Here’s the Armies vs Navies idea I came up with!
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
Regarding Chinese guerrillas, because coastal territories in China are exempt from the garrisoning requirement, the possibility of guerrillas doesn’t put that much of a dent in Japan’s efforts to close the Burma road early on, speaking generally.
Its only if Japan elects to plunge deeper into China that the garrisoning requirement entails obvious trade offs (e.g.,a slower takedown of India, reduced ability to harass Russia). And those are precisely the kind strategic choices that Balance Mod is designed to create.
-
@Adam514
Can you add a line on the BM rules page that says something to the effect of, “The Ship carrying the Marine will work in the same way as a transport” OR “You cannot conduct sea combat with the ship carrying the Marine and then use that same marine in an amphibious assault.” Just to clarify it. -
Your question wasn’t clear then. You can use Marines in amphibious assaults just like units on a tp, doesn’t matter if there’s a battle prior or not.
-
@Mursilis I think what Adam was trying to say initially is that, during the noncombat phase, a marine cannot unload from a cruiser/battleship that has already engaged in combat that turn.
-
Adam’s answer assumes that you are talking about NCM. The marine can’t move in NCM. Nothing prevents the marine from doing an amphibious assault from that sea zone if there’s a suitable territory.
-
I’m going to hit this one more time since I’m not really sure why it would interfere with slowing japan from taking india.
If the burma road is open AND FIC is either controlled by US, UK, or ANZAC, but not france, AND japan is at war with UK AND Kwangtung is allied controlled, THEN and only then will the chinese guerrillas not spawn.
This would assume that japan has failed in the south and needs it’s northern units moved.
I hope I am being more clear this time than with the marines.Can you explain how this interferes with slowing down the Calcutta crush?
-
I don’t get why this is such a great idea. If the allies are beating down Japan enough that they hold FIC & Kwangtung, then the guerilla fighters are unlikely to be a factor.
Guerilla fighters don’t slow down the Calcutta crush and in fact focus Japan on Calcutta.
-
Wait I thought you thought the guerrilla fighter rule was a bad idea. I like the guerrilla fighter rule but I just find that if japan is having some trouble down south and things are going really badly they can at least move those 20 ipc’s worth of units back to help. Otherwise they are just stuck sitting there till they die.
It doesn’t have to be a big beatdown either, If the burma road is not closed and FIC falls kwangtung will go as well. So the japanese could possible move the units stuck in those chinese territories while doing amphib assaults to retake the territories.
Maybe it’s just too little too late but it can help japan a bit to regain some territory or hold a line before manchuria falls.
-
I do but I don’t like the idea of functionally keeping the rule but adding a few more complications to it. KISS!
Anyway, it seems like I’m in the minority on the guerilla fighters.
-
@Mursilis The way i read your suggestion is if Japan had some poor dice (or poor judgement?) Then you are going to compensate them by tossing in a new or revised rule set for this? In my opinion this violates everything that Axis&Allies is about. I dont want it.
-
Why are moderate to skilled players still including bids in games for Balanced Mod?
-
Ok, the tribe has spoken it was a bad idea and too complicated. I let it marinade in my mind over night and came to the ultimate conclusion that it didn’t help japan enough to warrant the rule.
One last suggestion. What if the chinese can only spawn 1 infantry at the beginning of their turn. So if there is one open japanese territory or 5 open japanese territories the chinese can only spawn 1 infantry.
Good, bad, dumb, your thoughts.
-
Might not be possible to implement in triple a.
Also it is not that common to get 2 guerillas in the same turn.
-
@simon33
So simon, would you just keep the chinese as OOB or reduce the burma road to 3 ipcs instead of 6 or have a different suggestion?I’m going to try this with china. If the burma road is open china gets 3 IPCs. If the burma road is closed then china can place 1 guerrilla fighter at the start of its turn in an unoccupied japanese territory not on the coast as the current rules demand. So its a slight rule change.
Not sure if 6 would make china too powerful. I’m going to try this rule in my next game.
-
Yeah I think I would just leave China as OOB. Saying that China is too weak is a bit like saying France is too weak. China still usually dies in BM, it just takes a few more turns.
-
Well I think that OOB china is a bit too weak and that BM china can be a bit too strong.
What about this proposal. Each territory that makes up the burma road adds one ipc to the chinese economy. So if the burma road is open china will get 4 IPCs. If say Yunnan and Szechwan are captured then china would get 2 additonal IPCs instead. Then the guerrilla rule could be removed since china would have a bit more money to play with.
The extra supplies would be historically accurate since the burma road was captured by the japanese and supplies were airlifted into china over the Himalayas. You could even allow china to purchase artillery if either szechwan or yunnan was china controlled. If both were taken than no artillery would be allowed.
-
@Mursilis how is this materially different than the existing National Objective (+6 if Burma road is open in OOB, +3 if Burma in Balance Mod)?
Do you have much experience with Balance Mod? China gets crushed in virtually every game involving competent Japan player. If anything, the Guerrillas aren’t enough.
-
@regularkid
Well I’m glad you asked that question. I play balance mod exclusively now. I’ve played 10 games of it so far. And yes china gets crushed almost every game because japan pushes south and wipes out yunnan and cuts off the road. Once that road is done china is pretty much over. Japan parks its airforce in kwangsi and soon szechwan falls. It is not hard for japan to keep all those chinese territories locked down unless japan has some really bad luck which it doesn’t usually. Or decides to attack amur’s stack of russians. This would give china time to build up down south.My option would give china +3 ipcs when yunnan falls and an extra turn to try to buy artillery. And when szechwan falls then they would get +2 ipcs. Having that artillery lets china actually fight back instead of sit there and build infantry. China would be a threat, a small one, but something instead of just a nuisance waiting to die.
Your mod is fantastic and like I said it is the only one I play. It does add a lot of strategic options across the whole board. I know a good thing when I see it so that is why I continue to play the Mod. This one place, China, is where I feel Japan can do only one thing and knock out the burma road ASAP. Then china is done. So we tried some different options with japan.
I’m not an expert and we like to try new strategies when we can. I would put my self as an intermediate player and we never use bids. I think your Balance mod is as close to balancing this game as Larry harris’ 42.3 setup.
And you just admitted that china is too weak now. I think either way it comes down to giving them Artillery options and my proposal would do that.
It fits with your criteria for balance changes.
- does it improve balance? (I think it does)
(2) does it improve fun/strategic depth? (I think it could)
(3) does it improve historicality? Yes
(4) is it simple/easy to understand and implement? Yes
"If the change satisfied all of those criteria, it was a strong candidate for inclusion.”
So why don’t we test this out and see if it fits.
- does it improve balance? (I think it does)
-
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
My option would give china +3 ipcs when yunnan falls and an extra turn to try to buy artillery. And when szechwan falls then they would get +2 ipcs. Having that artillery lets china actually fight back instead of sit there and build infantry. China would be a threat, a small one, but something instead of just a nuisance waiting to die.
This would be instead of Guerrillas? Guerrillas seem like that they are a bigger help to China and bigger hindrance to Japan than what you are proposing . . .
-
@regularkid
Most of the time Guerrillas don’t show up on the board this is true. But Japan is also sitting on 20 to 30 ipc’s in territories it can’t do anything with.So if you break it down if yunnan falls then the chinese will still have +3 ipcs every turn until szechwan falls. That’s a guaranteed extra infantry instead of hoping that japan moves a unit out of a spot or USA bombs a japanese unit to death. The artillery is also crucial to fighting back against the japanese. 4 1’s or 4 2’s going into an attack with a fighter for back up.
And like I said before, if yunnan does fall then china still have a chance to buy a few more artillery to put up north or stack for a counter attack. Even if yunnan and szechwan fall then they would still get +2 ipcs to put down as long as burma and india remain open which is almost a guaranteed extra infantry.
I think it is worth a test and if it is still too weak maybe add it in on top of the guerrillas, but I think my proposal will beef up china in a logical way. Every time I can get some artillery I can usually put up a good attack force to beat back japanese forces. You can even look at bloodbath rules where they add cavalry at an attack of 2. This lets them deal with the japanese threat a bit better but they keep the +6 NO for burma road.
I don’t think you should shoot down this idea without testing it. I think more access to artillery is the key to making china not just instantly die.
Suggested Topics
