G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

I totally agree with most of what @regularkid said there. Remember the controversy of tanks going to 6IPCs from 5IPCs? Even changes which are quite likely to be liked, such as 10IPC tacs would attract a fair bit of controversy. Some would say why not 9IPCs! A few changes could be made but it’s highly unlikely that fiddling at the edges would see some sort of great idea. Getting rid of the most controversial rule, the guerilla fighters, would be a completely new variant IMO.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I totally agree with most of what @regularkid said there. Remember the controversy of tanks going to 6IPCs from 5IPCs? Even changes which are quite likely to be liked, such as 10IPC tacs would attract a fair bit of controversy. Some would say why not 9IPCs! A few changes could be made but it’s highly unlikely that fiddling at the edges would see some sort of great idea. Getting rid of the most controversial rule, the guerilla fighters, would be a completely new variant IMO.

Why are the guerilla fighters so bad @simon33? In my opinion this is the single best change of many good changes in BM3! I would by far like to see other BM3 stuff change long before this one

I think they make gamey, unrealistic, outcomes. It’s like a deliberately created loophole, exactly why should USA be able to snipe out the garrisons? Also, they don’t make the game more dynamic IMO. They in fact make the decision to go after India as quickly as possible more clear. I also think that

Interesting that there are a couple of people that like the rule. I just don’t quite follow. I’d probably only hate it half as much if USA couldn’t bomb the infantry to create guerillas, but even so it still feels like a retrograde step back to Risk where you couldn’t allow the last unit to leave.

FWIW, the air support is already modeled by the flying tiger. And wrt Japan sticking to the coast, they already have an incentive for that with the inland territories all being 1IPC.

Anyway, it is what it is.

China is too weak without that rule.

Does anyone else think that if the axis attacks on turn 1 or 2 they are much more likely to win than if they attack on turn 3 or 4? If this is a true statement and not just my imagination is there any way to balance out the game so that the axis can get an income boost IF they do wait till turn 4 to attack.

Part of BM’s goal is to add more viable options, and in that optic the difference in effectiveness in the DOW is balanced enough that in-game decisions by your opponent are enough to skew the optimal DOW turn. As part of the BM team and having played over 100 BM games and with a vast vanilla G40 experience, I can’t affirm what DOW turn is best.

@Adam514 I think BM is fantastic and helps balance out the game and adds many more viable options. But I’m not talking about optimal attacks. I suppose you can look at it that way. But I’m not looking for which turn DOW is best. It just seems to me that if the axis wait till turn 3 or 4, or let’s say that the longer that axis wait to attack, especially turn 3 or 4, the more likely it is that the allies will win since they have more time to build up their fleets, and forces and take those money islands from japan.

Does this seem true to you?

It doesn’t seem true to me. J4 is usually bad, but not always.

@Adam514
When is J4 not a poor tactical decision? Or more importantly how can you make it work if sealion does not work?

G4 Sealion, UK DOW on Japan.

@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Does anyone else think that if the axis attacks on turn 1 or 2 they are much more likely to win than if they attack on turn 3 or 4? If this is a true statement and not just my imagination is there any way to balance out the game so that the axis can get an income boost IF they do wait till turn 4 to attack.

Are you talking about in the Pacific or in Europe? If you’re talking about either, waiting until turn 4 is pretty suicidal - except in the case of UK DOW as Adam said. Even then, it may be advised to reduce USA income by attacking Guam and/or Philippines. Depends on what it unleashes in Europe too. J1 DOW is somewhat different to G1 DOW.

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

China is too weak without that rule.

Sounds like a value judgement to me.

@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 I think BM is fantastic and helps balance out the game and adds many more viable options. But I’m not talking about optimal attacks. I suppose you can look at it that way. But I’m not looking for which turn DOW is best. It just seems to me that if the axis wait till turn 3 or 4, or let’s say that the longer that axis wait to attack, especially turn 3 or 4, the more likely it is that the allies will win since they have more time to build up their fleets, and forces and take those money islands from japan.

Does this seem true to you?

In general you’re correct IMO. Axis have neither a starting unit or income advantage so they need to capitalise on their superior starting options. If they let these fade away, they should then go on to lose. G2/G3 don’t have huge differences in most games though. G1 & G4 are radically different. J2 is just a weaker version of J1, J3 is quite different, in part because German fleet can reach the Med.

Is there a plan to add some value to the few smaller islands that have no game value like the Fiji islands? Do we just keep ignoring that those exist or make them worth 1 ipc or make owning gilbert islands, fiji and johnston islands worth 3 ipc’s or 5 ipc’s to the japanese?

Just wondering.

Most are included in NOs.

Wow. That’s true. Only the French islands of Madagascar and New Hebrides don’t have NOs I think. Oh and Greenland, Ceylon, Hainan and Formosa. Far out.

@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Is there a plan to add some value to the few smaller islands that have no game value like the Fiji islands? Do we just keep ignoring that those exist or make them worth 1 ipc or make owning gilbert islands, fiji and johnston islands worth 3 ipc’s or 5 ipc’s to the japanese?

Just wondering.

Additionally, I can’t see why what you’re proposing actually adds value?

I’ve realised a few other things about balanced mod only recently. The allied move where they see Japan coming and move their stack from India to West India, then retake India to prevent units from being produced there, that is a new move in Balanced Mod. In vanilla, you wouldn’t do this because Japan would get the plunder money. This tended to promote a stand and fight vs evacuate. I guess Moscow is similar. Now the question is: which is better? I’m not completely sure to be honest.

Another thing is why shouldn’t you get the Major complex back when you liberate your capital? And should North Italy be different? Losing the major complex seems to be a side effect of the fix for game wrecking caused by major complexes on opposition territories, and not a desirable one.

Interesting theory. But not for Rome or Sydney!