G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Also, if the German DOW settles back to the standard G3, the only change in BM3 game balance from BM2would be the 3 IPC NO for Japan, right?

@Adam514:

G1 is still less viable in BM than it was in vanilla, are we agreed on that? I fail to see how such a small change can suddenly make G1 unstoppable.

It takes time to start the Lend Lease, and UK had convoy problems of their own. That’s an explanation for the Lend Lease delay until round 3.

It’s a subtle difference between doing a G1 DOW in BM3 and OOB, no bid.

A G1 DOW was always difficult to stop. The changes make a G3 DOW less optimal.

Just started a game with the combat move first map, and noticed one minor issue - when you have the ability to build a CV for planes to land on but they wouldn’t otherwise be able to land, it won’t let you move them to combat, since you haven’t bought yet.

@Shin:

Just started a game with the combat move first map, and noticed one minor issue - when you have the ability to build a CV for planes to land on but they wouldn’t otherwise be able to land, it won’t let you move them to combat, since you haven’t bought yet.

Yep. That’s in the notes. It’s an edit mode fix - you can use the edit mode “Perform move actions”

There’s a couple of other problems too - you can’t repair a facility before combat movement and if you conquer a capital without a fight, you get the plunder before purchase.

I still think its better that way but not everyone thinks so.

@Mill:

New Lend-Lease restrictions cost USSR either 2 or 4 IPC they used to get first round after a G1 DOW.

Correct - but you pretty much always would have gotten 4IPC. Only way to block it was to move a sub or the BB to SZ125.

Round two on BM2 you are likely to get the Persia and Archangel lend lease lanes and the bonuses for a Japanese DOW on USSR. 8IPC.

4inf is the difference in BM3, most probably. In the game with Karl7, those 4 inf would have made the Moscow assault if Karl7 had stood and fought in Moscow a 68%, -34TUV attack. Dodgy!

@Karl7:

well, I am finding out right now…

In our first game I felt a lot of fear when you put a CV in the water off London UK1. I thought you were going to use it to stage fighters to Moscow but that didn’t happen. I think that is probably part of the optimal defence against a G1 DOW. You can get 2 planes on Moscow by G4 this way, and a couple more through the mid east.

Have not played bm 3. What is this accomplishing that Bm2 is not?

An extra objective for Japan and a bit more incentive for early DOWs for Germany.

So strengthens the Axis a bit.

SBR in BM vs OOB.

Expected value of an SBR = 2.58333 on an undamaged major IC. It’s 2.167 on a minor IC because of the possibility of lost damage.

A one bomber on one fighter air battle has an expected value of -2.333 in BM and -0.333 OOB. The lost SBR if the interceptor hits reduces the value to 1.72/1.44 in BM vs a major/minor IC. Reduces to around 2.15/1.8 OOB.

Conclusion:
In all cases, BM makes a one on one SBR a negative value proposition when it was a positive one OOB. A 3 bomber on 2 fighter proposition is still positive by at least 0.8IPCs total value in BM. Probably a bit over 1IPC if you ran all the numbers.

Japan can negate all 3 of ANZ objectives by taking the Solomon’s.  It’s an original territory, so if the Allies have Malaya and all other original ANZ territories, a single territory negates three NO’s

It used to be just the New Guinea one and the Malaya one.  Now that BM3 adds the Solomons to the weird island NO that was added (because the designers hated having islands without IPC value apparently) you have a ridiculous THREE NO’s that can be stepped on all at once by taking the Solomons.  First Cyprus/Crete , now the Solomons.  I still don’t understand, but I wasn’t asked

@Gamerman01:

Japan can negate all 3 of ANZ objectives by taking the Solomon’s.  It’s an original territory, so if the Allies have Malaya and all other original ANZ territories, a single territory negates three NO’s

It used to be just the New Guinea one and the Malaya one.  Now that BM3 adds the Solomons to the weird island NO that was added (because the designers hated having islands without IPC value apparently) you have a ridiculous THREE NO’s that can be stepped on all at once by taking the Solomons.  First Cyprus/Crete , now the Solomons.  I still don’t understand, but I wasn’t asked

I am 100% with Gamerman01 on this one. I have not played BM3 yet, but this design cannot be right, all anzac objectives on a single island?? maybe the developers can explain why this is a good idea?

OOB had two objectives (all) which could also be blocked by taking the Solomon Islands. So in BM3 vs OOB Solomon Island blocks 9IPCs vs 10IPCs. I don’t see it as a big deal.

It is weird that the solution for objectives giving allies the edge was even more and more complex objectives.

@Gamerman01:

Japan can negate all 3 of ANZ objectives by taking the Solomon’s.  It’s an original territory, so if the Allies have Malaya and all other original ANZ territories, a single territory negates three NO’s

It used to be just the New Guinea one and the Malaya one.  Now that BM3 adds the Solomons to the weird island NO that was added (because the designers hated having islands without IPC value apparently) you have a ridiculous THREE NO’s that can be stepped on all at once by taking the Solomons.  First Cyprus/Crete , now the Solomons.  I still don’t understand, but I wasn’t asked

We didn’t subscribe to the arbitrary rule of limiting NOs to one per territory.

Now that we got that out of the way, what is the modified NO’s negative effect on gameplay?

@simon33:

OOB had two objectives (all) which could also be blocked by taking the Solomon Islands. So in BM3 vs OOB Solomon Island blocks 9IPCs vs 10IPCs. I don’t see it as a big deal.

It is weird that the solution for objectives giving allies the edge was even more and more complex objectives.

Maybe I am a little fast on the trigger here, as you actually block both objectives by taking Solomon in the OOB too.

Yes, and I thought about mentioning that last night too
But now it’s three

And I don’t understand your question about “gameplay”, Adam.  I don’t know what you mean by gameplay.  But a lot of us, I’m sure, don’t like the idea of a power getting its income cut in half for losing one territory out in the ocean.

Why don’t you tell us why the 3 island NO in BM 2.0 wasn’t good enough, and needed the Solomons added to it?  How did that improve gameplay?  :wink:

@Gamerman01:

Yes, and I thought about mentioning that last night too
But now it’s three

And I don’t understand your question about “gameplay”, Adam.  I don’t know what you mean by gameplay.  But a lot of us, I’m sure, don’t like the idea of a power getting its income cut in half for losing one territory out in the ocean.

Why don’t you tell us why the 3 island NO in BM 2.0 wasn’t good enough, and needed the Solomons added to it?  How did that improve gameplay?  :wink:

By gameplay I mean interesting, fun, that sort of thing.

In vanilla it’s the same situation as in BM3 as far as Anzac losing half its income for one territory out in the ocean, did you ever see Solomons taken by Japan in vanilla?

You’re the one who is making a big deal of this, let’s hear your reasoning first.

Yes I saw the Solomons taken by Japan in vanilla, routinely

OK, thanks for the definition of gameplay.

Here’s my reasoning:

1. It won’t be fun for the Allied player to lose up to 9 IPC’s of income because of the Solomons
2. It’s bad historically because Australia wouldn’t lose half her production because the Japanese control Guadalcanal

And for the record, I don’t like the OOB NO of “all original territories”.  It would make more sense if it was mainland Australia instead (+ Malaya).

Now I ask again.  What was the problem with the 3 island NO, that it had to be tweaked for BM 3.0?

@Gamerman01:

Yes I saw the Solomons taken by Japan in vanilla, routinely

OK, thanks for the definition of gameplay.

Here’s my reasoning:

1. It won’t be fun for the Allied player to lose up to 9 IPC’s of income because of the Solomons
2. It’s bad historically because Australia wouldn’t lose half her production because the Japanese control Guadalcanal

And for the record, I don’t like the OOB NO of “all original territories”.  It would make more sense if it was mainland Australia instead (+ Malaya).

Now I ask again.  What was the problem with the 3 island NO, that it had to be tweaked for BM 3.0?

1. I don’t think you should be considering the 3 PUs for the Malaya NO, it would be rare for Solomons to be taken while Malaya is still Allied. So in most cases it would be up to 6 PUs which is reasonable.
2. Indeed the Solomons in Japanese hands would have nearly no effect on Australian production itself, but the Australian army was equipped for the most part by US convoys passing in that region, so the decrease in the effectiveness of the Australian training and troops can be simulated by a decrease in income in game terms.

Reasons why it was changed in BM3:

1. The islands in that region are still rarely fought over.
2. Someone had the opinion that Anzac made a bit too much (might have been you) which seems reasonable. Now Japan has a much better option than before to reduce Anzac’s income.
3. It bridges the gap between controlling all 4 territories (NG, DNG, Solomons and New Britain) and controlling none of them for Japan. By that I mean that Japan could now consider it worth it to only take some of these islands, while in BM2 it would be very hard to justify losing tps if Japan wasn’t getting its own +5 NO for all 4 territories.

If you play BM3, I doubt this modified NO will make you play any differently in the majority of cases when compared to BM2.

adam i think you should come out with a BM4 that gives +10 NO for greenland, as there’s not enough action there, and if for nothing else, it’d fuel this great island debate between you guys some more, which is fun and enteraining to read  :-P but then, i’m sure gamer even finds a way to make greenland an important strategic island that doesn’t require any extra incentives for the axis to conquer haha

just messin’ around with you all! happy monday!