G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download

How is it logical that a neutral warship can affect lend-lease…?

@Adam514 I don’t think the issue is that it’s not logical. It is and makes sense to me now that I know. The problem is in the way the NO is designed. It is basically an income stack for Russia. They dont have to do anything to get it. All the penalty rests on Japan to try and prevent it. Let’s be honest Germany and Italy will almost never be able to prevent it. That being said I also dislike the sz 80 bonus for Russia. Another cheap way to get them income. Don’t get me wrong I do like BM3. I just think it needs a couple of tweaks.

@majikforce There are a bunch of NOs that are impossible to prevent, the lend-lease ones are quite reasonably preventable. Sz5 lend-lease NO can be prevented easily if Japan declares war. It’s part of the pros and cons of a DOW against Russia. And also for Russia, they know they’ll lose some income if they DOW Japan. I think it’s perfect like this.

Basically if Japan DOWs on USSR, blocks the Pacific NO but concedes the penalty for the Persian NO only, it’s a wash for USSR with the DOW. Although then they have to maintain the blocking of the NO. If Japan is also prepared to activate Mongolia, they can get an advantage and cause USSR to suffer.

Perhaps this should have been in a BM thread.

It should be possible to tweek/replace the sz5/amur objective for USSR:

2 IPC if there is peace between Japan and USSR
2 IPC if USSR declears war against Japan and there are no USSR units in Manchuria and/or Korea.
4 IPC if japan declares war on USSR

The second part allows USSR to enter parts of China and fight Japan there. The penalty is just associated with manchuria and Korea

Isn’t that pretty much the status quo?

no, it allows russia to enter china without losing the +2. A significant detail i think

Oh so remove the sz5 dependency, is that you are saying?

Unless SZ5 is blocked or Amur is lost, USSR still get the +2 if they DOW on Japan.

Yes,ussr will always get +2 as long as they dont enter manchuria/Korea,

I dont want to tie it up to sz 5 or amur. They will get +2 even without amur.

One idea of BM3 seems to be to have made Russia stronger. I think the present construction is pretty neat in giving Russia extra income, but also giving both benefits and draw-backs with DOWs from either side. The construction is simplified in P2V, but to my eye it’s not an improvement.

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

One idea of BM3 seems to be to have made Russia stronger. I think the present construction is pretty neat in giving Russia extra income, but also giving both benefits and draw-backs with DOWs from either side. The construction is simplified in P2V, but to my eye it’s not an improvement.

I agree.

I have posted before that I thought the best option was to have a USSR DOW nullify Mongolia but it wasn’t supported.

I would agree with that. Or atleast R shouldn’t be able to enter Korea without nullifying the pact, like when supporting a US-landing. The logic is since that’s an japanese original territory. Maybe it should go for Manchuria and Jehol as well?

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:

It should be possible to tweek/replace the sz5/amur objective for USSR:

2 IPC if there is peace between Japan and USSR
2 IPC if USSR declears war against Japan and there are no USSR units in Manchuria and/or Korea.
4 IPC if japan declares war on USSR

The second part allows USSR to enter parts of China and fight Japan there. The penalty is just associated with manchuria and Korea

Why penalize Russia from not going into a territory that’s Japan control when there at war with that country ? Even if it was a Chinese original.

Going to be playing my very first game with the balance mod tomorrow and had a question about one of the NOs. The UK NO regarding subs… do Axis subs in the Mediterranean prevent the UK from collecting the bonus? Not sure if the Mediterranean counts as ‘the Atlantic’ so figured I’d clarify.

@creeping-deth87 It does not count as the Atlantic.

@Adam514 @regularkid

One clarification, please. My current installation says:

while this topic is still titled as Balance Mod 3.0.

Shouldn’t we update 3.0 to 4.0 in the headlines, too?

Probably should just remove the version since it also covers version 2.

@simon33 Right! I have removed the version # so the title is more generic.

@regularkid In case version 4 supersedes version 3, shouldn’t the first posting in this topic reflect the current version, too? Also, shouldn’t the savegame(s) be removed, as the map is included in the Global map-repository?