I’m playing an opponent who is preventing Vichy from occurring by having the UK attack Italy’s destroyer and transport in SZ96 from SZ98 with a destroyer, cruiser, tactical from aircraft carrier in SZ98 and a fighter from Malta. Italy’s destroyer is sunk (and transport). Then in the Non-Combat phase, UK loads the transport in SZ98 and lands UK troops in Southern France. Since France is still an ally at this point, this is legal and effectively prevents Vichy mode, since Germany will now have to take Southern France on its next turn. There isn’t any way to prevent this as far as I can tell.
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
Does Vichy have to wait until the Frenxg Ho to be activated? Should it happen at the end of the German go, if both Normandy and Paris are captured?
That way, the German player risking a two territory attack, rather than just one, pays off?Re: The Chinese spawning units: it makes it much hardwr for Japan, but I do not think any more help is needed, short of reducing Pacific Allied NOs. Japan becomes more fun and scary to play; I like it!
Close, but not finished a game yet, Regular Kid.
-
@Shin:
Japan needs some love. Maybe 5 IPCs if there are no Chinese units on the board?
Seems logical. Need to run that one by the Squad. In our discussions on the matter, the general consensus has been that if a tweak is needed at all (which is, itself, a matter or some controversy; we’re following the current league games very closely), it would likely be on the Atlantic side. Any change that improves Germany’s prospects would indirectly help Japan, because it increases the need for US spending in the Atlantic.
Regarding the idea of an additional bonus for completely subjugating China: one of the goals of the China guerrilla mod was to give Japan a reason not too delve too greedily into China, because of the danger of getting bogged down. Personally, I was getting tired of all the G40 games where China and half of Russia are yellow by round 8. To enhance strategic depth, we wanted to present choices for Axis without making any one choice obviously more attractive or less attractive than others in all cases. I’m not sure if adding a PU Bonus for China conquest would do that, but its certainly something worth considering.
-
Hrm. Well, if you want a bonus for Germany, giving them 5 IPCs each round they occupy London is a no brainer. I can’t imagine anyone having an issue with that.
Historically, Sealion was always impossible, but it makes for interesting game options.
-
@wittmann:
Close, but not �finished a game yet, Regular Kid.
hehe. Been watching that one. Looks like the end is nigh!
Addressing your ideas in turn:
1. Eliminating USA’s North Africa objective.
I proposed reducing it to 3. Some resistance there for reasons that others can probably better explain. Its under submission.
2. Eliminating UK’s Med Island Objective
This is a squad favorite, because of the action it generates in the Mediterranean, and its historical interest. One proposalwas to require Allied occupation of Crete in order to get it, but instead went with a reduction of UK’s “original territory’s” objective.
3. Vichy trigger occurring at the end of Germany’s turn.
Could work. But then eliminates a lot of the high drama/fun that can result from giving UK an opportunity to negate or mitigate the results of the Armistice. The more I think about it, the more I am liking this idea of requiring UK land units to keep french territory free. Assuming a typical G1 opening, UK can always use its transport in 109 if it wants to keep FWA french, and can use its transport in 98 if it really wants to prevent Vichy altogether. If we went down this route, I wonder if that would be sufficient to make Vichy an attractive option, without reinstating the North Africa bonus for Vichy control of French North Africa (which seems a bit much). Food for thought. . .
-
@Shin:
Hrm. Well, if you want a bonus for Germany, giving them 5 IPCs each round they occupy London is a no brainer.
Adam was just saying that. haha. Great minds think alike.
-
The advantage for the Axis doing Vichy shouldn’t be greater than the disadvantage the Allies get if they sacrifice a fighter to stop it. In other words, Vichy shouldn’t be a standard move, but one you consider if you are planning a late Jdow for example.
-
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
I hear your counterarguments. Only one I stick by, is Vichy happening end of G1. I am not sure anything the UK would have tried post May 1940 Blitzkrieg and front collapse, would have saved France from surrendering as it did. It was a deep routed mentality that had pervaded its military and politicians alike. Let it happen, if Germany meets the requirements. The game cries out for Vichy.
Goodnight. -
There are a whole bunch of reasons why the Vichy change can’t happen on Germany’s turn. Among other things, it would mean that UK had no way to get its air to Egypt, short of buying a Gibraltar airbase. It would all but guarantee that Italy gets the “no enemy ships” NO on round 1 (unless UK does the 92 stack). It would eliminate uk’s ability to use the 93 french fleet as a blocker on round 1, meaning either it stacks Gibraltar on round 1 or it loses it.
Most importantly is the consideration Adam talked about in his post. It would transform the Vichy “option” into the Vichy “standard move,” by making it too good for any reasonable player to pass up.
As said before, though, I do think eliminating the UK fighter “trick” may be a good way to make Vichy France more costly for UK to thwart, and thus more attractive for axis.
-
Set stickied, by user request.
-
My biggest issue with the balanced mod so far:
Vichy is very strong in my opinion and I think I lost every game as Axis when I wasn’t able to trigger it. It makes Ita1 so much more easier and strengthens Italy a lot, which is needed because otherwise the Allies get too strong. A strong Italy is needed, that’s how I feel.
But triggering Vichy can be a real pain sometimes. If it would somehow be possible to make it slightly easier, I think that would help.
-
You and I have played quite a few games, some Vichy, some not. Why do you think it’s strong?
I think if it could trigger the Italian NOs on Ita1, it would be quite strong. As it stands, I could take it or leave it.
-
It saves you the trouble of getting rid of the French fleet. That not only saves you one sub on average (or dd, depending what you send), it also frees up the Italian planes to do some other important stuff.
It gives you 3 free inf in North Africa, which is worth 9 IPC. And you don’t need to send a transport there, which you usually can’t defend.It gives you the opportunity to land in TRJ or even Syria, really threatening Cairo and Iraq at the same time.
IPC-wise, it’s already a huge boost in the first 2-3 rounds. But more importantly, Italian units are very scarce at the beginning - but lots of stuff to do. Greece, Gibraltar, Malta, North Africa, Cairo, Syria, clearing the med - these are all goals Italy ideally wants to achieve within 3 turns. But that’s not really possible without Vichy, because you just can’t spread your units so much.
How often am I sacrificing a transport in the regular version, just to get Morocco for the bonus, for example…
-
Aight. I can dig that. We got another problem though. If the UK plane in souther France is destroyed when the territory goes Vichy, what happens to a UK plane in French West Africa? The ability to keep that territory french is crititcal in a Vichy France scenario. Cuz it’s one of the only (if not the only) safe way for uk to to get air to Egypt by round 2. What u think?
I think it could be more simple then that. If Germany meets the vichy requirement on their turn, then vichy is instuted straight away.
On the other hand, if it is up to Italy, then the UK has a choice of sending a plane to southern france or not.
-
Soulbighter, see my last post for why an immediate G1 Vichy conversion is not workable (p.s., was originally coded that way months ago, and changed after play testing revealed these gameplay issues). When u getting that BM game started? :evil:
Also, I think I agree with the general thrust of MrRoboto’s post. Would requiring UK land units to prevent Vichy conversion allay these concerns? This way, thwarting Vichy involves sacrificing a transport and higher opportunity costs (still a reasonable option, but costlier). Perhaps even just adding +5 for Axis control of London would be sufficient to make UK think twice before throwing fighters at the problem?
Anybody think its fine the way it is?
-
I think making it a land unit is a good call, as is adding the +5 to Germany for Axis occupation of London. Getting London is tough under the best of circumstances - there should be a reward for that. Esp since so many of these NOs are supposed to represent morale and whatnot.
-
@Shin:
Esp since so many of these NOs are supposed to represent morale and whatnot.
correct. morale = war bonds . 8-)
-
Give germans King Tigers!
-
what if u required an allied land unit to stop vichy, but gave the brits a marine in gib? that way they have a choice to use the marine and sacrifice the ca or burn up a tt
Soulbighter, see my last post for why an immediate G1 Vichy conversion is not workable (p.s., was originally coded that way months ago, and changed after play testing revealed these gameplay issues). When u getting that BM game started? :evil:
Also, I think I agree with the general thrust of MrRoboto’s post. Would requiring UK land units to prevent Vichy conversion allay these concerns? This way, thwarting Vichy involves sacrificing a transport and higher opportunity costs (still a reasonable option, but costlier). Perhaps even just adding +5 for Axis control of London would be sufficient to make UK think twice before throwing fighters at the problem?
Anybody think its fine the way it is?
-
Well I think the goal is to maybe make securing Vichy a little easier for axis. Adding a marine to gib would make it harder (causing God knows what other sorts of havoc). Also, we have really tried to avoid making changes to the starting unit set up cuz doing so opens a Pandora’s box and gets everyone’s jimmies rustled.
-
no more than +3 or just +2, if even……
keep in mind that taking london means another 8pc from just the territories, along with a strong strategic position loaded with air and naval bases. and of course don’t forget the huge surge in ipc like 30 or more from capturing the capitol, and also the usual 20 or more gain in tuv from the battle (usually if germany goes SL it will ensure overwhelming odds).
other NOs are usually on top of a much smaller ipc gain, for example, novg or volg.
@Shin:
I think making it a land unit is a good call, as is adding the +5 to Germany for Axis occupation of London.� Getting London is tough under the best of circumstances - there should be a reward for that.� Esp since so many of these NOs are supposed to represent morale and whatnot.
Suggested Topics
