G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@Amon-Sul:

or can not?  :|

If Germany Plunders Russia, then Japan and Italy cannot do it. It only happens once in the game per capital.

Disallowing multiple capital plunders is one of the better innovations in bm.

Perhaps it should be disallowed even the first time, although such a change would be radical for game balance and I can’t see it happening.

@farmboy:

@Amon-Sul:

or can not?  :|

If Germany Plunders Russia, then Japan and Italy cannot do it. It only happens once in the game per capital.

so not just Germany can t do it once more, but Japan and Italy can t do it even once?!

did not know that. :lol:

The Europe Axis really need plunder money to fuel their objectives.

Disallowing the plunder of capital IPCs would radically change the game. UK could purchase super aggressive turn 1 due to less incentive or possibility of executing a Sea Lion. Without the treasury sack (which is realistic; especially if a nation’s gold reserves were captured), Germany might not be able to push Russia back. No 19 IPCs for capturing Paris; kind of critical for buying transports in the first place.

I think NOs would have to include 10 for capturing London AND 5 for Cairo. After that, vanilla for the rest of game might result in true balance. Only play testing would tell of course.

@Ichabod:

The Europe Axis really need plunder money to fuel their objectives.

Disallowing the plunder of capital IPCs would radically change the game. UK could purchase super aggressive turn 1 due to less incentive or possibility of executing a Sea Lion. Without the treasury sack (which is realistic; especially if a nation’s gold reserves were captured), Germany might not be able to push Russia back. No 19 IPCs for capturing Paris; kind of critical for buying transports in the first place.

I think NOs would have to include 10 for capturing London AND 5 for Cairo. After that, vanilla for the rest of game might result in true balance. Only play testing would tell of course.

Germany can take (plunder) London, Moscow and Paris.

But Italy and Germany can not (both) take any of these cities.

@Amon-Sul:

@Ichabod:

The Europe Axis really need plunder money to fuel their objectives.

Disallowing the plunder of capital IPCs would radically change the game. UK could purchase super aggressive turn 1 due to less incentive or possibility of executing a Sea Lion. Without the treasury sack (which is realistic; especially if a nation’s gold reserves were captured), Germany might not be able to push Russia back. No 19 IPCs for capturing Paris; kind of critical for buying transports in the first place.

I think NOs would have to include 10 for capturing London AND 5 for Cairo. After that, vanilla for the rest of game might result in true balance. Only play testing would tell of course.

Germany can take (plunder) London, Moscow and Paris.

But Italy and Germany can not (both) take any of these cities.

I am aware of the plunder rules in BM3 as is.

I was conversing in regards to what simon was saying in how not permitting any plunder would radically change the game.

@Ichabod:

I was conversing in regards to what simon was saying in how not permitting any plunder would radically change the game.

Well it means that Germany has 19IPCs less to spend G2. That would change things up a fair bit.

Yeah, U re both correct.

It would boost allies tremendously.

Some feedback on the stats the triple A client provides

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Italians : 1.83
    British : -0.33
    Neutral_Allies : -1.33

This information is usually useless because it contains battles like Japan attacking a single inf with 2 inf and 12 planes so it does not matter whether Japan scores 1 or 14 hits in such a battle.

In case the stats should be really providing helpful stats I believe the difference compared to expected TUV of the battle outcomes would make sense.
This would of course mean that the client has to make a simulation of every single battle, not sure if this would eat too much resources.

I am aware that for some types of battles expected TUV is not always accurate but I am certain that statistics would give rough clues how the battles went in comparison to average
I am also aware that in non 100% battles the average TUV is NOT the most likely outcome.

I just think that this would at least give a clue about how the dice went in that turn. The current information is close to useless to me.
What do you think in general?

@JDOW:

Some feedback on the stats the triple A client provides

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Italians : 1.83
    British : -0.33
    Neutral_Allies : -1.33

This information is usually useless because it contains battles like Japan attacking a single inf with 2 inf and 12 planes so it does not matter whether Japan scores 1 or 14 hits in such a battle.

In case the stats should be really providing helpful stats I believe the difference compared to expected TUV of the battle outcomes would make sense.
This would of course mean that the client has to make a simulation of every single battle, not sure if this would eat too much resources.

I am aware that for some types of battles expected TUV is not always accurate but I am certain that statistics would give rough clues how the battles went in comparison to average
I am also aware that in non 100% battles the average TUV is NOT the most likely outcome.

I just think that this would at least give a clue about how the dice went in that turn. The current information is close to useless to me.
What do you think in general?

I agree 100000% The current information is useless. I have asked for the deviation from average TUV  to be included, but nothing happened with this. I think this is nice to have and it will show how unlucky/lucky any given player is.

yep, TUV rules!

@JDOW:

Some feedback on the stats the triple A client provides

Combat Hit Differential Summary :

Italians : 1.83
    British : -0.33
    Neutral_Allies : -1.33

This information is usually useless because it contains battles like Japan attacking a single inf with 2 inf and 12 planes so it does not matter whether Japan scores 1 or 14 hits in such a battle.

In case the stats should be really providing helpful stats I believe the difference compared to expected TUV of the battle outcomes would make sense.
This would of course mean that the client has to make a simulation of every single battle, not sure if this would eat too much resources.

I think that’s the problem. Let’s say you have ten battles. At what point do you run the 2000 simulations for the expected TUV swing for each battle? Or do you have an additional button?

The TUV calculation should be automatic when you run the battle. No separate button for this and the individual running the battle should just click the battle button, thats it and the TUV swing should just pop up in the battle report. I also dont think you need to run 2000 simulations, 100 is probably enough

I think BM3 is not acknowledging the US Marine in Europe for one of the objectives

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=42285.45

See quote from Balladeer.

"This seems wrong, but maybe I’m mistaken. I don’t get this objective:
*  5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.

But I have Normandy Bordeaux and Holland Belgium and there is a marine (which is described as land unit) in one of the two. Do you see why the objective is not triggering?
I’ll play Chinese and UK moves, but I think I should get 5 more PU’s for USA…"

@regularkid:

Wow Ichabod! How that every slipped my attention over hundreds of BM games I will never know. Thank you for spotting the bug.

The rest of us usually reenforces the BH’s.
Our Motto:
No Marine will be left behind, Hurra  :lol:  :lol:

I don’t no it either…

@regularkid:

Wow Ichabod! How that every slipped my attention over hundreds of BM games I will never know. Thank you for spotting the bug.

Simon, would you kindly upload a corrected version of the XML (including marines in US’s Western-Europe-Beachead objective)? Thanks man.

Hail victory!

Hey my friend, nice to hear from you. Am I right that you are not playing league for a whole while now? I think this bug needs to be addressed first:)

I can’t fathom how the Axis can win in BM3. Playing my first league game with Balladeer. US has 95 IPCs and only obtained 1 additional NO…UK has 39 despite losing Cairo. It’s like it’s irrelevant.

Round 4 in my game and Russia is already really strong.

Seems near impossible for the Axis.

Playing without a bid…but really how much does that matter anyways, when it appears that the Axis only get about 6 IPCs. Not really much.

keep playing and trying new things until you start to see what works and what doesn’t. but to expedite your progress, it’s essential to watch higher ranked players go at it. and of course, don’t hesitate to barge in on those games and ask questions on why certain moves were made, or message them.

@Ichabod:

I can’t fathom how the Axis can win in BM3. Playing my first league game with Balladeer. US has 95 IPCs and only obtained 1 additional NO…UK has 39 despite losing Cairo. It’s like it’s irrelevant.

Round 4 in my game and Russia is already really strong.

Seems near impossible for the Axis.

Playing without a bid…but really how much does that matter anyways, when it appears that the Axis only get about 6 IPCs. Not really much.

looking at it rather briefly (ie not deeply), you seem to be on the right track in some ways. you got Egypt, which is a huge plus. you have enough to break through the Russian wall, which is to say, you can take and hold Bryansk, and then from there progress to the oil fields for glorious riches.

however, I do see that already you seem to have conceded key footholds in Europe, that is, normandy and Norway. usually axis can delay such footholds for much longer.

also, you don’t have any Italians accompanying the German advances on the eastern front. therefore your progression will be slower, due to lack of so called “can openers.” this is far from ideal.

I haven’t looked much at the pac side. just some things to consider on the euro side at least.