G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@oysteilo:

lets just rest this case Adam. I have said many times I think you did a great job with BM.  I have also stated it before why I don’t like the Russia objectives. To me they are boring I am currently looking at the set up for first edition and it would be good to get experienced players view on why the first edition is broken, especially in view of the “new” axis strategies. At first glance axis start with a TUV difference of about 20 more in 1 ed compared to 2nd edition. Also no factory in southern france, less french units and a more spread out UK fleet in europe.

also, the british can can open for america

The only Russian objectives I don’t really like are the Japanese DOW bonus on the Persian and Northern lend lease lanes.

I don’t like the USA objectives for NW Africa and the Carolines area.

I really don’t like the Chinese guerilla fighters! Surprised you didn’t mention that.

@oysteilo:

lets just rest this case Adam. I have said many times I think you did a great job with BM.� I have also stated it before why I don’t like the Russia objectives. To me they are boring I am currently looking at the set up for first edition and it would be good to get experienced players view on why the first edition is broken, especially in view of the “new” axis strategies. At first glance axis start with a TUV difference of about 20 more in 1 ed compared to 2nd edition. Also no factory in southern france, less french units and a more spread out UK fleet in europe.

Do you agree that the Russian BM NOs are better than the vanilla ones? Because I haven’t heard of a good additional/replacement NO for Russia that isn’t already in BM.

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

lets just rest this case Adam. I have said many times I think you did a great job with BM.� I have also stated it before why I don’t like the Russia objectives. To me they are boring I am currently looking at the set up for first edition and it would be good to get experienced players view on why the first edition is broken, especially in view of the “new” axis strategies. At first glance axis start with a TUV difference of about 20 more in 1 ed compared to 2nd edition. Also no factory in southern france, less french units and a more spread out UK fleet in europe.

Do you agree that the Russian BM NOs are better than the vanilla ones? Because I haven’t heard of a good additional/replacement NO for Russia that isn’t already in BM.

Russians camping around in africa is not so good. Removing ethiopia, somaliland, tobruk and libya is OK. (However, fighting these are fun). At a minimum Iraq should be kept. Additinally in the europe version Russia gets a bonus for Novosibirsk. I think that is a better solution than lend lease as it forces Russia to do this work as well as it gives Russia the needed early bonus

I guess my main question now is why BM is better than 1st edition

If 1st edition is similar to 2nd edition (which I assume it is), then BM is still much better. Like I’ve said before, the balancing part of BM isn’t even the main objective of BM. The main point was to make the game more interesting by adding options to pursue.

The official versions of the game had pretty severe limitations in terms of the number of NOs and their complexity since it had to be simple enough to keep gameplay as streamlined as possible, while online TripleA keeps track of everything for you.

One final comment/question

I think you have written something about this in the past, but I don’t find it. So you say that the main objective of BM is to create a better game, maybe especially suited for online play. Exactly what are these options that you can pursue in BM that you cannot pursue in 1st edition or 2nd edition? I guess this goes for both sides. If you know where it is written, a link is OK.

I have no idea if what I write here is correct. However, assuming that 1st edition is more balanced than 2nd edition, maybe it is not I don’t know. But you still say BM is better even though you have never played it! You say it is better because there are more options in BM. I am then returning to my point above here, please explain what these options are. I am sorry if I am slow and annoying here  (And btw, if balancing is not the main point, maybe Balance Mode is a rather misleading name?)

Yeah I don’t understand the conclusions about 1st edition by people who have never played it  :?

Looks like G40 might take a back seat for awhile.

Just confirmed that Avalon Hill is going to reprint and updated version of AA50.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=40001.0

@oysteilo:

One final comment/question

I think you have written something about this in the past, but I don�t find it. So you say that the main objective of BM is to create a better game, maybe especially suited for online play. Exactly what are these options that you can pursue in BM that you cannot pursue in 1st edition or 2nd edition? I guess this goes for both sides. If you know where it is written, a link is OK.

I have no idea if what I write here is correct. However, assuming that 1st edition is more balanced than 2nd edition, maybe it is not I don�t know. But you still say BM is better even though you have never played it! You say it is better because there are more options in BM. I am then returning to my point above here, please explain what these options are. I am sorry if I am slow and annoying here  (And btw, if balancing is not the main point, maybe Balance Mode is a rather misleading name?)

The modified NOs simply make what should have been viable but wasn’t in 2nd edition viable again, which adds more options and leads to more interesting games. Examples can be found on this thread.

Because I made the assumption that 1st edition is similar to 2nd edition (which it is) since they were constrained by practicality to limit the number and complexity of NOs for the boardgame release. BM is a slightly misleading title indeed, but that’s what marketing is all about  :wink:.

@oysteilo:

For marines, seems like no one buys it anymore.

@cyanight:

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3, version: 3.3

Round 2:

Purchase Units - British
            British buy 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 4 marines; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

;)

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

@Gamerman01:

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

I will have to look at what you guys do with all those marines.  Typically they sit around not doing too much. So I guess I am doing something wrong……

@oysteilo:

@Gamerman01:

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

I will have to look at what you guys do with all those marines.  Typically they sit around not doing too much. So I guess I am doing something wrong……

If you have cruisers and BBs lying around, it’s a better deal to buy marines than to buy transports.

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

@Gamerman01:

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

I will have to look at what you guys do with all those marines.  Typically they sit around not doing too much. So I guess I am doing something wrong……

If you have cruisers and BBs lying around, it’s a better deal to buy marines than to buy transports.

This is interesting. Exactely how? Sure if you can take an “empty” territory and save your cruiser/battleship and marine or make the attack unfavrorable on your cruiser battleship. Maybe I worry too much about enemy sinking my ships……In general I disagree with your statement, but please explain.

Transports cost 7, the Inf to put on them is another 3.  So to take an unoccupied island, you need to spend 10.

You can do the same thing with one marine (if you already have a ship for it) for only 5.

@Shin:

Transports cost 7, the Inf to put on them is another 3.  So to take an unoccupied island, you need to spend 10.

You can do the same thing with one marine (if you already have a ship for it) for only 5.

I agree 100% with this, but you dont need 3 or 4 for this. marines/Cruiser/Battleships are great for empty areas (as long as you dont need to defend the boats)

@oysteilo:

@Shin:

Transports cost 7, the Inf to put on them is another 3.  So to take an unoccupied island, you need to spend 10.

You can do the same thing with one marine (if you already have a ship for it) for only 5.

I agree 100% with this, but you dont need 3 or 4 for this. marines/Cruiser/Battleships are great for empty areas (as long as you dont need to defend the boats)

They are more cost-effective even if you simply want to make a landing in Normandy. 2 marines cost less than 1 transport and 2 inf, not to mention a lower TUV swing if ever your fleet comes under attack since you don’t have as many defenseless tps.

Plus, those two marines can land in two different places.

@Adam514:

If you have cruisers and BBs lying around, it’s a better deal to buy marines than to buy transports.

This was my situation.  0-1 transports for London, but I had 2 cruisers and a battleship

And offloading from safe 110 with airbase cover