but are always taken last. I believe this is achievable in Triple-A.

That tends to reduce the ability of hitting fleets very slightly.

Note that Classic transports could only hold one tank or two inf. Not one tank and one inf.

Wow, not bad ideas.  Probably worth some play testing. Maybe change Tac Bombers to cost 10 (I have no idea why they are 11–that makes no sense since to get a 4 power they have to pair where as a ftr get 4 natively) to balance it out.

Yes, tacs are definitely overpriced relative to fighters and bombers

I wouldn’t want to see BM institute a defense roll for transports, and wouldn’t want them to take hits either (shielding the warships just as before) even if they cost 8.  A cost reduction to 6 might be good though (if no other change to them).

And subs could probably stand to be bumped up to 7 or even 8.  Especially if you’re playing with tech and can get shipyards and super subs  :lol: but seriously.  Never mind the tech, raising the price of subs would not be a bad thing for G40.
This would help bring convoy damage down a tad, and make other ships more attractive to buy

Hang on. I’m specifically saying that transports shouldn’t defend warships like they did in classic.

@Gamerman01:

Yes, tacs are definitely overpriced relative to fighters and bombers

I wouldn’t want to see BM institute a defense roll for transports, and wouldn’t want them to take hits either (shielding the warships just as before) even if they cost 8.  A cost reduction to 6 might be good though (if no other change to them).

And subs could probably stand to be bumped up to 7 or even 8.  Especially if you’re playing with tech and can get shipyards and super subs  :lol: but seriously.  Never mind the tech, raising the price of subs would not be a bad thing for G40.
This would help bring convoy damage down a tad, and make other ships more attractive to buy

I spent a few minutes trying to look up the comparative costs of production of ships across classes, i.e. from transports on up.  I didn’t find anything specific, probably because such costs differed among countries with different production capacities and priorities, making such straight up comparison illusive.

That aside, one would assume freight production would be less than almost any warships because of all the “add ons” for warships in design and performance etc.  But then, a liberty ship had about 15k tons displacement, while a Gato class sub had around 2k submerged… so maybe not?

But point is, I don’t think it would be outrageous to make transports 6 cost.

How do you upgrade to version 2.2?

@AldoRaine:

How do you upgrade to version 2.2?

1. Open TripleA
2. Click on ‘‘Download Maps’’
3. Click on the ‘‘Installed’’ tab
4. Select G40 and click on update
5. Close and reopen TripleA

You can’t easily update for games in progress though.

Not sure you need to drop out and restart TripleA?

@simon33:

You can’t easily update for games in progress though.

Not sure you need to drop out and restart TripleA?

Indeed games in progress won’t be affected.

Restarting TripleA is usually required for stuff of this nature, so it’s a good habit to have.

I agree with the people saying a G1/2 Barb is not viable. It is like Europe 1940 2E where because of the big NO difference, G3/4 Barb was a must. In Vanilla, G1/2 Barb, while perhaps not optimal, were fun choices that can still result in a win. Not a necessary change by any means but something that could be considered.

I played like 5 league games where I did a G1 attack and I won all but the one against adam. The other opponents were E or 1 tier. I agree it is definitely less viable, but not totally impossible to win.

@Colt45:

I agree with the people saying a G1/2 Barb is not viable. It is like Europe 1940 2E where because of the big NO difference, G3/4 Barb was a must. In Vanilla, G1/2 Barb, while perhaps not optimal, were fun choices that can still result in a win. Not a necessary change by any means but something that could be considered.

@Colt45:

I agree with the people saying a G1/2 Barb is not viable. It is like Europe 1940 2E where because of the big NO difference, G3/4 Barb was a must. In Vanilla, G1/2 Barb, while perhaps not optimal, were fun choices that can still result in a win. Not a necessary change by any means but something that could be considered.

Making earlier GDOWs more viable will be implemented in BM3.

I’ve seen that a G2 DOW is not optimal in BM but a I’ve been wondering about a G1 attack. Why do you think that isn’t viable in BM?

@simon33:

I’ve seen that a G2 DOW is not optimal in BM but a I’ve been wondering about a G1 attack. Why do you think that isn’t viable in BM?

It’s less viable than in vanilla because of the earlier access to Russian NOs in BM which results in more Russian units being produced. Earlier GDOWs are strictly inferior in BM when compared to vanilla.

@Adam514:

@simon33:

I’ve seen that a G2 DOW is not optimal in BM but a I’ve been wondering about a G1 attack. Why do you think that isn’t viable in BM?

It’s less viable than in vanilla because of the earlier access to Russian NOs in BM which results in more Russian units being produced. Earlier GDOWs are strictly inferior in BM when compared to vanilla.

I don’t know… a GDOW v Rus. R2 can work nicely if you build arm/mech G1… although you tip your hand and ask for a UK full scram…  :-o

What is happening with BM3?