G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

When Germany does the BB to SZ 111, how come people still don’t scramble SZ 110 when UK fighter hits are immediately applied to German Air? I used to think the consensus was for that, but I see the better players no longer trying to immediately put the hurt on the Luffwaffe.

Is this because in BM3 the UK doesn’t get a bid ie. sub in SZ 98 to help with Taranto?

Yeah the Med can quickly become a nightmare for the UK even with an average trade with a max scramble.

@Ichabod:

When Germany does the BB to SZ 111, how come people still don’t scramble SZ 110 when UK fighter hits are immediately applied to German Air? I used to think the consensus was for that, but I see the better players no longer trying to immediately put the hurt on the Luffwaffe.

Is this because in BM3 the UK doesn’t get a bid ie. sub in SZ 98 to help with Taranto?

That rationale only works if the UK are sending 2 fighters from London to Taranto. You can send 1 from Scotland.

I’m also not sure why the UK opts not to hit a few Luftwaffe in SZ110 so often.

Well Simon, I got that about 2 fighters from London to Taranto. I am just trying to figure out the rationale. If the Allies are planning on doing an early landing to slow Germany down (before spending in the Pacific) than maybe it makes more sense to scramble 110?

Just now in a BM3 game I got to do the SZ111 German battleship strafe and am glad the UK did not scramble 110z.

Perhaps there is no valid rationale.

To prevent the Vichy French rule, during the UK 1 non-combat moves turn, one of my opponents used his Mediterranean transport to move his Malta AAA and 1 infantry to S. France.

I checked by loading the game, “Start Local Game” in triplea. On France’s turn the Vichy Rule was not in effect.

UK loses stuff, but no Vichy French warships in sz 93 and no free-be walk-ons for Italy.

I think it’s interesting that the Allies have a work around option to prevent the Vichy Rule as a gamism quirk.

Also, the Vichy Govt. was then recognized by most western allied countries as the legitimate govt. of France. Vichy never technically joined the Axis; but was forced to collaborate in 1942 (at least according to Wikipedia). The gamism aspect of BM3 seems to follow that in how once S. France is occupied, the French forces disappear; similar to how in 1942 Germany forced France to disband it’s remaining army and navy.

However (real life), at the same time, if there was a small contingent of Allies troops in S. France besides the remains of the French Army not already smashed, the French govt. would have still capitulated. Most likely the Vichy Regime or something similar would have still taken place in July 1940. So, maybe the Allies should not get a work around to prevent the Vichy Rule of BM3?

If Japan has captured Amur and Siberia, than that should block the lend lease BM3 national objective. If it doesn’t what is the explanation for permitting it?

Just taking Amur blocks that route.

@Ichabod:

@simon33:

I like that negative objective for Cairo! Is it over the top though? If Cairo falls early, Axis victory is usually the result.

On your point that USSR becomes too strong, well that was my first impression too. Practice (and advice from the forums) makes for perfect Barbarossa strategies. Still I think the idea is that a defence of Moscow becomes more viable. I’m inclined to think this makes A&A a better game. There’s a couple of features which go the other way but the net benefit is a positive.

I think with the negative objective for Cairo; assuming subs killed, that the UK will still break even or still collect more IPCs than when having lost Cairo in Global 40. I don’t think it over the top.

What’s over the top is that the UK can lose Cairo in BM3 and it’s not decisive. I see lots of people just kill the Italian destroyer and transport in SZ 96 and that is it. And then a few rounds later evacuate. And sometimes they aren’t even doing the Gibraltar Air Base thing. If Cairo was decisive for the UK, they’d again have to sacrifice they’re expensive Navy in the med to neuter Italy (keeping the Navy is like 50+ bid - didn’t add it up).

I’m an easy win in a league game or just for fun. I’ll play allies straight up to gain more experience anytime.

Thank You!

Perhaps the UK should have to hold Egypt also to collect the Malta/Cyprus/Crete objective. Would that do enough for you?

So far I like BM a lot and wouldn’t change a thing.

Egypt: Yes, it’s not that devastating to lose Egypt - if you take Persia in round 1, you can build a factory in round 2 and maybe even a second factory in Iraq in Round 3. Together with the Factory in South Africa that’s enough to retake Egypt a couple of rounds later.

However, this means a heavy investment from UK side. If Italy takes Egypt and Germany doesn’t abuse this, UK will just retake Egypt soon. But if Germany uses the fact that UK needs to invest in the Middle East, for example by heavy convoy in 109, UK is in a lot of trouble.
Alternatively you could go for the fastest way possible to Rostov / Caucasus. If you have your tanks+mechs in Rostov, you can threaten Moscow and thus pinning the Russian army down, while also threatening Persia + Iraq.

What I’m saying: There’s always a counter.

If you feel Egypt is not important enough, however, simon’s suggestion of making Cairo necessary for the Malta/Crete/Cyprus bonus could be a solution.

@MrRoboto:

So far I like BM a lot and wouldn’t change a thing.

That’s an interesting viewpoint. It surprises me that people like the guerilla fighters in particular.

I find that in BM you’re playing to the objectives a lot. OOB except for USSR lend lease and German land unit in Egypt, they’re pretty incidental in terms of the moves that are made.

@MrRoboto:

Egypt: Yes, it’s not that devastating to lose Egypt

I guess the distinction here is that UK get a bunch of extra money.

@simon33:

That’s an interesting viewpoint. It surprises me that people like the guerilla fighters in particular.

I find that in BM you’re playing to the objectives a lot. OOB except for USSR lend lease and German land unit in Egypt, they’re pretty incidental in terms of the moves that are made.

Absolutely! The objectives guide the decisions a lot. Which I consider a good thing. In many cases you can decide to go the aggro / fast way or the controlling long-running strategy. For example: Invest extra units and transports to get small Islands like Crete, Cyprus, Guam, Iwo Jima etc.? Or use those to throw as much as possible for the big goals like India / Moscow.

In the original 2nd edition, the control-style isn’t rewarded as much imho. This is particularly true for the Axis (which is why I love playing Axis in BM way more than in 2nd edition). But the Allies have those situations as well: Iwo Jima, Marianes/Paulau, Sicily and North Africa are investments, that only pay off after a couple of rounds.

Going for the big pushes asap is still a viable strategy, but your BM gives the option to play the slow game as well - especially for the axis.

The Guerilla fighters in China work similarly: While in 2nd edition, Axis players usually throw everything asap against India, in BM you’d be punished by spawning Chinese fighters, if you move too many of your troops to India.

well said mr Roboto :)

“An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.”

Does this mean only when Japan has declared war before Russia, when Japan and Russia are at war, no matter who declared first, or can Japan be at war with Russia without declaring war(Russia’s declaration is sufficient)?

It’s exactly like it says: If Japan declares war.

If Russia declares war, Japan can’t.

Why is it a problem that OOB is unbalanced? The bid adds diversity to the game which I think adds spice and therefore fun.

@simon33:

Why is it a problem that OOB is unbalanced? The bid adds diversity to the game which I think adds spice and therefore fun.

Agree.  And with thousands of IPC’s worth of stuff on the board, being within 20-40 IPC’s of balanced is very good.

I don’t know, Simon, I just gave up on the subject because quite a few players are just obsessed with the game being “balanced”.  Even CHESS isn’t balanced because white goes first and that gives an advantage.  :lol:

I think the quest for balance is a noble one. I’m glad you enjoy the variety of a bid system, but it feels like fixing something wrong with the game, to me. I want to chose a side, and play the game. It also reminds me of how I enjoy price tags on items in my country, versus other countries I’ve travelled and lived in require you to haggle for a price. It makes me uncomfortable, but I could see how others might enjoy it.