G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

So there are very different situations -

Imagine attacking Iraq with the UK early in the game with a BB and cruiser.  If those both hit, 2 of the 3 infantry would be eliminated and not be able to fight.  What, your battleships in WWII can fire from the Persian gulf all the way inland to Baghdad and annihilate 2/3 of the army?

Or you have a situation where you’re suiciding 1 ground unit into a big stack, with battleship support.  In this case it doesn’t matter if the bombardment casualties can fire back or not, because there is a virtually 0% chance that the attacker will fire twice.

With scrambles, kamikazes, combat in zones (to clear a transport, sub, or destroyer, or whatever), there isn’t much bombardment in the game anyway, so changing the rule wouldn’t make much difference, but could give you extreme situations which may be undesirable, like the Iraq example

Good points.  I’m not lobbying for a rule change.  I’ve learned to live with the bitter taste in my mouth.  Could have an effect in the pacific with all the island grabs that take place.  I’ve seen some bad beats on island takes that a killing bombardment could’ve prevented, but its probably a moot point since my bombards never hit anyway.

Yeah it’s a lot better to have a plane or a tank present that gets to fire on a 3 or a 4 round after round

If you have a marine already loaded on a battleship, the battleship fights then can the marine get off the battleship in NCM? I would guess not. I hate some of these rules.

No, it can’t because battleships and cruisers act like transports (as it relates to marines)

A transport can’t be involved in combat and then unload in NCM, so a battleship can’t either

Look at axisandalliesgeneral suggestion in this thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39990.0

He says Germany should start with a minor in Berlin.

I guess we all agree with the policy of not messing with the original set up. HOWEVER, I think this is the best balancing suggestion I have seen in decades. Germany can still do/fake sea lion, or they can enhance the complex G1 with all the drawbacks that entiltes.

It is a simple fix, but not a bad fix

comments?

@oysteilo:

Look at axisandalliesgeneral suggestion in this thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39990.0

He says Germany should start with a minor in Berlin.

I guess we all agree with the policy of not messing with the original set up. HOWEVER, I think this is the best balancing suggestion I have seen in decades. Germany can still do/fake sea lion, or they can enhance the complex G1 with all the drawbacks that entiltes.

It is a simple fix, but not a bad fix

comments?

It’s not new, I think it was actually like that in the first version of the game.

I don’t see how it’s an improvement, and BM doesn’t require this anyway. Not to mention putting a factory in Romania will become standard.

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

Look at axisandalliesgeneral suggestion in this thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39990.0

He says Germany should start with a minor in Berlin.

I guess we all agree with the policy of not messing with the original set up. HOWEVER, I think this is the best balancing suggestion I have seen in decades. Germany can still do/fake sea lion, or they can enhance the complex G1 with all the drawbacks that entiltes.

It is a simple fix, but not a bad fix

comments?

It’s not new, I think it was actually like that in the first version of the game.

I don’t see how it’s an improvement, and BM doesn’t require this anyway. Not to mention putting a factory in Romania will become standard.

OK. I guess you are right about a minor in Berlin for the first edition. I have never played that version and I am not sure what the drawbacks are and why it was changed.

However, I guess a minor in Berlin will encourage a minor in Romania. I am not sure why that is bad? Isnt the point to equalize the axis advantage?

@oysteilo:

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

Look at axisandalliesgeneral suggestion in this thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39990.0

He says Germany should start with a minor in Berlin.

I guess we all agree with the policy of not messing with the original set up. HOWEVER, I think this is the best balancing suggestion I have seen in decades. Germany can still do/fake sea lion, or they can enhance the complex G1 with all the drawbacks that entiltes.

It is a simple fix, but not a bad fix

comments?

It’s not new, I think it was actually like that in the first version of the game.

I don’t see how it’s an improvement, and BM doesn’t require this anyway. Not to mention putting a factory in Romania will become standard.

OK. I guess you are right about a minor in Berlin for the first edition. I have never played that version and I am not sure what the drawbacks are and why it was changed.

However, I guess a minor in Berlin will encourage a minor in Romania. I am not sure why that is bad? Isnt the point to equalize the axis advantage?

Allies won most of the time in first edition, so they gave Berlin a major (among other changes).

I don’t have a problem with the factory in Romania, I have a problem with the ‘‘standard’’ part of it. I don’t think players will ever opt to upgrade the Berlin factory instead of buying a Romania factory.

Anyway why could BM profit from such a change? Apparently people think Allies have the edge.

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

Look at axisandalliesgeneral suggestion in this thread

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39990.0

He says Germany should start with a minor in Berlin.

I guess we all agree with the policy of not messing with the original set up. HOWEVER, I think this is the best balancing suggestion I have seen in decades. Germany can still do/fake sea lion, or they can enhance the complex G1 with all the drawbacks that entiltes.

It is a simple fix, but not a bad fix

comments?

It’s not new, I think it was actually like that in the first version of the game.

I don’t see how it’s an improvement, and BM doesn’t require this anyway. Not to mention putting a factory in Romania will become standard.

OK. I guess you are right about a minor in Berlin for the first edition. I have never played that version and I am not sure what the drawbacks are and why it was changed.

However, I guess a minor in Berlin will encourage a minor in Romania. I am not sure why that is bad? Isnt the point to equalize the axis advantage?

Allies won most of the time in first edition, so they gave Berlin a major (among other changes).

I don’t have a problem with the factory in Romania, I have a problem with the ‘‘standard’’ part of it. I don’t think players will ever opt to upgrade the Berlin factory instead of buying a Romania factory.

Anyway why could BM profit from such a change? Apparently people think Allies have the edge.

OK if the main reason for the second edition was balancing, maybe it is time to investigate the first edition again? I think BM was created to equalize the axis economic advatage? Why is first edition a bad choice if the allies won most of the time?

I am not sure if I understand the ““standard” part” of this and the “BM profit” reply in this context

You think BM is not balanced at the moment? I don’t understand what you are suggesting with the Berlin minor idea.

@Adam514:

You think BM is not balanced at the moment? I don’t understand what you are suggesting with the Berlin minor idea.

BM is pretty balanced.

I don’t like the Russia objectives and I don’t like the med island objectives and I don’t like marines. For marines, seems like no one buys it anymore.

Your argument for BM is to balance second edition, right?

You say second edition was to equalize the allies advantage in first edition, right?

Why is first edition/minor in Berlin a bad deal to “neutralize” axis? compared to BM mode? Especially since the axis economic advatage game play was developed after the second edition was released?

Again, I have never played 1st edition so I might be shooting off target here. Just curious

My opponents and myself have been buying lots of marines, I would have said they are being bought more than initially. I still don’t understand why you don’t like the Russian objectives.

I never played first edition either.

Berlin minor in 2nd edition would not be enough to balance the game, and I expect it would make G1 buys all have a Romanian factory in it. Even if it would balance the game, why not make changes that improve the game at the same time? I don’t think a minor in Berlin would add interesting options.

lets just rest this case Adam. I have said many times I think you did a great job with BM.  I have also stated it before why I don’t like the Russia objectives. To me they are boring I am currently looking at the set up for first edition and it would be good to get experienced players view on why the first edition is broken, especially in view of the “new” axis strategies. At first glance axis start with a TUV difference of about 20 more in 1 ed compared to 2nd edition. Also no factory in southern france, less french units and a more spread out UK fleet in europe.

@oysteilo:

lets just rest this case Adam. I have said many times I think you did a great job with BM.  I have also stated it before why I don’t like the Russia objectives. To me they are boring I am currently looking at the set up for first edition and it would be good to get experienced players view on why the first edition is broken, especially in view of the “new” axis strategies. At first glance axis start with a TUV difference of about 20 more in 1 ed compared to 2nd edition. Also no factory in southern france, less french units and a more spread out UK fleet in europe.

also, the british can can open for america

The only Russian objectives I don’t really like are the Japanese DOW bonus on the Persian and Northern lend lease lanes.

I don’t like the USA objectives for NW Africa and the Carolines area.

I really don’t like the Chinese guerilla fighters! Surprised you didn’t mention that.

@oysteilo:

lets just rest this case Adam. I have said many times I think you did a great job with BM.� I have also stated it before why I don’t like the Russia objectives. To me they are boring I am currently looking at the set up for first edition and it would be good to get experienced players view on why the first edition is broken, especially in view of the “new” axis strategies. At first glance axis start with a TUV difference of about 20 more in 1 ed compared to 2nd edition. Also no factory in southern france, less french units and a more spread out UK fleet in europe.

Do you agree that the Russian BM NOs are better than the vanilla ones? Because I haven’t heard of a good additional/replacement NO for Russia that isn’t already in BM.

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

lets just rest this case Adam. I have said many times I think you did a great job with BM.� I have also stated it before why I don’t like the Russia objectives. To me they are boring I am currently looking at the set up for first edition and it would be good to get experienced players view on why the first edition is broken, especially in view of the “new” axis strategies. At first glance axis start with a TUV difference of about 20 more in 1 ed compared to 2nd edition. Also no factory in southern france, less french units and a more spread out UK fleet in europe.

Do you agree that the Russian BM NOs are better than the vanilla ones? Because I haven’t heard of a good additional/replacement NO for Russia that isn’t already in BM.

Russians camping around in africa is not so good. Removing ethiopia, somaliland, tobruk and libya is OK. (However, fighting these are fun). At a minimum Iraq should be kept. Additinally in the europe version Russia gets a bonus for Novosibirsk. I think that is a better solution than lend lease as it forces Russia to do this work as well as it gives Russia the needed early bonus

I guess my main question now is why BM is better than 1st edition