G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

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

If 1st edition is similar to 2nd edition (which I assume it is), then BM is still much better. Like I’ve said before, the balancing part of BM isn’t even the main objective of BM. The main point was to make the game more interesting by adding options to pursue.

The official versions of the game had pretty severe limitations in terms of the number of NOs and their complexity since it had to be simple enough to keep gameplay as streamlined as possible, while online TripleA keeps track of everything for you.

One final comment/question

I think you have written something about this in the past, but I don’t find it. So you say that the main objective of BM is to create a better game, maybe especially suited for online play. Exactly what are these options that you can pursue in BM that you cannot pursue in 1st edition or 2nd edition? I guess this goes for both sides. If you know where it is written, a link is OK.

I have no idea if what I write here is correct. However, assuming that 1st edition is more balanced than 2nd edition, maybe it is not I don’t know. But you still say BM is better even though you have never played it! You say it is better because there are more options in BM. I am then returning to my point above here, please explain what these options are. I am sorry if I am slow and annoying here  (And btw, if balancing is not the main point, maybe Balance Mode is a rather misleading name?)

Yeah I don’t understand the conclusions about 1st edition by people who have never played it  :?

Looks like G40 might take a back seat for awhile.

Just confirmed that Avalon Hill is going to reprint and updated version of AA50.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40001.0

@oysteilo:

One final comment/question

I think you have written something about this in the past, but I don�t find it. So you say that the main objective of BM is to create a better game, maybe especially suited for online play. Exactly what are these options that you can pursue in BM that you cannot pursue in 1st edition or 2nd edition? I guess this goes for both sides. If you know where it is written, a link is OK.

I have no idea if what I write here is correct. However, assuming that 1st edition is more balanced than 2nd edition, maybe it is not I don�t know. But you still say BM is better even though you have never played it! You say it is better because there are more options in BM. I am then returning to my point above here, please explain what these options are. I am sorry if I am slow and annoying here  (And btw, if balancing is not the main point, maybe Balance Mode is a rather misleading name?)

The modified NOs simply make what should have been viable but wasn’t in 2nd edition viable again, which adds more options and leads to more interesting games. Examples can be found on this thread.

Because I made the assumption that 1st edition is similar to 2nd edition (which it is) since they were constrained by practicality to limit the number and complexity of NOs for the boardgame release. BM is a slightly misleading title indeed, but that’s what marketing is all about  :wink:.