Quick answer is that bids seem to keep going up with bids over 20 now common.
yes
just the dollar amount.
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
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). -
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).Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean.
Can you explain a bit more? -
@Baron:
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).Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean.
Can you explain a bit more?* 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).
* An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia. -
@Baron:
@Baron:
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).Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean.
Can you explain a bit more?* 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).
* An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.I’m referring to the additional 2-4PUs for Japan declaring war on USSR for having the sz125 and sz80 lend lease lanes open. Doesn’t make any real sense!
Or have you answered your own question?
-
You don’t like it because it is broken?
Or because you don’t like the rationalization behind?I can see that USA increase Lend-lease toward Russia because they have to fight a two fronts war.
I see no issue. Why do you have one? -
My favorite overall thing about the current version of Balanced Mod is that it speeds up the game. Both sides are heavily incentivized to take risks and conquer quickly, as opposed to hanging back and letting money pile up.
But the option of hanging back still exists, and can be a good one in certain circumstances.
My biggest issue with it is probably that it makes SBR generally a very bad idea without serious fighter escorts. SBR was only marginally useful before. But that’s historically accurate and all. It’s a small issue.
-
@Shin:
My favorite overall thing about the current version of Balanced Mod is that it speeds up the game. Both sides are heavily incentivized to take risks and conquer quickly, as opposed to hanging back and letting money pile up.
But the option of hanging back still exists, and can be a good one in certain circumstances.
My biggest issue with it is probably that it makes SBR generally a very bad idea without serious fighter escorts. SBR was only marginally useful before. But that’s historically accurate and all. It’s a small issue.
Do you prefer G40 SBR?
You seems to see SBR in a totally different way than Simon 33?
Do you know why?
@simon33: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). -
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!
:-D
-
I think the SBR rules are great, and were needed since Larry added a +2!!! to Strat bomber damage rolls
-
I think the SBR rules are great, and were needed since Larry added a +2!!! to Strat bomber damage rolls
Do you see why Shin Ji said what he say, then?
-
@Baron:
@Shin:
My favorite overall thing about the current version of Balanced Mod is that it speeds up the game.� Both sides are heavily incentivized to take risks and conquer quickly, as opposed to hanging back and letting money pile up.
But the option of hanging back still exists, and can be a good one in certain circumstances.
**My biggest issue with it is probably that it makes SBR generally a very bad idea without serious fighter escorts.� SBR was only marginally useful before.� But that’s historically accurate and all.**� It’s a small issue.
Do you prefer G40 SBR?
You seems to see SBR in a totally different way than Simon 33?
Do you know why?
@simon33: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).I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally. I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine. But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes. For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem. I never really understood why.
Suggested Topics
