@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:
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
Wolf, don’t poop on his acronym usage with your dirty mind.
haha. i’m glad i’m not the only one who saw the scatological implications of BM.
G40b it is.
Consider G40U, for ULTIMATE, or no, how about G40+
G40+ has a ring to it.
I like G40balanced cuz it immediately describes what it is, and cuz of the implied indictment of G40 second edition. :P. The fact that leagers can continue to use “balanced” in their game headings is just icing on the cake
or we can call it G40 Vichy because that sounds weak and effeminate
not that there’s anything wrong with that
If I heard of a G40 Vichy mod, I would think it just collaborates with what I had in mind.
Hey all. G40 Balanced (Balance Mod 2.0) is now available for download and play! Thanks to all those who gave feedback. :) :) :)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.msg1535679#msg1535679
Hey all. The link to the Download for G40 Balanced (Balance Mod 2.0) has changed. Here is the working link: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37883.0
I didn’t realize that players were basically inventing a bid system in G40B by taking the Allies and excluding certain NOs. I’m trying to incorporate all these new national objectives into my table top games just to find out that the main promoters of this variant are playing without some of the NOs. What gives? What NOs are being left out? Is it balanced or not?
Whoa, whoa,
First, how many different games have you seen where people are giving up NO’s?
I don’t know of anyone besides me, but maybe there are - you tell me
I gave up NO’s on only 2 separate occasions vs. 1 player who is not on the modsquad, I believe. I did it unilaterally because I thought that the Allies had too many new NO’s and were too strong and I didn’t really want all the new NO’s. Are there other people doing this too? And are they imitating me? I hope not, because I think it would be better to keep all the NO’s and bid IPC’s as normal.
No, I have not seen what other players do, I only saw one thread title where you were playing with -3 NOs. Sorry if I was assuming wrong, I just thought league games were equal game conditions but I don’t play and shouldn’t have assumed. What are the 3 NOs? is this something that should be considered for table tops when playing Allies less skilled than Axis?
Whoa, whoa,
First, how many different games have you seen where people are giving up NO’s?
I don’t know of anyone besides me, but maybe there are - you tell me
I gave up NO’s on only 2 separate occasions vs. 1 player who is not on the modsquad, I believe. I did it unilaterally because I thought that the Allies had too many new NO’s and were too strong and I didn’t really want all the new NO’s. Are there other people doing this too? And are they imitating me? I hope not, because I think it would be better to keep all the NO’s and bid IPC’s as normal.
Lets be clear. Nobody is giving up NOs except for Gamerman. And, btw, he LOST his league game against Nerq, where he gave up 4 NOs. (A rematch is pending). I suspect you will see future games from Gamerman with no NOs given up heheh :P
Do you mean Axis player less skilled than Allied player or am I confused?
OK, so it was probably just me.
I offered up certain NO’s, and he countered with the USA Normandy/South France/Holland NO, the North Africa NO, and the new ANZ NO for those 3 minor islands, and I agreed
In league play you can do almost anything you want if both players agree
I think NO’s should always be on the table for consideration. Remember for AA50 where they all were considered optional? However, with a new version of the game (Balanced mod 1.0 or 2.0) if I were you I wouldn’t tinker with the NO’s for table tops - just bid for sides like normal with IPC’s
or how about just play the game as is with a friendly agreement about who plays which side. :P
Of course regular kid would pipe up and reply before I get a chance
I lost the first game to getting terrible luck in the wrong place at the wrong time on UK1, and having a little difficulty adapting to the lack of a big bid that suffocates the Italians by murdering their fleet on UK1. Giving up the NO’s was not much of a factor - it was a quick Japan victory facilitated by terrible luck in Tobruk on UK1 along with terrible luck in SE Asia on multiple occasions.
Regular kid just has a lot of pride in this project and likes to think that it is perfect. I know that Balanced mod 1.0 is a slight over-reaction to the Axis advantage we’ve endured for a couple years and gave the Allies too much. 1 game is anecdotal evidence only as we all know
Nerquen is a master of the game, and in our second game of giving up 2 big new US NO’s and the ANZAC NO, I still have the upper hand I think. GREAT game, keep watching
