Here’s the Armies vs Navies idea I came up with!
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
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. -
@Mill:
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?
Mill Creek, there is one another small change.
Solomon Islands must be Allied for ANZAC to get either of its two island objectives. So. . .
1. Solomon Islands, Gilbert, Samoa, Fiji = 3 PUS
2. Solomon Islands, New Britain, Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea = 3 PUS
Thus, Japan can negate both objectives by taking and holding Solomon
-
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
-
Japan can negate all 3 of ANZ objectives by taking the Solomon’s. Â 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.
-
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?
-
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 threeAnd 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:
-
Yes, and I thought about mentioning that last night too
But now it’s threeAnd 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:
- It won’t be fun for the Allied player to lose up to 9 IPC’s of income because of the Solomons
- 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?
-
Yes I saw the Solomons taken by Japan in vanilla, routinely
OK, thanks for the definition of gameplay.
Here’s my reasoning:
- It won’t be fun for the Allied player to lose up to 9 IPC’s of income because of the Solomons
- 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?
- 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.
- 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:
- The islands in that region are still rarely fought over.
- 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.
- 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!
-
Just out of curiosity, since you are discussing about Solomon Islands.
What do you think of such ANZAC NOs:ANZAC
+3 for each Allied controlled territory, if at War with Japan: Solomons, New Guinea, New Britain, Malaya. -
addressing the controversy broadly, making the Solomon Islands the lynch pin for ANZAC’s island NOs wasn’t even a close call; from both a gameplay perspective and (for me, equally important) a historic perspective, it was obviously the right thing to do.
If there is any doubt as to the huge strategic importance of the Solomon Islands, you have only to read the first couple paragraphs of this instructive article on the Solomon Islands Campaign, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands_campaign, quoted below:
"_The Solomon Islands campaign was a major campaign of the Pacific War of World War II. The campaign began with Japanese landings and occupation of several areas in the British Solomon Islands and Bougainville, in the Territory of New Guinea, during the first six months of 1942. The Japanese occupied these locations and began the construction of several naval and air bases with the goals of protecting the flank of the Japanese offensive in New Guinea, establishing a security barrier for the major Japanese base at Rabaul on New Britain, and providing bases for interdicting supply lines between the Allied powers of the United States and Australia and New Zealand.
"The Allies, to defend their communication and supply lines in the South Pacific, supported a counteroffensive in New Guinea, isolated the Japanese base at Rabaul, and counterattacked the Japanese in the Solomons with landings on Guadalcanal (see Guadalcanal Campaign) and small neighboring islands on 7 August 1942. These landings initiated a series of combined-arms battles between the two adversaries, beginning with the Guadalcanal landing and continuing with several battles in the central and northern Solomons, on and around New Georgia Island, and Bougainville Island.
“In a campaign of attrition fought on land, on sea, and in the air, the Allies wore the Japanese down, inflicting irreplaceable losses on Japanese military assets. The Allies retook some of the Solomon Islands (although resistance continued until the end of the war), and they also isolated and neutralized some Japanese positions, which were then bypassed. The Solomon Islands campaign then converged with the New Guinea campaign._”
Given the above, _not i_ncluding the Solomon Islands in an NO entitled “Supply Lines” (i.e., Fiji, Samoa, and Gilbert), would make little thematic sense. As others have noted, taking the island in BM 3.2 negates just 6 PUs of ANZAC’s income as opposed to 5 PUs in the OOB game. . . this is hardly a huge change. Really, the only thing that makes Solomon Islands unique in BM 3.0 is that it is the only island that can negate all 6 PUs at once. And that seems appropriate.
Finally, I don’t think it is accurate to say that Solomon Islands was “routinely” taken by Japan in OOB games. That certainly hasn’t been my experience.
Baron Munchenson, in response to your proposal, thats not really the direction we are going with the NOs.
-
Thanks for answering my post.
It was not meant to change your own direction.
The historical background infos gives more depth about Supply lines.Why did you make groups of Islands instead of giving each an individual value?
Australia is like radically starving for a single island taken.
You noted OOB it was like 5 IPCs, now it is 6 IPCs. -
A couple reasons: For starters, some islands are worth more than others, it would be too simplistic to make every island worth 1. Also, NOs that give a bulk sum for a collection of islands are more likely to promote island-trading than 1 PU each.
-
I will start stacking solomon from now on. At least 4 infantry there is needed. I don’t want my money cut in half! That surely enhances gameplay? This is the kind of behaviour we might see, especially if USA goes heavy Atlantic first.
It is much easier to defend than re-take, that is also something that needs to be considered. Two japanese inf on solomon is bad news. It is sooooooooo easily done from philippines
-
I will start stacking solomon from now on. At least 4 infantry there is needed. I don’t want my money cut in half! That surely enhances gameplay? This is the kind of behaviour we might see, especially if USA goes heavy Atlantic first.
It is much easier to defend than re-take, that is also something that needs to be considered. Two japanese inf on solomon is bad news. It is sooooooooo easily done from philippines
Should be interesting!
-
What is the best and the worst point of Balanced Mode in its up to date version?
-
Best point: SBR rules.
Worst point: Persian and Arctic Lend Lease getting a bonus based on a Japanese DOW on USSR (but not the other way around).
Suggested Topics
