Hi, these rules are cool. I did not base my rules off of this. This was developed independently.
A different take on “free for all”. Being able to make alliances though means it should be called “shifting alliances” rather than “free for all”.
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
@Adam514
So if Italy can’t get vichy france and gets taranto raided, what can it do at that point? Just build up a ground army in italy and the coast? -
Take Gib, get Med islands, yeah. Depends what else is going on of course.
-
And can open for Germany in USSR. Don’t forget that. Italy is often under a tonne of pressure and does indeed need a bunch of infantry to survive.
-
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
However not being open to changes or suggestions is not a good way to be. I mean what if changing a NO by one dollar dramatically changes and balances the whole game.
Speaking for myself, I’m always open to suggestions for changes. We’ve actually incorporated quite a few suggestions made on this thread (e.g., +5 for Axis occupation of London, requiring Allied land unit (as opposed to air unit) in S. France to prevent Vichy).
However, at this late stage, any proposed changes must obviously meet a substantial burden. I offered the following guidance in that regard, in an earlier post:
“The Mod Squad used four metrics to determine whether any proposed change should be incorporated or not: (1) does it improve balance? (2) does it improve fun/strategic depth? (3) does it improve historicality? (4) is it simple/easy to understand and implement? If the change satisfied all of those criteria, it was a strong candidate for inclusion.”
When it comes to unit mechanics and initial unit setup, I think we are particularly cautious about making tweaks because such discussions tend to generate the most controversy among players, and we want the Mod to be widely accepted and played by the community. Also, as evidenced by similar discussions on other threads (see, e.g., G40 Redesign thread), debates about unit statistics tend to have a “rabbit hole” quality, from which there is little escape.
The types of proposals I personally would find more interesting would try to recreate historical events/phenomena. For example, a Russian winter mechanic. Perhaps soviet factories that are destroyed upon capture, or can be moved (have played tested this. is cool). Manhattan project/nukes.
-
No offense I’m just going off of what that other person said. But I’m sure you have more data as to where the balance is. If the game really requires a bid, how much, and is there a definitive tilt in either the axis favor or allied favor.
-
@Mursilis The League no longer maintains separate statistics for Balance Mod and “Vanilla” win/loss ratios. 2018 was the last year they kept separate statistics. I think they stopped because the overwhelming majority of League Games are now Balance Mod.
At any rate, in 2018, the ratio for Balance Mod was about 55% wins for Axis, 45% wins for Allies. Most of these were no-bid games. Some involved single-digit bids for Axis.
This is much more even than the win/loss ratio for Vanilla games, which, in 2018, was about 60% wins for Axis, 40% wins for Allies, with virtually all games involving substantial, double-digit bids for Allies.
Why does there seem to be a prevailing trend in Balance Mod games to include a small Axis bid, even when the stats arguably point to an Axis advantage? I think you’re on the right track when you suggest that the skill level of the players may have something to do with it. Among higher skilled players, the balance may be different than for lower skilled players, because one side’s advantages may take more or less skill to utilize.
-
The statistics are maintained here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pYDcR_d27qG312v_rq2q35wYEEfO6mjrX-Co1nvKrlI/edit#gid=818885946
-
I totally agree with most of what @regularkid said there. Remember the controversy of tanks going to 6IPCs from 5IPCs? Even changes which are quite likely to be liked, such as 10IPC tacs would attract a fair bit of controversy. Some would say why not 9IPCs! A few changes could be made but it’s highly unlikely that fiddling at the edges would see some sort of great idea. Getting rid of the most controversial rule, the guerilla fighters, would be a completely new variant IMO.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I totally agree with most of what @regularkid said there. Remember the controversy of tanks going to 6IPCs from 5IPCs? Even changes which are quite likely to be liked, such as 10IPC tacs would attract a fair bit of controversy. Some would say why not 9IPCs! A few changes could be made but it’s highly unlikely that fiddling at the edges would see some sort of great idea. Getting rid of the most controversial rule, the guerilla fighters, would be a completely new variant IMO.
Why are the guerilla fighters so bad @simon33? In my opinion this is the single best change of many good changes in BM3! I would by far like to see other BM3 stuff change long before this one
-
I think they make gamey, unrealistic, outcomes. It’s like a deliberately created loophole, exactly why should USA be able to snipe out the garrisons? Also, they don’t make the game more dynamic IMO. They in fact make the decision to go after India as quickly as possible more clear. I also think that
Interesting that there are a couple of people that like the rule. I just don’t quite follow. I’d probably only hate it half as much if USA couldn’t bomb the infantry to create guerillas, but even so it still feels like a retrograde step back to Risk where you couldn’t allow the last unit to leave.
-
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
I think they make gamey, unrealistic, outcomes. It’s like a deliberately created loophole, exactly why should USA be able to snipe out the garrisons? Also, they don’t make the game more dynamic IMO. They in fact make the decision to go after India as quickly as possible more clear. I also think that
Interesting that there are a couple of people that like the rule. I just don’t quite follow. I’d probably only hate it half as much if USA couldn’t bomb the infantry to create guerillas, but even so it still feels like a retrograde step back to Risk where you couldn’t allow the last unit to leave.
The logic of the guerrilla rule is manifold.
First, the historical justification for the “sniping” as you call it. US involvement in mainland china war was primarily air support, and logistical assistance to native combatants. The guerrilla rule allows the US to have a role in supporting China that doesn’t involve boots on the ground.
Second, it slows Japan’s China crush, and helps simulate the difficulty of plunging deep into and maintaining control of inland china. It also creates an in-game justification for Japan cleaving closer to the coast, which is historical.
Third, from a gameplay perspective, it aids in balance, and presents more strategic choices to both sides.
-
FWIW, the air support is already modeled by the flying tiger. And wrt Japan sticking to the coast, they already have an incentive for that with the inland territories all being 1IPC.
Anyway, it is what it is.
-
China is too weak without that rule.
-
Does anyone else think that if the axis attacks on turn 1 or 2 they are much more likely to win than if they attack on turn 3 or 4? If this is a true statement and not just my imagination is there any way to balance out the game so that the axis can get an income boost IF they do wait till turn 4 to attack.
-
Part of BM’s goal is to add more viable options, and in that optic the difference in effectiveness in the DOW is balanced enough that in-game decisions by your opponent are enough to skew the optimal DOW turn. As part of the BM team and having played over 100 BM games and with a vast vanilla G40 experience, I can’t affirm what DOW turn is best.
-
@Adam514 I think BM is fantastic and helps balance out the game and adds many more viable options. But I’m not talking about optimal attacks. I suppose you can look at it that way. But I’m not looking for which turn DOW is best. It just seems to me that if the axis wait till turn 3 or 4, or let’s say that the longer that axis wait to attack, especially turn 3 or 4, the more likely it is that the allies will win since they have more time to build up their fleets, and forces and take those money islands from japan.
Does this seem true to you?
-
It doesn’t seem true to me. J4 is usually bad, but not always.
-
@Adam514
When is J4 not a poor tactical decision? Or more importantly how can you make it work if sealion does not work? -
G4 Sealion, UK DOW on Japan.
-
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Does anyone else think that if the axis attacks on turn 1 or 2 they are much more likely to win than if they attack on turn 3 or 4? If this is a true statement and not just my imagination is there any way to balance out the game so that the axis can get an income boost IF they do wait till turn 4 to attack.
Are you talking about in the Pacific or in Europe? If you’re talking about either, waiting until turn 4 is pretty suicidal - except in the case of UK DOW as Adam said. Even then, it may be advised to reduce USA income by attacking Guam and/or Philippines. Depends on what it unleashes in Europe too. J1 DOW is somewhat different to G1 DOW.
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
China is too weak without that rule.
Sounds like a value judgement to me.
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@Adam514 I think BM is fantastic and helps balance out the game and adds many more viable options. But I’m not talking about optimal attacks. I suppose you can look at it that way. But I’m not looking for which turn DOW is best. It just seems to me that if the axis wait till turn 3 or 4, or let’s say that the longer that axis wait to attack, especially turn 3 or 4, the more likely it is that the allies will win since they have more time to build up their fleets, and forces and take those money islands from japan.
Does this seem true to you?
In general you’re correct IMO. Axis have neither a starting unit or income advantage so they need to capitalise on their superior starting options. If they let these fade away, they should then go on to lose. G2/G3 don’t have huge differences in most games though. G1 & G4 are radically different. J2 is just a weaker version of J1, J3 is quite different, in part because German fleet can reach the Med.
Suggested Topics
