G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Hey!

So in my game Vichy was activated on turn 2.  Is that allowed?

Rage and Honor

@Lord:

Hey!

So in my game Vichy was activated on turn 2.  Is that allowed?

Rage and Honor

Yup.

2 things:

1. Has there been discussion of adding an Axis NO of +5 to Japan for control of China?  I think that would go a long way to balance out the game.

2. If not, I think I will start requesting bids to play Axis.  +8 to start.  Just seems after about round 6, the Allies just get too much money, and if the Axis aren’t ascendent then the game is over.

@Karl7:

2 things:

1. Has there been discussion of adding an Axis NO of +5 to Japan for control of China?  I think that would go a long way to balance out the game.

2. If not, I think I will start requesting bids to play Axis.  +8 to start.  Just seems after about round 6, the Allies just get too much money, and if the Axis aren’t ascendent then the game is over.

You should request whatever your opponent will give you  :wink:.

+5 for control of China would barely change the balance at all. Even if you rush China it will stay alive for the first 6 rounds, and those are the critical rounds where you need to get things done as Axis.

We aren’t aiming for perfect balance, because that’s impossible and balance perceptions vary a lot between tiers of players. It looks balanced to me at top tier, and whatever the imbalance is can be corrected by a bid which is also an interesting part of the game, and ensures that both players are satisfied with their side.

@Adam514:

@Karl7:

2 things:

1. Has there been discussion of adding an Axis NO of +5 to Japan for control of China?  I think that would go a long way to balance out the game.

2. If not, I think I will start requesting bids to play Axis.  +8 to start.  Just seems after about round 6, the Allies just get too much money, and if the Axis aren’t ascendent then the game is over.

You should request whatever your opponent will give you  :wink:.

+5 for control of China would barely change the balance at all. Even if you rush China it will stay alive for the first 6 rounds, and those are the critical rounds where you need to get things done as Axis.

We aren’t aiming for perfect balance, because that’s impossible and balance perceptions vary a lot between tiers of players. It looks balanced to me at top tier, and whatever the imbalance is can be corrected by a bid which is also an interesting part of the game, and ensures that both players are satisfied with their side.

Hmm, good point.  Just seems the Axis need maybe more ability to harvest income in the middle game.  But, hey, I am amenable to bids correcting this.

I can just say from my many, many, games of BM played (second only to Simon) that the game tilts towards Allies. Not huge, but building over the course of the game.  Maybe just a little bump to Axis at start, an extra German sub say, could go a long way.

Most the games I’ve lost have been as Axis, and the ones I’ve lost as allies, with one exception, I thought I could’ve won and didn’t because of either bad dice or dumb moves by me.

Or you could do the obvious thing and just wind back some of the allied objectives.

@simon33:

Or you could do the obvious thing and just wind back some of the allied objectives.

Yeah.  There’s a big list to choose from, too.

So, since Karl is the most experienced bard on the forum here, can we say that Axis are underpowered?

I suggest 3 additional NOs for Axis

1. Japan - certain number of territories in China

2. Germany - from White to Black sea (4 or 5 territories)

3. Italy - 4 islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus)

The Axis can also have more ipc for the existing NO, for example that one with Crete from 2 to 5, and the one for Norway to 7 ?

^ As the only player more experienced in the 2017 season than Karl I sighed when I read suggestions of even more NOs for BM.

A reimagined BM without guerilla fighters would be something I could get behind but I doubt anyone is really interested.

@simon33:

^ As the only player more experienced in the 2017 season than Karl I sighed when I read suggestions of even more NOs for BM.

A reimagined BM without guerilla fighters would be something I could get behind but I doubt anyone is really interested.

that would be a good compensation.

karl , what say U?

You could get rid of guerrilla fighters,  but you should then also get rid of the ridiculous 5 IPC for Nov,Stal,Mos,Cau,  and just change it to 5 for control of one.

The fact the axis can make their income explode so fiercely is brutal.

I’ve always been a believer that sometimes less is more in Axis and Allies.  And I think that’s true for Balanced mod.  Some of these rules are fun/exciting, and def add new elements to the game.  But the core challenge for balance from the beginning was the sheer amount of NO’s the axis can easily pickup, whilst the allies couldn’t get barely any.

Another bug in the tripleA calculator.

Try Amphibious assault with 2 inf and a cruiser against a single inf.

@Gargantua:

You could get rid of guerrilla fighters,  but you should then also get rid of the ridiculous 5 IPC for Nov,Stal,Mos,Cau,  and just change it to 5 for control of one.

The fact the axis can make their income explode so fiercely is brutal.

I’ve always been a believer that sometimes less is more in Axis and Allies.  And I think that’s true for Balanced mod.  Some of these rules are fun/exciting, and def add new elements to the game.  But the core challenge for balance from the beginning was the sheer amount of NO’s the axis can easily pickup, whilst the allies couldn’t get barely any.

OOB, Germany easily gets Norway and Leningrad/peace with USSR. After the fall of Moscow they should have another +15
Japan gets DEI
Italy normally gets control of the med.

Axis: +20/+35

USSR/UK: nothing
USA: +20
ANZAC: +5 for the islands.

In BM, Japan adds home islands (+3) but ANZAC gets another +1 for its islands and UK can often get the no subs NO (+3). Germany might get Crete (+2)

Not hugely different for my money.

Actually, I’m guessing that you aren’t counting the +20 USA gets for doing nothing other than maintaining North America, the Aleutians and Hawaii.

@JDOW:

Another bug in the tripleA calculator.

Try Amphibious assault with 2 inf and a cruiser against a single inf.

There are maaaaaaannnnyy other bugs in the calculator for the new triple a version

Why is this in the BM thread??

The Axis don’t need any more NOs. I agree with Variance.
Sorry Amon-Sul.
It is easier to get the Axis ones and stop the Allied ones, as the Axis player. Parity in income should not be easy to accomplish. The Axis should be behind financially, as their advantage lies in the flexibility they have in choosing the strategy and the battles that need to be fought.  Te Allies are usually reacting to the Axis moves and need the money advantage, therefore.

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

There are also weird cases if you choose “1 land unit must remain” meaning you have to loose planes before artillary (inf). Sometimes you get better (or at least even) odds with this option checked.

I dont think this has anything to do with BM, rather the new triple a version and this auto rolling is so annoying and it doesnt even do the battles in correct order! I guess this discussion should be moved to the proper place wherever that is

@oysteilo:

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

There are also weird cases if you choose “1 land unit must remain” meaning you have to loose planes before artillary (inf). Sometimes you get better (or at least even) odds with this option checked.

I dont think this has anything to do with BM, rather the new triple a version and this auto rolling is so annoying and it doesnt even do the battles in correct order! I guess this discussion should be moved to the proper place wherever that is

I have not done this calculation today, but have done similar trials. Try to add two bombers and remove the battleships……It just shows something is wrong

@oysteilo:

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

There are also weird cases if you choose “1 land unit must remain” meaning you have to loose planes before artillary (inf). Sometimes you get better (or at least even) odds with this option checked.

I dont think this has anything to do with BM, rather the new triple a version and this auto rolling is so annoying and it doesnt even do the battles in correct order! I guess this discussion should be moved to the proper place wherever that is

It only auto rolls SBR (in the correct order), defenseless battles and then if only one battle remains it will roll that. It is a little annoying that it will ask you to submerge if you use a sub to kill a transport. Otherwise, it’s more correct than it was in 1.8. You could say that moving into an empty enemy territory which is resolved in combat movement is incorrect but does anyone really care? Why would you want to click those battles anyway. It gave me the proverbial when I clicked a defenseless amphibious assault to get an error that I hadn’t rolled the defenseless transport kill first.

Why would you want to have to do those extra clicks? I don’t get it.

The auto combats are also good for China guerrilla fighters.

For the record, the auto SBR was more for online - as it was, it caused a pass of control between attacker and defender if there was a scramble/kami and an SBR. This wasn’t desirable and it was also against the rules.