I have noticed that the major differences with BM are:
Moscow is not doomed to fall on G7-ish. You can hold out for a much longer time even with a modest help of UK fighters. A couple extra infantry a round makes a big difference.
Axis can get stuck heading down towards Egypt after the fall of Moscow. The extra Allied income in the late game makes a big difference.
Japan cannot rapidly conquer all of China; they have to pick a focus of India or China
Hi Calvin
Good to see you back. I think everyone agrees that BM is better/more balanced then OOB. It is of course nice to have one set-up that you don’t need to modify with bids.
I have raised my concerns about some of the objectives elsewhere such as there is too much focus on islands in the med. If Italy f.ex takes cyprus you remove two british objectives, the original territory and a new objective for the british (all med islands are allied). My opinion is that this design is silly. The same thing with Anzac, all 3 objectives can be removed by taking solomon (I believe)
I think the case for anzac is less severe as this is easier to counter in many situations. Also the Russian Middle east and Africa mone is gone. I agree with the rational that these are cheesy moves, but I think it does not enhance fun game play. Instead Russia is just compenseted with extra money for objectives they can not control. Basically you give Russia free money and tells Russia to just fight Germany/Italy. Russia is less fun to play in BM I think. Russia rarely declears war on Japan anymore as it might loose some of its free money by doing it.
And then there are marines, don’t get me started on this. I REALLY don’t see the need for this unit
Good to see you back. I think everyone agrees that BM is better/more balanced then OOB. It is of course nice to have one set-up that you don’t need to modify with bids.
I have raised my concerns about some of the objectives elsewhere such as there is too much focus on islands in the med. If Italy f.ex takes cyprus you remove two british objectives, the original territory and a new objective for the british (all med islands are allied). My opinion is that this design is silly. The same thing with Anzac, all 3 objectives can be removed by taking solomon (I believe)
I think the case for anzac is less severe as this is easier to counter in many situations. Also the Russian Middle east and Africa mone is gone. I agree with the rational that these are cheesy moves, but I think it does not enhance fun game play. Instead Russia is just compenseted with extra money for objectives they can not control. Basically you give Russia free money and tells Russia to just fight Germany/Italy. Russia is less fun to play in BM I think. Russia rarely declears war on Japan anymore as it might loose some of its free money by doing it.
And then there are marines, don’t get me started on this. I REALLY don’t see the need for this unit
I don’t think that BM is better or more balanced. In fact, from what I see it’s pretty much just as unbalanced as oob. I dislike BM so much that I’m finishing my last two BM games now and won’t be starting new ones.
I fully agree with you on the objectives and the marine unit. And don’t forget new objectives were added for the Axis as well, objectives that are super easy to get and hold.
Marsh
Marsh? More like Harsh
Pedantic but amusing! :)
@Arthur:
I have noticed that the major differences with BM are:
- Moscow is not doomed to fall on G7-ish. You can hold out for a much longer time even with a modest help of UK fighters. A couple extra infantry a round makes a big difference.
Not to mention that several fighters represent a realistic defense to strategic bombing. This is the best change in BM, by far!
@Arthur:
- Japan cannot rapidly conquer all of China; they have to pick a focus of India or China
Yeah, I’ve been ignoring most of China lately, even Chahar which you can take J1. Just focus on Anwhe, Hunan, Yunnan and maybe Kweichow.
And then there are marines, don’t get me started on this. I REALLY don’t see the need for this unit
I like the idea of them but I think they’re too overpowered at present.
The extra UK bucks usually keep the UK above 30, which is good. But a lot of that goes into securing the Med, so end up with some sunk costs, like airbases and carriers that don’t do a lot except ward off air attacks.
Don’t know about it being good. UK is a bit of a monster in BM, unlike the cripple it was in the war and is in OOB.
Generally, the strategies in BM are similar to OOB, with small variations for the new objectives. Although from BM3 I’ve been doing a G1 DOW to nerf the Soviets before they get too many troops. Surprisingly, in a couple of games this has seen Japan get strong. I would imagine that a J1 DOW isn’t nearly as good in BM because of the guerilla fighters in China and extra Allied money.
I don’t mean to derail the topic, I just want some opinions about my own house rule NOs for G40 balance… please PM me with any comments about the following NOs so that we can keep this thread about Balance Mod.
Thanks.
New & Modified National Objectives
Germany (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if an Axis power controls London
Soviet Union (2 NOs which will replace the original National Prestige NO)
-5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships in sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel as well as London
-5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any original Russian territories
Japan (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if Japan controls all original Chinese territories
United States (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers
UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
ANZAC (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the Allies control Cairo (when at war with Germany/Italy)
Here is what I would suggest. My changes are in blue.
@Young:
New & Modified National Objectives
Soviet Union (2 NOs which will replace the original National Prestige NO)
-5 IPCs if there are no Allied LAND units on any original Russian territoriesUK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
- 5 IPCs if there are no German submarines anywhere on the board other than in sea zone 112, the Baltic Sea (sea zones 113-115), the Black Sea (100), and the Caspian Sea (unnumbered)
ANZAC (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the Allies control Cairo (when at war with Germany/Italy)
Not sure about the last one.
Also, you might have tilted it too far to the Allies side.
Marsh
UK is a bit of a monster in BM, unlike the cripple it was in the war and is in OOB.
Eh, the UK was pretty powerful in the war. It only looks like a cripple if you ignore navies and air forces and only focus on armies.
Air forces? Weren’t the RAF outnumbered 4 to 1 in the Battle of Britain?
Air forces? Weren’t the RAF outnumbered 4 to 1 in the Battle of Britain?
No it was more like 1.2 to 1.
see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Opposing_forces
Air forces? Weren’t the RAF outnumbered 4 to 1 in the Battle of Britain?
No it was more like 1.2 to 1.
see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain#Opposing_forces
Hmm, I wonder what the 4 to 1 quote in the movie (Battle of Britain) referred to, if anything? Fighters vs all Luftwaffe? Perhaps not the most unreasonable comparison because the RAF bombers weren’t useful in defense.
I know you’re tying to imply that the RAF was crippled by saying it was outnumbered so heavily, but then the fact that it won the Battle of Britain anyway actually makes my point. After it, the RAF and USAAF played about equal roles in the destruction of the Luftwaffe (the Red Air Force had a minimal impact on the Luftwaffe).
The problem of the BofBritain was that numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. Brit ftrs were close to base, defending, so they could land quickly, refuel and rotate out much, much quicker than the Germans who had to fly much further back.
That allowed the RAF to hit way above its weight in numbers, especially when radar allowed them to see the attacks coming.
Also, the Luftwaffe was really a tactical air force, not an air superiority force.
The Allied effort to gain air superiority of Germany was massive and took 3ish years and thousands upon thousands of dead.
They won the battle but radar, home territory advantage, German lack of a heavy (4 engine) bomber and German stupidity in going after London contributed greatly. Every report I’ve ever heard is that the Germans were winning when they were hitting the southern airfields only.
What isn’t modeled in this game is the enormous naval superiority of Britain. For good reason IMO - that would be no fun.
@Young:
I don’t mean to derail the topic, I just want some opinions about my own house rule NOs for G40 balance… please PM me with any comments about the following NOs so that we can keep this thread about Balance Mod.
Thanks.
New & Modified National Objectives
Germany (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if an Axis power controls LondonSoviet Union (2 NOs which will replace the original National Prestige NO)
-5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships in sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel as well as London
-5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any original Russian territoriesJapan (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if Japan controls all original Chinese territoriesUnited States (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powersUK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)
- 5 IPCs if there are no German submarines anywhere on the board other than in the Baltic Sea (sea zones 113-115), the Black Sea (100), and the Caspian Sea (unnumbered)
ANZAC (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the Allies control Cairo (when at war with Germany/Italy)
Grasshopper, Germany already gets +5 for controlling UK in Balance Mod (its “+5 if Axis control EITHER UK or Egypt” now)
