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
-
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.
-
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
BM china can be a bit too strong.
This is probably the part of where you’re coming from where I have a problem.
Why’s the testing burden on the mod squad? Have you play tested your proposal?
-
Yeah they can be if yunnan somehow doesn’t fall. But most games it does so it isn’t an issue. In fact why even have the NO bonus for china at all since the burma road usually is out of commission by turn 2 and since it’s closed they have no access to artillery which makes the whole NO rule useless, does it not? You could give the chinese 30 IPCs by having the Burma road but again, it usually is closed off in turn 2 so it isn’t an issue. I know with 30 IPC’s that would be a game changer, but the point stands. It is not open enough to get the bonus cash and get artillery units.
That is beside the point though. And yes I’m going to test this rule in my next game which i’m probably going to start in the next few days.
My suggestion can be amended or tested. Now they have more people than just little old me, im sure. The idea might be sound.
Of course if India falls then the Chinese can’t get any extra IPC’s since the air dropped supplies will be coming from India.
If it does work out simon then this would make you very very happy I would assume. IF at the very least my whole idea is not accepted then letting artillery be purchased if szechwan is not controlled by the japanese might be enough. But my whole concept might fix your issue with the rule and add some extra options for the chinese(Artillery).
-
@Mursilis i’m not sure i understand the goal of the proposed rule modification. it seems like the rationale keeps shifting between “China is too strong” and “China isn’t strong enough”
-
There’s two aspects to the Burma Road rule:
- If it’s open at the start of the turn you get artillery if you want
- If it’s open at the end of China’s turn you get the NO.
Reducing the NO from 6 to 3 reduces the incentive to trade Yunnan for China - versus doing something else. Perhaps this actually increases strategic depth, because China becomes less of a one dimensional power.
You’re normally doing reasonably well as allies to get the NO for two turns in the whole game if the axis J1. Perhaps this is part of the reason it was reduced to 3, to reduce the incentive to J1.
I tend to like the incentive for the allies to go hard after the Burma Road. I’m guessing some feel that this is a weakness or it wouldn’t have been changed against balance.
-
I’m sorry about that. I might be mistaken from my games but it just seems to me that as long as japan hits yunnan and shuts down the road then china gets 3 ipc’s for a turn, never has a chance to get artillery and then the idea of the guerrillas makes perfect sense and works out perfectly. Now the only problem for me comes to the point that if japan loses control of the road they have all those units sitting there that they can’t move or else a chinese infantry will be spawned.
So looking at the board and seeing 6 units of japanese troops that I can’t use or i’m going to have a chinese infantry to deal with and lose a territory instantly seems a bit strong. I feel that china is too weak at the beginning of the game and can be too strong and the end of the game. The current balance change for china doesn’t help improve their tactical standpoint at all. If you look at every other change that was made you can see it adds money to a power through more NO’s.
Anzac is a great example of a wonderful change that when you look at it from a numbers standpoint looks bad, “Hey, I’m going from getting 10 ipc’s to 9, why would this be better if i’m getting less money?” But when you look at it from the actual game play point of view, you see that they are instead getting a guaranteed 3 ipc NO boost while still being able to get the other money. And since Malaya is usually in allied hands for a while instead of having that 5 ipc boost per turn you get 6.
If you look at the vichy rule this is obviously there to help out italy from being killed immediately.
There are a lot of great changes in the mod but I feel that the china one is somewhat lacking.
I think if you simply give china an extra chance to put that artillery down on the field it might help china’s early game while not making the late game overpowered.
Perhaps having the burma road open would be 4 ipc’s and if only szechwan, burma, and india are open china gets +2 ipc’s and can still buy artillery. If yunnan and szechwan are closed than the guerrilla rule kicks in. This might be a better balance so that the chinese can fight early game, but if they lose too much territory, then the guerillas kick in to either regain some territory or just annoy japan.
-
@Mursilis I think I misunderstood you in the first place. Your idea is a fully open Burma road gives China +4 and a partially open road gives +2 or +3. In all cases China are allowed artillary and Japan is not restricted to the garrison rule. Once the road is fully closed, the garrison rule kicks in.
This is fairly easy and by far much less complicated than Vichy, why not? I think i like this!
What if India and Burma only are Japan controlled? This means +3 for China?
-
I’m thinking if india falls then no artillery is allowed BUT the guerrilla rule will kick in and the +1 ipc per territory (szechwan, yunnan, burma) would still apply. If burma and india are captured then china would get +2, no access to artillery AND guerrilla chinese units would spawn. I’m still working out a bit of the specifics to make it as clear as possible and as realistic as possible.
However another take to this would be as long as India OR Burma is open/allied controlled(if india falls and china can retain control of burma) artillery would be available. As long as China has access to recruit artillery then guerrillas will not spawn. I like the second option more, personally.
A third option would be that the chinese have access to artillery as long as one section of the burma road is open and each territory(india, burma, szechwan, yunnan) gives +1 as a NO. And if the whole road was closed then the guerrillas would spawn. This one I like as well and is the easiest to implement.
I think options 2 and 3 would work out best.
I don’t want to make it too difficult, but I think it would work in a more balanced way.
-
So me and my friend and playing with the new rules. We are about to do turn 2 with china. On the first round I built 3 arty and stacked everyone in szechwan. We will see what happens.
The rules we decided on are as follows:
Each territory that contains the burma road is worth a NO of 1 IPC.
As long as either India OR Burma are allied controlled then China can build artillery units even if szechwan and yunnan are axis controlled.
If the Burma Road is completely axis controlled(All four territories) then chinese guerrillas will spawn in japanese territories with no land units present.Any other questions, comments, or concerns just let me know.
UPDATE
Well I actually have fun with china for the first time. China get’s the upfront cost of an extra infantry or artillery instead of causing Japan to slow down by leaving a unit in each territory. I’m definitely enjoying these chinese rules over OOB or even BM. China actually has some choices now from being aggresive or defensive.
If you guys want to mod it into a AAA game that would be helpful. Although this thread seems to have died again. First game was a big success.
-
I have a few other changes for the mod.
Russia:
If Japan declares war on Russia and they are at war with the european axis then they get +1 IPC in the supply zones(down from 2)
USA:
Modify the morroco/north african bonus from 5 to 3 ipcs.
Modify the holland, southern france, normandy from 5 to 3 ipcs.Italy:
If Italy controls all of its original territories it gets +3 ipcs. (very important for Italy)
-
^ But why?
-
@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Russia:
If Japan declares war on Russia and they are at war with the european axis then they get +1 IPC in the supply zones(down from 2)Then we’re back to the situation where game economics almost always favor an early JAP dow of Russia (or, at least, fail to deter it). An ahistorical outcome. The boost needs to be +2 for there to be a possible net benefit to Russia. That is, if the boost is only +1, simply blocking sz 5 with a sub, or taking Amur, completely negates Russia’s benefit, and Russia is back to facing a two-front war with no extra help…
As far as your other two changes, you seem to be operating under the assumption that Allies need to be nerfed. Game statistics don’t bear out that conclusion at all.
-
I don’t know why you have such a thing for historical outcomes, @regularkid . Exactly how would it be fun if the war unfolded substantially how it happened in 1939-45?
Suggested Topics
