Just how balanced is the Balanced Mod?

@cyanight:

@Young:

I like the lend lease ideas, but the execution is clumsy in my opinion. Trying to figure out how to apply my card design to this concept is difficult, I would basically have to create 6 cards for one mechanic (2 IPCs each 3 NOs, and 4 IPCs each for the same 3 NOs. I would make them 3 IPCs each no matter what the political situation is between Japan (seems like a lot of words for one declaration of war). This way a Japanese ship in SZ 5 won’t mean a lick when it comes to taking away the 3 IPCs, Japan will be forced to declare war on Russia just to make their ship in SZ 5 an enemy ship. I have not played it yet, this is my inexperienced opinion… but I like clean worded rules, and this Lend Lease bump from 2 to 4 IPCs is far from it.

You and I think alike my friend. I just revamped my NO cards to use with balanced mod and ended up just putting a note on the bottom to double the cost. I also thought of the +3 instead of +2/+4 as well… Anyways, I have not updated them on Artscow yet but I have the card images made. Now I have to paint some Vichy France inf, artillery, cruiser and destroyer. Also have to paint Russian and Anzac Marines. I doubt the Russians will ever be used But I can see Anzac using them.

Hey Cyanight,

We should work together on how to make balance mod compatible for table tops.

Balance mod sounds like another name for my grandmother’s bra… any desire to give it some legitimacy with a more universal name?

hahaha@Young:

Balance mod sounds like another name for my grandmother’s bra… any desire to give it some legitimacy with a more universal name?

hahaha. that made me chuckle. We might be a bit past the point of no return–at least, as far League games are concerned (everyone is already using Bal Mod or BM in their topic headings to designate games using the mod). But when we release Balance Mod 2.0 (next week sometime), we could certainly include a subtitle if someone proposes something good. E.g., “Balance Mod 2.0: The Allies Strike Back” thats terrible, but u get the idea. It would have to be descriptive of the mod, short, and catchy.

G40b

@variance:

G40b

Yep…

G40B (Global 1940 Balanced)

I would get behind that.

In general I tend to agree with gamerman’s position that NOs for taking a capital are reduntant. My position on NOs is that they are best when used as a way to persuade players to do something that they wouldn’t otherwise do, without an additional incentive of cash money.
Viewed that way, I can see why one for London might be attractive, though I’m not sure that 5 ipcs would be enough of an incentive there. Have you considered going a little higher?

I definitely agree that the Berlin NO for the Russians is pretty pointless. It topped the list of NOs I wish would have been scrapped and replaced with better ones, when compiling ideas a while back in this thread…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.0

I tried to highlight the NOs I thought were particularly problematic on page 3 of that thread…
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34568.msg1335304#msg1335304

I was happy to see though that some of the ideas outlined there, esp. for the Russians did make it into this mod in one form or another. Which is cool.

We definitely had bigger fish to fry than Sierra Leone lol.

I like the proposed name change, G40b has a better ring to it.

Fine then. “g40 balanced” it is

Below is my post to the “G40 Balance Mod - feedback” today thread regarding our upcoming release of version 2. Thought I’d submit it here for comment and keep everyone apprised.

Gentlemen,

After much deliberation, soul searching, and reflection, the Mod Squad has decided to release Balance Mod 2.0. This will be an updated version of the mod based on feedback we received, here and elsewhere on the forum. I’m putting the finishing touches on the XML now, and the release will likely happen early next week.

The changes might be described as modest  Some have already been discussed on this thread. They’ve undergone play testing. We would like to submit them for comment one last time before the release is finalized.

Here are the changes:

1. Correction: XML corrected to award 5 PUs for USA’s Vital Forward Bases objective (was incorrectly coded to award 4).

2. Vichy France Revision: Vichy French conversion of territory can only be prevented by non-French allied land units. Any non-French allied air units on French territories that convert to Vichy French are immediately destroyed.

3. Revised German National Objective: 5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in either London (the United Kingdom) or Egypt. (This modifies Germany’s “Presence in Egypt” objective).

4. New German National Objective - Control of Balkans: 2 PUs if Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece, and Crete are Axis or Pro-Axis controlled.

5. Revised UK Pacific Objective: 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if Malaya and Kwantung are Allied controlled. (This modifies UK Pacific’s “Malaya and Kwantung” objective.

6. Revised ANZAC Objective: 3 PUs if ANZAC is at war with the Japanese, controls all of its original territories, and Malaya is Allied controlled. (This modifies ANZAC’s “Control Original And Malaya” objective).

Note: With these changes, all UK and Anzac National Objectives are now worth 3 PUs.

Would appreciate feedback, particularly from folks who have played/are playing the mod.

thanks all

Disregard that last bit “particulalrly from folks who have played the mod.” That was for the League board discussion, since a lot of people have played it there.

3. Revised German National Objective: 5 PUs if there is at least one German land unit in either London (the United Kingdom) or Egypt. (This modifies Germany’s “Presence in Egypt” objective).

The wording is better than I thought, this way Germany will need to invest a few more units other than just planes, or get real savvy using Italian transports. Thought it might be for Axis control of Egypt which would have been free money of course.

Good job.

I like them except #4, and now that I suddenly know 2.0 is a thing and is also imminent, I have a serious suggestion about Chinese guerrillas - I posted all the details on the league feedback thread http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37553.0

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

@Young:

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it. Below is the relevant portion of the XML, showing the values that can be edited:

<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”></attatchment>

There’s not an obvious way to make the “bombingBonus” value contingent on interception.

Also, why not have marines double as paratroopers?… 1 per strategic bomber, but both units must start in the same territory. In order to use paratroopers, there must be enemy unit/s on the targeted territory, and they must be supported by land units attacking from ground or by amphibious assault. Bombers used in this way surrender all attack capabilities for that turn, and they would be vulnerable to AA artillery before the drop.

This might be a good way to get a common tactical strategy into the game as well as giving more value to an infantry unit worth 5 IPCs, or if that’s too powerful… you could charge 6 for them. It would also go a lot further to justify adding a new unit like this to begin with… not that it needs more justification, but if only one unit is to be added… why not have it do more than just 1 thing. Another plus would be that it’s a great reason to finally bump strategic bombers to the 14 IPC value they should be at.

For table toppers, I’m thinking Marines could be represented by 1 common white infantry sculp for all nations, the same way AA guns and factories were the same common unit in earlier editions. The only way needed to recognize who owns who is by where the unit is… for example: a white marine unit on an American territory, or on an American ship would belong to the US. when multi national forces are on the same territory, roundels could be used to identify them. I have nice ivory standing army units I use for neutrals that would work fine if HBG has enough of them.

@regularkid:

@Young:

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it.

Oh right… I forgot you button rollers were limited by code  :evil:

@Young:

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

This was conditional with keeping all planes fighting @1.
It improves the odds of damage in favor of attacker compared to Balanced Mode SBR (yet reduced the attrition rate of dogfight against StBs), but keeps odds near zero when fighting 1 StB A1 damage D6 vs 1 interceptor Def 1.

@Young:

@variance:

G40b

Yep…

G40B (Global 1940 Balanced)

I would get behind that.

G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?

@regularkid:

@Young:

Baron had a good idea that the +2 damage bonus for each bomber on a SBR would be negated if an air battle was triggered. I thought this was great incentive to intercept even against overwhelming odds… might be worth looking into.

Not a bad idea. But I’m not sure there is a way to code it. Below is the relevant portion of the XML, showing the values that can be edited:

<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � <option name=“movement” value=“6”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“isAir” value=“true”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“attack” value=“4”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“defense” value=“1”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“isAirTransport” value=“true”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“canBeGivenByTerritoryTo” value=“British”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option> <option name=“airAttack” value=“1”>� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �</option></attatchment>

There’s not an obvious way to make the “bombingBonus” value contingent on interception.

Cant you do something like this?

<attatchment name=“unitAttatchment” attatchto=“bomber” javaclass=“games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment” type=“unitType”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �   <option name=“movement” value=“6”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“isAir” value=“true”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“attack” value=“4”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“defense” value=“1”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“isAirTransport” value=“true”>�  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  �  � Â</option> <option name=“bombingMaxDieSides” value=“6”><if><then></then></if></option></attatchment>

@Baron:

@Young:

@variance:

G40b

Yep…

G40B (Global 1940 Balanced)

I would get behind that.

G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?

Sure, the name is mostly for table toppers anyway as online players put many different things in the title of their gameplay threads.

@Baron:

G40b or G40B maybe missleading to G40 second edition, G40A being first ed.
Why not use G40BM?

I really don’t think you want to call it a BM… just sayin…  :-D