G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

sz 5 should be a convoy lane in BM because of the lend lease rules. The other lend lease lanes are, why not sz 5?

But you can’t play it IRL without doing something about the marines. Why’s it too hard to do something which changes the convoy zones?

I’ve posted something similar to oysteilo previously.

A downside to changing the convoy zones would be that it would increase the disincentive for USSR to declare war on Japan. I think that would be a problem. If Japan does a DOW and drops a sub in SZ5 while Archangel or Persia LL are nullified, USSR doesn’t gain anything from the Japanese DOW on it. The trouble with that argument is that both those scenarios are difficult to guarantee.

However, I think the community has spoken. There’s no push for change in BM unfortunately.

Maybe I should get some more players to play test the Canadian mod - but I think having to buy 7 inf UK1/Europe is a bit of a problem.

Marines are optional, and putting a piece of tape on inf to make marines is simple enough. Changing the set up/board is drastic in comparison.

Main reason for why it shouldn’t be added is that it doesn’t improve anything, and may actually put too much value on that part of the board.

Come off it, you can just remember where the extra convoy zone is, or write convoy zone on a piece of paper and put it there, or put some tape on the board and write on that.

Not aware that marines are optional! That’s like saying that air battles preceding strategic bombing raids are optional because you can house rule them out.

I have some sympathy for your argument that too much value may be put on that area, although if the Axis could have isolated Kamchatka, I think it’s completely fair enough that Moscow doesn’t get its income.

Let’s just agree to disagree.

I agree that a sz 5 convoy lane would decrease the incentive for USSR to DOW on Japan. However it is not important as in most cases USSR will loose control of Amur in the next couple of rounds anyway

It seems like a “no change” to the original set up is holy and there are many good arguments for that, I agree. But then way handle it in a way that is illogical? (At least to me.)

There are ways arounds this, why not just say that the USSR gets it lend lease objective as long as they control Archangel, Persia and Amur? (without the sub limitation for sz 125 and sz 80)

After all the Allies need more money in BM3 (and +2 for USSR seems fair) and in this way, all the lend lease lanes are handled more similar. Maybe it would even be an argument for G1 or G2 DOW on USSR, isn’t that a good thing?

So why is this bad:

USSR should collect +2 for each of archangel, persia and Amur (allied controlled). No war ship limitation on sz 125, 80 and 5. Also no doubling of lend lease if Japan dow on USSR.

I think it does the following

1. Gives in most cases +2 to USSR. I think many people start to see that allies need more money
2. The lend lease are handled the same way, less confusing
3. It will encourage G1 and G2 dow.
4. USSR will try to fight archangel. Now it wont bother in most cases, because of sz 125

The interaction between land territory and sea zone for the Lend Lease is what makes it interesting and dynamic in my opinion.

@regularkid But only if the USSR declares war on Japan, or you’re prepared to risk incurring the USSR lend lease bonus.

here is another improvement to make BM more playable

The allies objective for

UK Europe if Allies control two of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece, Southern Italy, and Allies have at least one land unit in any of these territories

should include 4 of: gib, southern france, greece and egypt

This is to encourge attack on the neutrals by the allies. I am sure however, the team has a good expelenation why this is not a good idea (would love to hear it though)

@oysteilo Don’t you know that you can’t change the sacred texts!

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo Don’t you know that you can’t change the sacred texts!

I dont understand. Did i do something wrong?

Just a sarcastic comment.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Just a sarcastic comment.

hahaha, thanks, but what about my point?

I think it would be functionally similar to the status quo. Normally, the allies hold Gibraltar and Egypt so unless there’s a landing in both Sth France and Greece there wouldn’t be much change to the present.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I think it would be functionally similar to the status quo. Normally, the allies hold Gibraltar and Egypt so unless there’s a landing in both Sth France and Greece there wouldn’t be much change to the present.

I disagree

I think this improvment would make a difference, against G1 or G2 DOW, but especially against G1 AND J1 DOW

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I think it would be functionally similar to the status quo. Normally, the allies hold Gibraltar and Egypt so unless there’s a landing in both Sth France and Greece there wouldn’t be much change to the present.

I disagree

I think this improvment would make a difference, against G1 or G2 DOW, but especially against G1 AND J1 DOW

the point is DOW on the neutrals.

The true neutrals? I don’t see how it affects it.