G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@axis-dominion:

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).

@theROCmonster:

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.

@regularkid:

I have no problem with the fact that battleships/cruisers are purchased infrequently in G40 games, since, historically, the aircraft carrier ushered in the obsolescence of those units.

Yes

Agreed Regular Kid, but they were still built. At 11 and 18 they would be infrequently built, but they might then get built at least once in the game… I am hesitant to play again. It has been so damn long since I’ve actually played a game that wasn’t me playing myself and theory crafting moves and builds lol. I might have to just to back up my understanding of the game sometime though :)

Thanks. Will do!

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37805.0

looks like the game designers are wanting to correct this, as it was likely a misprint. maybe it should be corrected in BM as well.

Hasn’t been decided yet - let’s wait for the decree from on high

@Gamerman01:

Hasn’t been decided yet - let’s wait for the decree from on high

who cares what they decide, we know it’s clearly a printing mistake and they acknowledge that (if not explicitly, at least implicitly by requesting play testing). they haven’t decided yet because they’re worried about how it might affect game balance, but we all know the standard ed isn’t balanced anyway. if we wait, what we’d be waiting for would be all the play-testing against the standard ed, which doesn’t help BM ed much.

what i see it would mainly affect for BM is the scenario when the axis don’t go vichy and hence FWA remains french.

anyway i’m just suggesting the mod squad look into it as well.

ya ya, but it would be nice if it’s the same for both.  That’s my whole point.  It sounds like they’re going to decide very soon.  It’s not that big of a deal anyway

I like the Crete addition for history sake.  It would be helpful if you can put all of the NOs in the game notes, including both new and revised ones, and any original ones.  thanks

Great tweaks except for one in my opinion.
I don’t like the added German NO, especially the Crete part.  Crete is already now a part of a UK NO and an Italian NO.  I really don’t think the Germans need any more money, especially for territories they’re normally going to get anyway.  Also, there is already incentive for UK to get Greece, as part of a new NO of the balanced mod

In my opinion, the first “finalized” balanced mod, that we’ve been playing, is actually slanted a tad to the Allies.  Backing down India’s Hong Kong NO and ANZAC’s Malaya NO is…… well I think it’s a great idea.  But I don’t think this should be compounded with giving Germany +2 - I think Germany gets a tad too much in the NO department already, and this would partly nullify the needed boosts to Russia

1 more thing, since I didn’t know that 2.0 was suddenly a thing
I haven’t had many rounds in mid-late game scenarios, but man I am starting to think that China guerrilla rule might be a bit too strong.  Especially that the USA can snipe infantry units, and each one destroyed makes a China infantryman and a +1 income for China right away without China having to do anything……
I am just starting to experience the effects.  I was able to snipe a Japanese infantry with American planes in a key territory (Kwe, when my Chinese army was in Sik) where I needed a blocker for my Chinese stack to move into She.  USA air is able to strike areas the Chinese couldn’t even get to, and a Chinaman pops up, blocks all the mech/tanks, takes away a landing space, and a +1 income for China and a man right on the key territory - that seems like a bit much to me.  I know dialing back the Yunnan NO compensates, but not when Japan successfully cuts off the Yunnan NO early - then losing the +3 doesn’t make any difference to the Allies.

Honestly, I cringe to even take the Axis in the balanced mod because of the China guerrilla rules.  I think a little change like you made with UK air landing in South France to stop the Vichy transition would be appropriate.  Let’s see… what if the check was made at the end of Japan’s turn instead of the beginning of China’s???

Well I did really enjoy using that tactic to advance my Chinese stack to the very strategic Shensi

No, but I will still want to take the Allies
I would be willing to give up a Med NO or 2 of the UK’s, and possibly the US one for Europe if I had to, so I guess yes, but would give up less

Not the North African one plus the Normandy one plus one of ANZAC’s.  So yes you made a step in the right direction and sure I would go for Allies straight up, but I would give up a minor NO or 2 to get the Allies.

It is close to balanced.