@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
and why would that be bad? It gives the chance to players to outplay the other side, since the more the money, more the options to play, more options, more quality needed to win the game, and its much interesting that way.
For online games taking longer makes no difference. For Face to Face to games it does. Global 1940 is already too long and difficult to consistently get done in a single all day session. My gaming group usually goes from about 10am till 10pm when we get together. Considering a Turn usually takes between an hour and 15 minutes to an hour and 30 minutes to play that means in a 12 hour session you hope to get to Turn 8-9 before calling it quits. I would say anecdotally that 50% of the time one side concedes before the end of the day, another 25% of the time we agree one side is ahead enough to be declared the winner and 25% of the time we just have to call it a draw. Longer games would mean more draws and thus less satisfying conclusions.
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo Can you pinpoint something in BM that makes games last longer? My only answer is that sides are more equal, and since it’s a newer game people continue for a few more rounds before realizing they don’t have a chance.
It’s the increase in income without the increase in the number of units on the starting board which is sure to cause a longer game unless one side gets the advantage early. This makes the starting situation less important and mid game decisions are more likely to compensate for early game mistakes or dice.
Anyway, some may regard this change as a good thing although I’m not really on board with this viewpoint.
At this point I strongly encourage players to omit the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. Small beer perhaps but still a step in the right direction.
And I still feel that once the bids reach 10 and the Scottish fighter bid is possible that the game can no longer be considered “nearly balanced”.
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo Can you pinpoint something in BM that makes games last longer? My only answer is that sides are more equal, and since it’s a newer game people continue for a few more rounds before realizing they don’t have a chance.
It’s the increase in income without the increase in the number of units on the starting board which is sure to cause a longer game unless one side gets the advantage early. This makes the starting situation less important and mid game decisions are more likely to compensate for early game mistakes or dice.
{snip}
What if NO’s were negative instead of positive? Collect Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow for -3 IPCs for Russia. Capture any of Philipines, New Guinea, Java for -2 IPCs per territory for Japan. If too much money is the problem, would helping to bleed funds from those who do poorly help force the issue or would it just kick those who are already down?
-Midnight_Reaper
@Midnight_Reaper Among other things, runs the risk of countries getting negative income. Also changes the trading territory dynamic.
I agree that negative objectives aren’t needed.
I just made som quick calculations about game statistics. I have looked at the last 50 games finished. I have excluded some games that was surrendered very early, its not more than 2 or 3 games anyway
I found the average bid was 8 (allies) and out of 50 games the axis won 31 and the allies 19. This is a 62:38 ratio. 50 games might be too few games, but it definately gives an indication I think
Yesterday i posted about game lenght. 5 games went for 20 rounds or longer and the longest is 35 rounds. So maybe this is not a big deal and it is just my style that is the problem as many of my games tend to be long.
@AndrewAAGamer said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
s taking longer makes no difference. For Face to Face to games it does. Global 1940 is already too long and difficult to consistently get done in a single all day session. My gaming group usually goes from about 10am till 10pm when we get together. Considering a Turn usually takes between an hour and 15 minutes to an hour and 30 minutes to play that means in a 12 hour session you hope to get to Turn 8-9 before calling it quits. I would say anecdotally that 50% of the time one side concedes before the end of the day, another 25% of the time we agree one side is ahead enough to be declared the winner and 25% of the time we just have to call it a draw. Longer games would mean more draws and thus less satisfying conclusions.
totally agree with U, it can be a problem for board gaming, but i dont think second edition board game wouldnt last as much.
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo Can you pinpoint something in BM that makes games last longer? My only answer is that sides are more equal, and since it’s a newer game people continue for a few more rounds before realizing they don’t have a chance.
It’s the increase in income without the increase in the number of units on the starting board which is sure to cause a longer game unless one side gets the advantage early. This makes the starting situation less important and mid game decisions are more likely to compensate for early game mistakes or dice.
Anyway, some may regard this change as a good thing although I’m not really on board with this viewpoint.
At this point I strongly encourage players to omit the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. Small beer perhaps but still a step in the right direction.
And I still feel that once the bids reach 10 and the Scottish fighter bid is possible that the game can no longer be considered “nearly balanced”.
But there is a 3500+ TUV worth of units at the start of the game, why do U think that a bid of 10 with 1 unit per territory is a (big) disbalance?
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I just made som quick calculations about game statistics. I have looked at the last 50 games finished. I have excluded some games that was surrendered very early, its not more than 2 or 3 games anyway
I found the average bid was 8 (allies) and out of 50 games the axis won 31 and the allies 19. This is a 62:38 ratio. 50 games might be too few games, but it definately gives an indication I think
Yesterday i posted about game lenght. 5 games went for 20 rounds or longer and the longest is 35 rounds. So maybe this is not a big deal and it is just my style that is the problem as many of my games tend to be long.
U re a very good player. And when two of a kind meet, it can be like (high level) chess. and that takes time xD
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo Can you pinpoint something in BM that makes games last longer? My only answer is that sides are more equal, and since it’s a newer game people continue for a few more rounds before realizing they don’t have a chance.
It’s the increase in income without the increase in the number of units on the starting board which is sure to cause a longer game unless one side gets the advantage early. This makes the starting situation less important and mid game decisions are more likely to compensate for early game mistakes or dice.
Anyway, some may regard this change as a good thing although I’m not really on board with this viewpoint.
At this point I strongly encourage players to omit the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. Small beer perhaps but still a step in the right direction.
And I still feel that once the bids reach 10 and the Scottish fighter bid is possible that the game can no longer be considered “nearly balanced”.
But there is a 3500+ TUV worth of units at the start of the game, why do U think that a bid of 10 with 1 unit per territory is a (big) disbalance?
@Amon-Sul It has to do with the G1 attacks. If you bid a fighter in scotland it is more likely that the british will scramble (5 planes)if you attack both 110 and 111.
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@oysteilo Can you pinpoint something in BM that makes games last longer? My only answer is that sides are more equal, and since it’s a newer game people continue for a few more rounds before realizing they don’t have a chance.
It’s the increase in income without the increase in the number of units on the starting board which is sure to cause a longer game unless one side gets the advantage early. This makes the starting situation less important and mid game decisions are more likely to compensate for early game mistakes or dice.
Anyway, some may regard this change as a good thing although I’m not really on board with this viewpoint.
At this point I strongly encourage players to omit the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. Small beer perhaps but still a step in the right direction.
And I still feel that once the bids reach 10 and the Scottish fighter bid is possible that the game can no longer be considered “nearly balanced”.
But there is a 3500+ TUV worth of units at the start of the game, why do U think that a bid of 10 with 1 unit per territory is a (big) disbalance?
@Amon-Sul It has to do with the G1 attacks. If you bid a fighter in scotland it is more likely that the british will scramble (5 planes)if you attack both 110 and 111.
let them scramble then. majority of guys send smaller force with germany there anyway to retreat with battleship, so uk scrambles anyway
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
The extra money mainly allows the Allies a better chance of not losing economic superiority to the Axis (which is good). Axis should be more aggressive or they’ll generally be grinded out if they take too long.
This is an excellent point!!! And for me the best summary of Balanced Mod versus OOB I have seen on this website.
First let me say I have NOT played Balanced Mod yet; even a test game against myself. I only started looking into it once I got more involved with this website about a month ago since people here seem to play it more versus OOB. From what I have seen so far about this version Adam makes a most excellent point and states the real difference between OOB and BM3. (Correct designation?)
The reason the OOB version is unbalanced is the Axis can win five ways:
In a typical game you cannot stop the Axis from taking Moscow, India and China. The key is how much does it cost the Axis to accomplish those things and how long does it take giving the Allies time to prepare for the Final Outcome. The problem for the Allies is even if they succeed in stopping the first four it is very difficult to stop number 5; economic parity. The Allies need about $10 more a Turn than the Axis since the Axis have the benefit of centralized position and having basically one large land mass. If the Axis is within that $10 spread the Allies are in big trouble.
In a typical game even if the Allies have stopped the Axis from gaining a Victory City win they still eventually lose because of the economic battle. Assume a normal board well into the game:
a) The Axis are in control of the central land mass but have been stopped at the gates of Cairo and London is safe; their fleets have been decimated or pinned.
b) The Allies have control of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans plus the Mediterranean Sea. Convoy disruption is costing the Axis a bunch of money. Even so the Axis is still collecting about the same as the Allies and thus the Allies will lose in the long run.
In Balanced Mode that is not the case. Below is the additional monies gained by the Axis and the Allies based on the normal board situation described above for BM3:
AXIS: +0
Germany = 0
Japan = +0
Italy = 0
ALLIES: +25
Russia = 0
USA = +15
China = 0
UK Europe = +9
UK Pacific = 0
ANZAC = +1
France = 0
That is a PLUS $25 for the Allies. Now suddenly the Axis is not within $10 anymore; even if they were collecting the same in OOB they would be $25 behind in BM3. That means things have changed drastically strategically for the Allies. Now they just have to STOP the Axis from winning via Victory City Conditions. If they can do that then they will eventually win the game. Makes it much easier for the Allies. Plus it puts added pressure on the Axis since now it is a race against time; like most of the other Axis and Allies games. The Axis either get their victory city conditions or they are doomed.
This means the Axis either have to push hard and fast, as Adam mentions, to achieve a victory city win or they have to play a completely different game than a normal OOB game by trying to fight a long term money war game.
Interesting…
@AndrewAAGamer Well, economic victory is still possible for the Axis, just harder. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a game.
@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
let them scramble then. majority of guys send smaller force with germany there anyway to retreat with battleship, so uk scrambles anyway
Such a situation is a setback for the Axis barring favourable dice.
If the Scottish fighter is bid, attacking both SZ111 & SZ110 should be avoided.
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Well, economic victory is still possible for the Axis, just harder. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a game.
I will need to disagree with you here. Even without an economic victory capability that does not mean it is still not a game. The Axis just has to win via Victory City conditions before the economic tipping point makes that impossible. It is a matter of time that is all. Either the Axis accomplishes their Victory City conditions in time to win or they lose.
It was the same for the older Pacific and Europe games. In both the Allied money was dramatically more than the Axis could possibly garner so the key for the Axis was to win the game by achieving their victory conditions BEFORE the Allies economic might overwhelmed them. For Europe it was taking Moscow. For Pacific it was getting that 22nd victory point. Though we used to play to 24 as 22 was too easy. I can tell you many a Pacific game I had 22 or 23 points on the last Turn and was desperately trying to figure out how to get that last 1 or 2 points to get the victory before the US bombers annihilated my money and thus any chance of victory. THAT was an exciting game.
As far as playing a longer economic game I assume it is possible, as I said in my post.
This means the Axis either have to push hard and fast, as Adam mentions, to achieve a victory city win or they have to play a completely different game than a normal OOB game by trying to fight a long term money war game.
I suppose you might have a fair point there. I may have over reached on that one. It would be a game just with one fewer dimensions.
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I just made som quick calculations about game statistics. I have looked at the last 50 games finished. I have excluded some games that was surrendered very early, its not more than 2 or 3 games anyway
I found the average bid was 8 (allies) and out of 50 games the axis won 31 and the allies 19. This is a 62:38 ratio. 50 games might be too few games, but it definately gives an indication I think
Yesterday i posted about game lenght. 5 games went for 20 rounds or longer and the longest is 35 rounds. So maybe this is not a big deal and it is just my style that is the problem as many of my games tend to be long.
Interesting to see the data. Also, one of your longer games was with me and I think I also have that problem. So maybe you and I just have to be careful when we play against each other. :)
If a bs gets dmg during CM, may it still unload a marine during NCM?
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
If a bs gets dmg during CM, may it still unload a marine during NCM?
No because it participated in combat, not because it is damaged. Same principle applies to transports.
And the bs can’t unload into a friendly territory during CM either?
And that means it can’t load a marine unless it’s going towards a sz where there’ll be amphi?
