G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@Shin:

To my mind, anything that increases the ways that one can effectively win the game is a good thing.  Balanced mod has done this.  This was a major failing of the original game, where crush Moscow from both sides was the only winning strategy.  Might as well let the game be played by bots at that point.

Now, how Japan can win the war in BMode?
No more Japan Center Crush on Moscow?

@Shin:

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.

Yeah, see he said in the first place it was minor to him.

I agree with his assessment here, about the +2 damage and fighters defending at 1

That’s the same thing I’m saying, really, that when Larry changed strats to a whopping +2 damage, no change was made to interceptors/escorts.  BM made the appropriate change and I think SBR is good in BM

@Gamerman01:

@Shin:

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.

Yeah, see he said in the first place it was minor to him.

I agree with his assessment here, about the +2 damage and fighters defending at 1

That’s the same thing I’m saying, really, that when Larry changed strats to a whopping +2 damage, no change was made to interceptors/escorts.  BM made the appropriate change and I think SBR is good in BM

Triple A on 1942.2 is actually doing SBR like this StB A1 D6 damage Fg A1 D1
So both are good.

It doesn’t bother you that maxing out IC already reduced the effectiveness of StBs and Fg D2 deters bombers?

@Baron:

It doesn’t bother you that maxing out IC already reduced the effectiveness of StBs and Fg D2 deters bombers?

No
A big factor to me, is that with +2 damage the Strats are guaranteed to disable an airbase or naval base (if AA misses of course)  So the defender needs interceptors with defense of 2 I think, with +2 damage strats

So yeah, like you said, if bombers don’t have +2, then interceptors defending on a 1 is OK

With a facility that has a damage cap of 6, your average Strat bomber damage is 5 instead of 5.5
5/6 of 5, to factor in AA, lowers the average to 4 1/6.  1/6 of 12 is only 2

Maybe it’s my experience with all A&A games since the original when bombers cost 15, but I think bombers are definitely over-powered with +2 SBR damage and only costing 12 (and getting airbase boosts to range to boot) if fighter interceptors only defend on a 1.  So I am happy with the boost of fighter interceptors to 2 when you have Strategic bombers getting +2 damage

It occurs to me that if Tacs had more to do, that could solve the problem too.  Just let Tacs do everything fighters do (escort and defend against SBR), plus the +1 damage when paired with a fighter.  Might make them worth the 11.

@Gamerman01:

With a facility that has a damage cap of 6, your average Strat bomber damage is 5 instead of 5.5
5/6 of 5, to factor in AA, lowers the average to 4 1/6. 1/6 of 12 is only 2

Maybe it’s my experience with all A&A games since the original when bombers cost 15, but I think bombers are definitely over-powered with +2 SBR damage and only costing 12 (and getting airbase boosts to range to boot) if fighter interceptors only defend on a 1. So I am happy with the boost of fighter interceptors to 2 when you have Strategic bombers getting +2 damage

For me, increasing Fg to A2 D2 was a step in good direction.
But, since I like bombers get incentive to do SBR instead of regular combat, I rather prefer to keep D6+2.
Otherwise, it becomes so weak (damage vs odds of losing) that it is a non-nense to waste 12 IPCs bombers in SBR. Better keep them for regular combat support or projection of power over Naval units.

@Shin:

It occurs to me that if Tacs had more to do, that could solve the problem too.  Just let Tacs do everything fighters do (escort and defend against SBR), plus the +1 damage when paired with a fighter.  Might make them worth the 11.

To add water to the mill, many were used by Germany as Night-fighter interceptors.

@Baron:

@Gamerman01:

With a facility that has a damage cap of 6, your average Strat bomber damage is 5 instead of 5.5
5/6 of 5, to factor in AA, lowers the average to 4 1/6. 1/6 of 12 is only 2

Maybe it’s my experience with all A&A games since the original when bombers cost 15, but I think bombers are definitely over-powered with +2 SBR damage and only costing 12 (and getting airbase boosts to range to boot) if fighter interceptors only defend on a 1. So I am happy with the boost of fighter interceptors to 2 when you have Strategic bombers getting +2 damage

For me, increasing Fg to A2 D2 was a step in good direction.
But, since I like bombers get incentive to do SBR instead of regular combat, I rather prefer to keep D6+2.
Otherwise, it becomes so weak (damage vs odds of losing) that it is a non-nense to waste 12 IPCs bombers in SBR. Better keep them for regular combat support or projection of power over Naval units.

Well, yea.  I don’t think anyone is suggesting keeping fighters at 2 AND removing the +2 damage from Bombers.  It’s more like a one or the other thing.  Really, tho, it all comes out in the wash.  Right now, unless there’s something that hasn’t become apparent, BM 3.2 seems about as close to a perfect ruleset as one could really ask for, given their starting restrictions, which included not changing the cost of units and such.

Cruiser were boosted in a gamey way, not very historical but it is still a working compromise with Marines at cost 5.
Probably a more active and purchase unit now.

@Baron:

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?

I don’t like the USSR-Japan interactions because they provide too much incentive for peace and I don’t consider that they make logical sense.

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 was just asking in another form (provocative commentary this time instead of an open question) some kind of feedback about what appears to be good or bad.
If someone have a different view, it will add more water to Balance Mode mill. Don’t you think?

I’m really curious about what work and what doesn’t. And still on the topic of Balanced Mode.

@Baron:

I’m really curious about what work and what doesn’t. And still on the topic of Balanced Mode.

You need to get your Hands dirty in order to wash them with the right soap :wink:
I recommend you to take the offer regularkid gave you and Play against him a BM game.

@aequitas:

@Baron:

I’m really curious about what work and what doesn’t. And still on the topic of Balanced Mode.

You need to get your Hands dirty in order to wash them with the right soap :wink:
I recommend you to take the offer regularkid gave you and Play against him a BM game.

I would like to have such time on my hand to play a G40.
I would be seriously beaten up for sure but it is really about useful analysis I’m actually looking for.
And I’m pretty sure between obvious aspects and aberrations there is way for experienced players to share their opinions and feedbacks.
I was just pointing some possible BMode topics to comment.

@Baron:

@aequitas:

@Baron:

I’m really curious about what work and what doesn’t. And still on the topic of Balanced Mode.

You need to get your Hands dirty in order to wash them with the right soap :wink:
I recommend you to take the offer regularkid gave you and Play against him a BM game.

I would like to have such time on my hand to play a G40.
I would be seriously beaten up for sure but it is really about useful analysis I’m actually looking for.
And I’m pretty sure between obvious aspects and aberrations there is way for experienced players to share their opinions and feedbacks.
I was just pointing some possible BMode topics to comment.

I think you and the Redesign team are going about it in the wrong way. First of all, the chances of landing in the range of reasonable game balance with everything you are planning on changing with no playtesting whatsoever is extremely low. There may be no theoretical limit to theorizing about changes and their effect on balance, but in practice and with so many changes you would save a huge amount of time by playtesting them as you go along, or you’ll be left with an unbalanced game at the end of your redesign, and balancing that will take more effort than putting the whole thing together.

Second of all, you do not seem to have very experienced players as part of your Redesign team. I’ve skimmed through the thread and most of you are worried about outdated Axis tactics, saying for example that the Central Crush is the best/only way to go as Axis to win the game, and hence your efforts are concentrated on making other strategies more viable. While the Central Crush theory might have been the norm a few years ago, it isn’t at all anymore and the Axis have much better strategies than that. That’s why you need a few people in the Redesign team with at least 100 games completed, and who are knowledgeable about the current meta and what works and doesn’t work.

Lastly, there will inevitably be problems you haven’t foreseen and inconsistencies, and these issues are identified and corrected with playtesting. Something might sound good in theory, but applying it is another story. For example, you have an income penalty for whoever declares first between Russia and Japan, but this is easily taken advantage of by simply declaring war when you are about to lose your capital in order to reduce the plunder, which is gamey.

Good luck to the Redesign team, but at the very least don’t try to change 2 different maps with the same concepts. Focus on 1 map at a time.

@Shin:

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.

I’m in the camp of seeing it as a major problem. Case in point, Calcutta. OOB, if the UK doesn’t buy an extra fighter, Japan will probably bomb it into submission from J2. I don’t think they should have to. The two starting fighters should be enough to defend against two unescorted bombers.

Moscow is similar but there you might send 3 bombers + 3 escorts against 6+ interceptors OOB which is a bit unreasonable to my way of thinking.

Bombing India is a waste of time anyway.  90% of the game, they aren’t buying more than 2 or three units.

What?!

@Adam514:

@Baron:

@aequitas:

@Baron:

I’m really curious about what work and what doesn’t. And still on the topic of Balanced Mode.

You need to get your Hands dirty in order to wash them with the right soap :wink:
I recommend you to take the offer regularkid gave you and Play against him a BM game.

I would like to have such time on my hand to play a G40.
I would be seriously beaten up for sure but it is really about useful analysis I’m actually looking for.
And I’m pretty sure between obvious aspects and aberrations there is way for experienced players to share their opinions and feedbacks.
I was just pointing some possible BMode topics to comment.

I think you and the Redesign team are going about it in the wrong way. First of all, the chances of landing in the range of reasonable game balance with everything you are planning on changing with no playtesting whatsoever is extremely low. There may be no theoretical limit to theorizing about changes and their effect on balance, but in practice and with so many changes you would save a huge amount of time by playtesting them as you go along, or you’ll be left with an unbalanced game at the end of your redesign, and balancing that will take more effort than putting the whole thing together.

Second of all, you do not seem to have very experienced players as part of your Redesign team. I’ve skimmed through the thread and most of you are worried about outdated Axis tactics, saying for example that the Central Crush is the best/only way to go as Axis to win the game, and hence your efforts are concentrated on making other strategies more viable. While the Central Crush theory might have been the norm a few years ago, it isn’t at all anymore and the Axis have much better strategies than that. That’s why you need a few people in the Redesign team with at least 100 games completed, and who are knowledgeable about the current meta and what works and doesn’t work.

Lastly, there will inevitably be problems you haven’t foreseen and inconsistencies, and these issues are identified and corrected with playtesting. Something might sound good in theory, but applying it is another story. For example, you have an income penalty for whoever declares first between Russia and Japan, but this is easily taken advantage of by simply declaring war when you are about to lose your capital in order to reduce the plunder, which is gamey.

Good luck to the Redesign team, but at the very least don’t try to change 2 different maps with the same concepts. Focus on 1 map at a time.

Thanks for your last point, I reposted your post in Redesign Thread so it will taken into account.

Actually, the team knew there was a short-coming on play-tests and balanced issues.
It was easier to create and provide a general frame-work than trying small turtle step (it was a redesigned aim first) and leave for later all modifications and improvements with due playtesting. It is like a rough, very raw, diamond. We knew it will need a lot of carving and polishing.
And we will need voluntaries, for sure.
(I hope there will be people to try it when ready, and comment…)

Of course, if an hundred games experienced player had pointed out to say hello, it would have been most welcome.
It is an open project, all advises are welcome too.

Somehow, in a few comments from players about Balance Mode, I already found a lot of good points to consider.
So, it is not negligible.

Coming back to the main topic:

So, Center Crush is no more an issue because on G40 it was the other Theater which was able to get his winning conditions before Allies grew stronger to repel it away from VCs while capturing the other Axis capital, right?

Was it the new intent about 3.0 Victory conditions?

Revised Victory Conditions: If Germany is Allied control, an Axis victory in the Pacific requires 7 (rather than 6) Pacific VCs. If Japan is Allied control, an Axis victory in Europe requires 9 (rather than 8 ) Europe VCs.