Hey Adam, Kid, et al
I haven’t posted much in here since early days, but I do check out the final game saves to see what’s cooking with each iteration. I think it’s great that there are so many BM games played and this does make it much easier to see what kind of play patterns exist under the new BM conditions.
I’m not entirely sure why the ideas we’ve posted in HR section over the years would conflict in any way with this ongoing mod development. This mod represents a fully integrated set of HRs with the overarching goal of balance in that integration, whereas what we’ve been shooting for over a couple years now is a standardized set of more indeoendant HRs for v5 and Global, that includes more discrete/modular options, similar to what can be achieved on the table top.
The hope was that we could borrow some of the more successful BM material for inclusion, but in a more modular way via the tech add system that Barney has been working on. Along with other materials discussed in the past and more recently.
Many ideas discussed in the HR section are actually already in this mod. So it’s kind of hard to see where the argument against theory comes from. Many of those theories were applied to make this thing happen too, and proved or disproved then modded further based on actual gameplay. That’s glorious! Players really seem to like it! I fully applaud the project. But I mean, the foundation there didn’t materialize overnight in a vacuum. Lots of preliminary discussions ad nauseum were involved before BM hit the ground running.
I appreciate that there probably isn’t enough room in the game notes or credits to mention all the people who floated ideas at various points, to see were contributions originated. But it’s kind of a bummer if enthusiastic people get run off and dismissed out of hand, when some of the very ideas proposed a long time back, in theoretical threads, ended up in this very mod. I’ll admit my own enthusiasm comes and goes in waves, so a project of this scale is best left to players who crush on the regular.
Just seems unecessary to me to create factions where they needn’t exist. Or try to deter cross collaboration. I think you guys are doing a killer job.
Now that BM exists, I anticipate there will be less interest in alternative ways to tweak the OOB game. That’s cool too. But it is still a dream of mine to see tripleA become more like the table top, where play groups can choose to do explore different things on the fly. Which is the basic idea I was driving at.
Didn’t mean to dime in the feedback thread or distract from the matter at hand. Progress here seems to be going well. Keep rocking it!
Ps. Also that’s a great point about the NAP! Good looking out
Hey Black Elk! Welcome to-Casa De BM, friend. Pull up a chair!
Balance Mod actually had its origins in the TripleA gaming lobby, not the House Rules forum. Indeed, most “Mod Squad” members, as listed in the credits, had zero presence on A&A.org. Rather, we were a group of lobby regulars who, during the Spring and Summer of 2015, played literally hundreds of live games together. And from this experience developed a desire (and, eventually, a plan) to “fix” the game we loved.
If you aren’t familiar with the TripleA gaming lobby, its basically a bunch of chatrooms with live A&A games going on overhead. This was the perfect environment not only to bandy ideas around with fellow A&A nerds, but also to instantly see where the rubber meets the road with those ideas.
We tried ridiculous things–disappearing Russian factories, giving USA 100 infantry and super bombers, spawning Chinese units inside Japanese territory (well that last one wasn’t so ridiculous, I guess, heh). And, we discussed and tested more modest revisions as well. But critical to all these discussions was the “live game” environment. I can honestly say that in the first four months of the Mod’s development, there wasn’t a single discussion of its mechanics that did not happen in the context of a live game.
I did dip my toe gingerly into the waters of the redesign forum, at one point (mostly to advertise the completed first iteration of Balance Mod), but found the vortex of theory and statistics a bit too daunting.
@Shin:
Bombing India is a waste of time anyway. 90% of the game, they aren’t buying more than 2 or three units.
To give a longer answer to this, normally in BM India will still be making 9IPC/turn from around turn 5. West India, India, Burma, Indian Ocean NO.
That’s still 3inf/turn. SBR reduces this to only be able to be purchased about every 3rd turn rather than every turn.
Re-SBR. The BM rules are good because they model the reality that unescorted bombers got totally massacred in the daytime without a massive numerical superiority. They’re also good game play wise because it allows a reasonable defence against an SBR. OOB a 3 bomber on 4 interceptor raid is close enough to a wash. I don’t reckon we should remove the +2 damage and reduce the defence to a 1. That would take you back to interception being usually a miss from both sides.
I just upvoted Simon 3 times in 5 minutes?! What is happening here?!!
@Shin:
Bombing India is a waste of time anyway. 90% of the game, they aren’t buying more than 2 or three units.
To give a longer answer to this, normally in BM India will still be making 9IPC/turn from around turn 5. West India, India, Burma, Indian Ocean NO.
That’s still 3inf/turn. SBR reduces this to only be able to be purchased about every 3rd turn rather than every turn.
It takes 2 runs with 2 bombers to accomplish this. And in the end, it will cause India to be able to buy one less Inf, total.
Example. Let’s say you start bombing round 2. Unlikely, since there’s prob a fighter there, but anyway. You do 11 damage. India is making about 22 at this point, so they actually don’t notice.
Round 3, India is now at full damage. They are making about 10. So they fix 2 points of damage and buy 2 Inf. Instead of three. Wow? You could bomb them again, but why bother? Not worth risking the AA guns.
And it pretty much stays that way until India gets conquered, unless things go really badly for Japan. So tell me again, why would anyone bother? There are so many handy things to do with bombers!
That isn’t right.
Let’s assume round 2 works out as you suggest. Without SBR you can buy 7 inf with your 22IPC. With SBR you need to spend 6IPC on repairs and use 15IPC to buy 5 inf, with 1IPC change in both cases.
If the factory gets fully damaged, you need to spend at least 14IPC to buy the first infantry.
You seem to be ignoring that the factory can be damaged by 20IPC and can’t build anything with 10IPC of damage.
Right on regularkid.
:-D
I am familiar with the Lobby. I was among the first people to sign up and use it, and even remember the time in tripleA when it was still being created and didn’t yet exist. I tested some of its earliest features, and my handle there is still the same old triplelk. I know the drill for live testing, so not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic or playfully patronizing (like “get your ass to the lobby, you’ve been absent from the lab for too long!” haha) but my involvement with tripleA surely goes back much further than my involvement with A&Aorg or the Harris boards. I have also taken long breaks though, and don’t have nearly the same time these days for live play online, ever since I got hitched up with the lady right around that time, which is why you may not remember me.
:-)
I do remember meeting many motivated people over the years that way, and some of you I recognize from back in the day. I totally understand the live play approach, and completely agree it is by far the best way to test games. What you guys are doing is exactly the way to go for this kind of project.
Whether some of those fixes found there way into BM by osmosis or multiple discovery, I couldn’t say, since I wasn’t there to know. But it seems to me that some of these ideas were not spontaneous innovations, and some go back well before the spring of 2015. The Russian NOs for example, or the concept of a warship with a transport capacity, or the one time looting for capital capture rules, NOs to activate worthless Pacific Islands etc. Theoretical ideas discussed here and on the Larry boards at length a while ago, with a lot of debate. I’m sure you guys probably think I’m all eidos and no praxis, or lack sufficient recent pbf play to seriously entertain some of my ideas about Global. But I’m not totally green here either. So I guess it’s just slightly demoralizing sometimes when I see people who have contributed cool ideas and playing A&A casually for ages get dismissed outright, just because they aren’t racking up league games in tripleA.
I admit, part of the reason I didn’t hop on board with BM initially is because I didn’t find Vichy all that captivating, and also wasn’t convinced about the C5 marines. It seemed like those were meant to be really central to the mod. But it seems like they have been well received so maybe I was wrong. I certainly find the NOs here a vast improvement.
I’m glad the project is going so well!
Somehow I sense there isn’t much room for rambling experimental digressions here though, and I don’t want to distract from steady progress towards mod balance by injecting ideas from left field. As far as a redesign team goes, you know it’s basically just Barney at this point. Collecting ideas and dropping them into the file.
The reason why we curious about what you lIke best from balance mod, is because it would be nice to include some of this stuff in the general package for modular use.
Vichy rules for example, or NOs, or C5 Marines, SBR mechanics or any independent concept used in this mod which can function as a stand alone HR. I think Baron just came here to ask, because this is where you guys are hanging out. But I know this isn’t a general discussion the thread. Its a league thread. Just that wasnt anywhere else to go really for an active thread.
Appologies again if it was an intrusion.
Keep on rocking it! And all the best
thanks
this means that marines can’t be loaded to warships if you want the warship to conduct only a naval battle (no amphibious assult)? However, if the warship was loaded in NCM in an earlier round the loaded warship can participate in naval battles without unloading the marine?
Exactly.
Is it possible to load a Cruiser or a BB, fight a Naval Battle (ex.: one DD blocker) around an empty enemy’s island, for example, then unload Marines unit to conquer the island?
Of course, nor Cruiser nor Battleship can make a coastal bombardment, nor need to in my example.
Yes, they work just like transports in this way
@Baron:
thanks
this means that marines can’t be loaded to warships if you want the warship to conduct only a naval battle (no amphibious assult)? However, if the warship was loaded in NCM in an earlier round the loaded warship can participate in naval battles without unloading the marine?
Exactly.
Is it possible to load a Cruiser or a BB, fight a Naval Battle (ex.: one DD blocker) around an empty enemy’s island, for example, then unload Marines unit to conquer the island?
Of course, nor Cruiser nor Battleship can make a coastal bombardment, nor need to in my example.
Yes, they work just like transports in this way
So, you can still load 1 Marines on a Battleship or Cruiser and makes a Naval Combat.
Next turn, you can unloaded it somewhere, right?
Yeah you need to watch out for it. I think China gets convoyed in all BM versions, while not in vanilla.
What is vanilla version?
Another name for G40 OOB?
1) I want to reverse the Novgorod bonus to be a bonus for the USSR holding it rather than a bonus for Germany. Ties in with the KV-1 Tank factory there the way I see it.
2) USSR lend lease routes - do the Persian and Siberian routes have historic precedent? Particularly the former one through those mountainous regions. The latter one I guess had the Trans Siberian railway. Perhaps some stuff went that way.
3) West Indian ocean free of Axis subs - this is a bit too much of a gift for the Calcutta economy IMHO.
4) East Pacific Islands ANZAC NO: I think it is too easy to holdYou’re aware of my leaning that Marines are overpowered - although they are arguably expensive. At least disallowing bombardment support from a marine. Only inf/art/mec/tanks should count IMO.
Those are probably my main thoughts. I might have a bit more if I think of it.
Simon33,
do you still believe what you said about #1 NO on Novgorod?
and why do you think that Marines are overpowered (even at 5 IPCs)?
Thanks,
@Baron:
Yeah you need to watch out for it. I think China gets convoyed in all BM versions, while not in vanilla.
What is vanilla version?
Another name for G40 OOB?
Vanilla is the original version of something.
Do you use “vanilla” when talking about G40 OOB or do you keep this expression for the first iteration of BMode?
@Baron:
Do you use “vanilla” when talking about G40 OOB or do you keep this expression for the first iteration of BMode?
Vanilla is OOB.
Thanks Adam.
@Baron:
1) I want to reverse the Novgorod bonus to be a bonus for the USSR holding it rather than a bonus for Germany. Ties in with the KV-1 Tank factory there the way I see it.
2) USSR lend lease routes - do the Persian and Siberian routes have historic precedent? Particularly the former one through those mountainous regions. The latter one I guess had the Trans Siberian railway. Perhaps some stuff went that way.
3) West Indian ocean free of Axis subs - this is a bit too much of a gift for the Calcutta economy IMHO.
4) East Pacific Islands ANZAC NO: I think it is too easy to holdYou’re aware of my leaning that Marines are overpowered - although they are arguably expensive. At least disallowing bombardment support from a marine. Only inf/art/mec/tanks should count IMO.
Those are probably my main thoughts. I might have a bit more if I think of it.
Simon33,
do you still believe what you said about #1 NO on Novgorod?
and why do you think that Marines are overpowered (even at 5 IPCs)?
Thanks,
It’s mainly the bombardment shot that I think is over the top. Put a marine on a BB and attack a fighter on Guam and you’ll easily kill it, more often than not.
Yes, I still think that reversing the Novgorod objective would be a neat improvement to the game and game balance. Come to think of it, what’s the Stalingrad objective for? Was a not that significant city of about half a million where the Germans just happened to be stopped.
They’ve given an NO to Germany for doing the main things that they weren’t able to do in the actual war.
Thanks for your answer Simon.
Stalingrad not a significant city where the Germans “happened to be stopped”?
You need to read up on your history. Ever heard of “not one step back”?
Never heard that Hitler was obsessed with Stalingrad because of its name?
Not to mention I’m sure the location was very strategic - gateway to the oil fields or something. And then there were the massive “tractorworks”
The Germans were within spitting distance of Moscow and decided to turn and go towards Stalingrad, that’s how significant Stalingrad is. This game is a big letdown when the Germans walk into an empty Stalingrad…… Not to mention no battle at Pearl Harbor or Midway, etc etc etc :-)
And Guam wasn’t the best example, because it has an airbase that gives that fighter a scramble option
I might scramble against that battleship, possibly sink it, and probably wound it, then finish it off in the following turn
Besides, I don’t like the logic. You could say infantry are overpowered because 1 infantry has a 50/50 shot against a bomber
Now I’m back to disagreeing with Simon, so I guess all is back to normal :-D
3 upvotes in a half hour - scary :wink:
