I’m playing an opponent who is preventing Vichy from occurring by having the UK attack Italy’s destroyer and transport in SZ96 from SZ98 with a destroyer, cruiser, tactical from aircraft carrier in SZ98 and a fighter from Malta. Italy’s destroyer is sunk (and transport). Then in the Non-Combat phase, UK loads the transport in SZ98 and lands UK troops in Southern France. Since France is still an ally at this point, this is legal and effectively prevents Vichy mode, since Germany will now have to take Southern France on its next turn. There isn’t any way to prevent this as far as I can tell.
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
I think the balance mod is good. The biggest concern I have is why even introduce the vichy rule set. It complicates things too much. I tend to activate the vichy because I think that delays USA north africa NO by maybe two rounds and you also get 3 free inf.
-
It is complicated - I guess it’s its own rule-set so we could always just say “Vichy off”
-
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
-
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
this is true and yeah the vichy can be off. I think you did a great job with fixing a lot of the problems, but to me the historic stuff is not that important. I think there are tons of stuff with this game that does not fit with history, so why bother with vichy?
-
also does it fit with history that french indo should be vichy wheras new hebrides are not? History is not my strong side so I dont know. If this is just a balance question it is an argument against vichy I think
-
Yes. FIC remained loyal to Vichy France. French Polynesia (i.e. New Habrides) sided with the allies almost immediately.
-
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
this is true and yeah the vichy can be off. I think you did a great job with fixing a lot of the problems, but to me the historic stuff is not that important. I think there are tons of stuff with this game that does not fit with history, so why bother with vichy?
Well, the standard is not one of perfection. Otherwise we might simply throw our hands in the air and say why bother with any changes. The Mod Squad used four metrics to determine whether any proposed change should be incorporated or not: (1) does it improve balance? (2) does it improve fun/strategic depth? (3) does it improve historicality? (4) is it simple/easy to understand and implement? If the change satisfied all of those criteria, it was a strong candidate for inclusion.
You can read more about the disposition of France’s colonial possessions under the Vichy regime here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France#Colonial_struggle_with_Free_France
-
Well the nice thing about the Vichy mod rule set is that it’s very easy to play without it if you wish. Just take southern France on germany or Italy’s first turn, and you’re good to go. Personally I love the Vichy France feature, because of the historical dimension it adds, but that’s just me.
this is true and yeah the vichy can be off. I think you did a great job with fixing a lot of the problems, but to me the historic stuff is not that important. I think there are tons of stuff with this game that does not fit with history, so why bother with vichy?
One more point about Vichy France deserves mention. The inclusion of the Vichy France rule set is not merely for historical interest (though the historical dimension is obvious). We wanted to make sure that Euro-Axis continued to have multiple strategic options early on in the game (e.g., reasonable prospects in the Mediterranean) even with significantly bolstered Allied economies. Vichy France presents one such option. I think, without it, the game would be more mono-dimensional, with a smaller window of opportunity for Axis in the Med.
-
Why did the play testers find that Marines at a base stat line of 2/2/1 were overpowered? IMO Marines are too expensive for what you get from them. They should be a decent choice at least since cruisers and battleships are never purchased.
-
You start with a slug of cruisers/battleships. Even ANZAC has one for crying out loud
Marines open up a lot of options and allow your cruisers/battleships to transport. I don’t think they’re far off. Not as far off as AAA guns - Larry had them priced at 6 and I talked him into 5 :-) -
Why did the play testers find that Marines at a base stat line of 2/2/1 were overpowered? IMO Marines are too expensive for what you get from them. They should be a decent choice at least since cruisers and battleships are never purchased.
ROC, to understand why the proposed stats are overpowered, consider this scenario: You’re the USA. You want the most powerful coastal strike force you can afford to break into western Europe and threaten Japan (an Island). You can buy conventional units at the standard prices, or you can have two tank-powered units on a single transport for just 1 more PU than the cost of an artillery. What units are u going to buy? Answer: your strike force will optimally consist of at least 50% marines. You can run the stats to verify.
In practice, marines (at their current stats) get purchased in virtually every Balance Mod game. So evidently players are finding them useful enough to justify the added expenditure. What we don’t want is purchased en mass, and sent in large swarms at coastal territories. That snot how marines were used (they had no involvement in the massive landing at Normandy, for example).
Hope that helps elucidate our reasoning a bit.
-
I buy marines early in balanced mod games because they add options. It’s not about the stats so much. It’s adding a whole new capability that makes them worth it. You have the option of taking an island or territory with a single unit without using a transport which COULD be carrying 2 units. You also have the option of leaving a single cruiser in a zone instead of an automatic kill transport, which again, could carry 2 units around. Even if marines were like infantry and attacked on a 1 and had to be supported by artillery to attack on a 2, they would STILL be worth buying sometimes for 5 because of their ability to jump on a cruiser or battleship.
I think there is a good argument for buffing their stats (always attack on a 2 - but this wouldn’t even happen that much and is a pretty small buff, or lowering cost to 4), but I have already given the good argument for the unit that is already presented in the balanced mod.
-
gamer, have you tried a Russian marine yet? Can be a fun bit of threat projection when Germany moves all its fleet and air to gibraltar/north africa. heheh
-
Nope - I’m probably more likely to buy a Russian destroyer for 127…… against a weaker opponent :-P
-
Please exclude turkmen and/or Kazakh from the no allies on Russian NO
-
Please exclude turkmen and/or Kazakh from the no allies on Russian NO
Why? The point of the Russian NO is to provide an incentive for Russia to fight alone, and already UK can help out in Caucasus with no penalty, unless Germany forgoes taking back Caucasus, but then Germany loses 7 PUs.
-
No it’s not about Russia. It’s the road to China from the Middle East. Why shud Russia be penalized or care if allies are en route to help the Chinese? It’s very annoying that if allies are wanting to help the Chinese via a stream of reinforcements the Russians get hit.
-
No it’s not about Russia. It’s the road to China from the Middle East. Why shud Russia be penalized or care if allies are en route to help the Chinese? It’s very annoying that if allies are wanting to help the Chinese via a stream of reinforcements the Russians get hit.
It would be annoying for Japan if China could be reinforced while they can’t do anything about it (Japan needs to be at war to invade Russia).
-
All good points as to why Marines are the way they are. There are too many starting Cruisers/Battleships in the starting set up for Global 1940 2nd edition, which then greatly increases the value you get from purchasing enough Marines to fill your starting Cruisers/Battleships because it increases your overall “Amphibious Landing value” (total amount of units that can possibly be offloaded onto a territory in X amount of turns if all IPC’s are spent on transports/ground to go in the transports). Making Marines a 2/2/1 might be too strong in Global, but in the future sets I think you’ll need to make the Marine a 2/2/1.
So what I see happening is in future sets no one will purchase Marines after they have have enough to fill the starting Cruisers/Battleships. This is because the marine has very little value when you need to “shuck units” (usually involving 2 main groups of transports. One group picks up the units purchased turn before and lands them in your “shuck zone”, and one group that goes back to the purchase zone.), and you don’t want to build Cruisers/Battleships for your fleet because their cost/effectiveness ratio is horrible when compared to other sea units when you are looking at defensive/offensive value in sea battles. I would much rather purchase: infantry, artillery, transport, 2 subs, and a destroyer =34 IPC’s over 2 cruisers, 2 marines =34 IPC’s. So then you ask yourself what is the point of the Marine unit if all that are ever built are for the starting Cruisers/Battleships on the board? That is why I think for future sets Marines might be more playable at a stat line of 2/2/1 with text “+1 attack when Amphib Assaulting, does not receive bonus from artillery, 4 transport cost”. In future sets you might not have a lot of Cruisers/Battleships in the starting set up, and you can always balance the map appropriately to allow for the increased “implied threat” that Cruisers/Battleships give to the total “Amphibious Landing value” (total amount of units that can possibly be offloaded onto a territory in X amount of turns if all IPC’s are spent on transports/ground to go in the transports).
-
All good points as to why Marines are the way they are. There are too many starting Cruisers/Battleships in the starting set up for Global 1940 2nd edition, which then greatly increases the value you get from purchasing enough Marines to fill your starting Cruisers/Battleships because it increases your overall “Amphibious Landing value” (total amount of units that can possibly be offloaded onto a territory in X amount of turns if all IPC’s are spent on transports/ground to go in the transports). Making Marines a 2/2/1 might be too strong in Global, but in the future sets I think you’ll need to make the Marine a 2/2/1.
So what I see happening is in future sets no one will purchase Marines after they have have enough to fill the starting Cruisers/Battleships. This is because the marine has very little value when you need to “shuck units” (usually involving 2 main groups of transports. One group picks up the units purchased turn before and lands them in your “shuck zone”, and one group that goes back to the purchase zone.), and you don’t want to build Cruisers/Battleships for your fleet because their cost/effectiveness ratio is horrible when compared to other sea units when you are looking at defensive/offensive value in sea battles. I would much rather purchase: infantry, artillery, transport, 2 subs, and a destroyer =34 IPC’s over 2 cruisers, 2 marines =34 IPC’s. So then you ask yourself what is the point of the Marine unit if all that are ever built are for the starting Cruisers/Battleships on the board? That is why I think for future sets Marines might be more playable at a stat line of 2/2/1 with text “+1 attack when Amphib Assaulting, does not receive bonus from artillery, 4 transport cost”. In future sets you might not have a lot of Cruisers/Battleships in the starting set up, and you can always balance the map appropriately to allow for the increased “implied threat” that Cruisers/Battleships give to the total “Amphibious Landing value” (total amount of units that can possibly be offloaded onto a territory in X amount of turns if all IPC’s are spent on transports/ground to go in the transports).
As a side note I’d loved it if they changed the cost of Cruiser to 11 and Battleships to 18. They would still be “niche” buys, but at least they would have a place in the game besides just starting units on the board. Making them cost 11 and 18, and giving them the ability to transport a Marine, would mean they are still bad transport units, but not as horrible in places like the pacific in global 1940. I just don’t know why Larry values the bombardment ability so highly… It isn’t that often that you get to use it, it is easily blocked, when you do get to use it the extra firepower you get isn’t that much, unlike in Revised, the units get to return fire, and most of the time you get to bombard is when you would have easily won the battle without it because you have overwhelming firepower. The only real good part about bombard, IMO is the threat projection it allows, but I think he overvalued this threat projection because fighters, do it better and are more malleable than cruisers/battleships.
Suggested Topics
