G40 Balance Variant - Latest Version



  • Attached is the G40 Balance Variant with additional National Objectives for allies. NOs are listed in game notes. Gl HF
    G40BalanceModv2.tsvg


  • 2017 2016

    Sorry, cannot read this file.
    What kind of reader do I need?
    😐



  • its a standard TripleA saved game file. Open it as a saved game. The NOs are coded in it.



  • Hi regularkid,

    thanks for sharing this variant. Is there any possibility for you to share it with interested people not playing TripleA?



  • The Hessian. . . per your request, here are the revisions for the Balance Mod. Enjoy! 🙂

    Global 1940 Second Edition - Balanced Mod

    Revision Credits: Adam514, aznz, dss85, Gencre, regularkid

    **REVISIONS    **

    Revised Air Raid Rules: Fighters attack and defend at 2. Strategic and tactical bombers attack at 1.

    **Additional National Objectives  **

    UK

    • 3 PUs for UK Europe if Allies control at least 2 of: Sicily, Sardinia, Greece.

    • 3 PUs for UK Europe if Malta, Crete, and Cyprus are Allied or pro-Allied controlled.

    • 3 PUs for UK Europe if there are no enemy submarines in the Atlantic, excluding szs 112 and 125-127.

    • 3 PUs for UK Pacific when at war with the Japanese if: (1) British control West India and either Egypt or South Africa; and (2) there are no enemy submarines in the western half of the Indian Ocean (sz71,…,sz81).

    USA

    • 5 PUs if Allies control at least 2 of: Normandy Bordeaux, Holland Belgium, Southern France, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.

    • 5 PUs if Allies control Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, and USA has at least one land unit in any of these territories.

    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.

    • 5 PUs if USA is at war and Allies control Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Paulau Island, Marianas.

    Revised National Objectives

    Russia

    • 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe.

    • 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is open if Russia is at war with European Axis and no allied units are present in any originally Russian territories: (Persia, sz 80), (Amur, sz 5), (Archangel, sz 125); An additional 1 PU per open Lend-Lease lane if Japan has declared war on Russia.



  • Much obliged! 🙂


  • 2017 2016

    @regularkid:

    @Baron:

    Hey Kid,
    your idea is weakening too much StBs when no escort is present compared to OOB G40 SBR:

    Having played the “2 attack/2defend” rule in countless games, I haven’t found that to be the case at all. And none of many of people I’ve played with has ever suggested that they thought the rules weaken SBR too much. But I guess its a matter of opinion!

    It is not just a matter of opinion but of numbers too.
    It totally change the treshold which determined it is a sound tactic or a complete luck maneuver.
    In OOB SBR, you can launch 1 StB against 1 Fg ratio anytime. The odds are good.
    With A2 D2 Fighter, you cannot do this unless you feel very lucky.

    The basic wrong scenario when Fg gets A2 D2 is -.61 IPCs/SBR - +1.819 = -2.419 IPCs weaker than OOB.
    SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +4.723 - 5.333 = -0.61 IPC damage/SBR 1D6+3: +5.278 - 5.333 = -0.055 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +5.556 - 5.333 = +0.223 IPC damage/SBR

    Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1first strike =2AA@1)
    1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR

    It is like you are bombing yourself (instead of your enemy) because it is the same odds when there is no interceptor:
    G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR

    Clearly, this means your fellow players radically change their ways of using SBR and cannot rely on it as it was OOB.
    Did they make SBR when there was interceptors, and, on average, what kind of attacker/defender ratio it was so both sides commit their planes?

    Were they just waiting an empty IC to bomb on it, most of the time?


  • 2019 2017

    It does totally change the threshold on 1 bomber vs 1 interceptor, which is a very good thing. When a fig is present it should discourage the bomber from attempting to bomb (unless for a vital air or naval base), while in OOB you hope the defender intercepts, which is ridiculous.


  • 2017 2016

    @Adam514:

    It does totally change the threshold on 1 bomber vs 1 interceptor, which is a very good thing. When a fig is present it should discourage the bomber from attempting to bomb (unless for a vital air or naval base), while in OOB you hope the defender intercepts, which is ridiculous.

    But, on the counter-part, attacker would not dare to launch an SBR when he had the same number of StBs than defending Fgs.
    Why risk to lose a 12 IPCs unit? Which have to pass through D2 + AAA D1 = near 3/6, 50% of being destroyed.
    So, you get less SBR than OOB. Remember, there is always something else to do in regular combat with an A4 bomber.
    On SBR, 4 StBs vs 4 Fgs, with A2 D2 Fg your net loose on avg. near 11 IPCs more than defender.
    OOB, it is the defender which loose near 8 IPCs more than attacker.

    Fg A2 D2 is a deterrent for dogfight.
    It doesn’t add more spice to the game.
    It brings less occasions of doing SBR and dogfight.
    OOB is bias toward attacker.
    Fg A2 D2 is bias toward defender.

    Attacker needs more punch with A2 D2 escort-interceptors.
    At least, bombers should attack with the same number than in 1942.2 SBR in which Fg intercept @2:
    Attack first strike @1.
    And you can see below that it is still very far from OOB odds.

    @Baron:

    Hey Kid,
    your idea is weakening too much StBs when no escort is present compared to OOB G40 SBR:
    to keep an equilibrium status you must increase StB damage to 1D6+3 or 2D6.
    Or gives a better dogfight values to bomber, such as first strike @1 (OOB 1942.2 SBR)
    or a better first strike @1 against up to 2 Fgs, which ever the lesser, similar to AAA ways.

    In the last case, when an escorting fighter is present, first target means that interceptor always destroy bomber first.
    Here an example, and the only case in which your idea is close to G40 OOB odds, when attacker is 2 planes against 1 Fg:

    SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +9.027 - 5.333 = +3.694 IPCs damage/SBR

    (First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1):
    D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR

    The basic wrong scenario when Fg gets A2 D2 is -.61 IPCs/SBR - +1.819 = -2.419 IPCs weaker than OOB.
    SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +4.723 - 5.333 = -0.61 IPC damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +5.278 - 5.333 = -0.055 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +5.556 - 5.333 = +0.223 IPC damage/SBR

    Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1)
    1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR

    So, giving A2 D2 to Fighter is still a major deterrent against SBR in an optimized play.

    It needs additional boost to reach something interesting for both attacker and defender to commit into SBR escort and intercept.
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35878.msg1411124#msg1411124

    OK, everyone. I have some really big statements on a truly better SBR, and not so different from the basics OOB game mechanics.
    First a few principles about what can make a good incentive to make SBR or to intercept an SBR attack.

    1- A massive number of Strategic Bombers with each an attacking factor @1 is a pretty big deterrent for any TT with fewer Fighter defending @1.
    This create an historical aberration in which all air defense stay grounded and let the bombers do the destruction over IC, AB and NB.

    2- This situation is created by the fact that intercepting bombers are a worse situation than being bombed up to the maximum damage allowance.
    Loosing Fighters which can be useful on regular defense (@4) while achieving almost nothing to destroy incoming bombers is also a major deterrent.

    3- For an optimized play, on statistical POV, a good player should ponder whether intercepting the bombers really lowering their odds of loosing IPCs over the other way of letting Bombers directly under IC’s AA gun fire. So, a player must calculate how many IPCs will be lost on average if he intercepts against how many direct bombing damage can be done against him.

    4- To prevent the fear of massive attacking bombers (acting like fighters attacking enemy’s fighters) most of you people assumed that a Strategic bomber with an attack factor @0 is part of the whole solution. (I agree, so I make a lot of table to find the perfect balance in regard to the usual odds of G40 OOB SBR.) They should be defenseless in dogfight. But with more destructive power.

    5- To see if a given SBR mechanics could work, it should also compare the bare SBR value of Bombers raiding without interference and the TUV lost if a given number of Fighter(s) intercept(s) the bomber. To get an incentive mechanics, the defending player must see a real interest to intercept on a mathematical POV.

    @Baron:

    Working on the most balanced SBR with Fighter A2 D2, a more complete table is needed to make for additional options:
    Comparison of various SBR OOB & HRules StB A1 damage 1D6+2 /1D6+3 / 2D6 / Fg escort A2 Interceptor D2
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35883.msg1409543#msg1409543
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35614.msg1392008#msg1392008


    SBR HRules : 1 StB doing SBR without interceptor, various damage:
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +5.417 - 2 = +3.417 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +5.833 - 2 = +3.833 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +2.917 - 2 = +0.917 IPC damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +4.583 - 2 = +2.583 IPCs damage/SBR

    SBR HRules :1 StB A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fg D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +4.723 - 5.333 = -0.61 IPC damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +5.278 - 5.333 = -0.055 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +5.556 - 5.333 = +0.223 IPC damage/SBR

    Regular SBRs (First target: StB A1_first strike_ =2AA@1)
    1D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +5.579 - 4.778 = +0.801 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +5.880 - 4.778 = +1.102 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: + 5.486 - 3.667 = +1.819 IPC damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +3.69 - 3.667 = +0.023 IPC damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +3.8 - 4.8 = -1 IPC damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +4.977 - 4.778 = +0.199 IPC damage/StB

    SBR HR: 1 StB A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +3.704 - 7.556 = -3.852 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +4.074 - 7.556 = -3.482 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +4.260 - 7.556 = -3.296 IPCs damage/SBR

    D6+2 (StB=2AA@1): +5.093- 7.556 = -2.463 IPCs damage/SBR
    D6+3 (StB=2AA@1): +5.463 -7.556= -2.093 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6 (StB=2AA@1): +5.649- 7.556 = -1.907 IPCs damage/SBR

    First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1: as AA against up to 2 Fgs
    1D6+2: +5.659 - 6.321 = -0.662 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +6.132 -6.321 = -0.189 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +6.369 - 6.321 = +0.048 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: +4.85 - 5.056 = -0.206 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +2.025 - 5.056 = -3.031 IPCs damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6:+3.071 - 7.185 = -4.114 IPC. damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +3.874 - 7.185 = -3.311 IPCs damage/SBR

    SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +9.074 - 8.667 = +0.407 IPC damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +9.815 - 8.667 = +1.148 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +10.185 - 8.667 = +1.518 IPCs damage/SBR

    D6+2 (StB=2AA@1): +10.648 - 8.667 = +1.981 IPC damage/SBR
    D6+3 (StB=2AA@1): +11.389 - 8.667= +2.722 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6 (StB=2AA@1): +11.759 - 8.667 = +3.092 IPCs damage/SBR

    (First target: StB=2AA@1): StB A1 as AAA against up to 2 Fgs
    D6+2: +8.611 - 8.667 = -0.056 IPC damage/SBR
    1D6+3:+8.981 - 8.667 = +0.314 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +9.167- 8.667 = +0.500 IPCs damage/SBR

    (First target: StB A1_first strike_ as AAA vs up to 2 Fgs
    D6+2: 8.965 - 7.556 = +1.409 IPC damage/SBR
    1D6+3:+9.399 - 7.556 = +1.843 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +9.617- 7.556 = +2.061 IPCs damage/SBR

    OOB G40 D6+2: +7.775 - 5.33 = +2.445 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +6.155 - 5.33 = +0.825 IPC damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +6.018 - 7.556 = -1.538 IPCs damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +7.557 - 7.556 = +0.001 IPCs damage/StB

    SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 2 intercepting Fgs D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +9.445 - 10.667 = -1.222 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +10.556 - 10.667 = -0.111 IPC damage/SBR
    2D6: +11.112 - 10.667 = +0.445 IPC damage/SBR

    First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA up to 2 Fgs
    1D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +11.158 - 9.556 = +1.602 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +11.760 - 9.556 = +2.204 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: +10.973 - 7.334 = +3.639 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +8.195 - 7.334 = +0.861 IPC damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +7.547 - 9.556 = -2.009 IPCs damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +9.954 - 9.556 = +0.398 IPC damage/StB

    SBR HR: 1 StB A1 & 1 Fg A2 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +9.027 - 5.333 = +3.694 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +9.861 - 5.333 = +4.528 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +10.277 - 5.333 = +4.944 IPCs damage/SBR

    D6+2 (First target: StB=2AA@1): +7.500 -5.333 = +2.167 IPCs damage/SBR
    D6+3 (First target: StB=2AA@1): +6.5= +8.055 -5.333 = +2.722 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6 (First target: StB=2AA@1): +8.333 -5.333 = +3 IPCs damage/SBR

    (First target: StB A1fs =2AA@1):
    D6+2: +7.754 -4.777 =+2.977 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3:+8.356 -4.777 = +3.579 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +8.657 -4.777 = +3.880 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: +7.639 - 3.667 = +3.972 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 3.667 = +2.306 IPCs damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.973 - 5.159 = +0.814 IPCs damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +7.639 -5.159 = +2.480 IPCs damage/SBR

    SBR HR: 2 StBs A1 doing SBR against 1 intercepting Fgs D2
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2: +10.639 - 7.334 = +3.304 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +12.028 - 7.334 = +4.694 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +12.722 - 7.334 = +5.388 IPCs damage/SBR

    D6+2 (StB=2AA@1): +9.306 - 7.334 = +1.972 IPCs damage/SBR
    D6+3 (StB=2AA@1):+10.695 - 7.334 = +3.361 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6 (StB=2AA@1): +11.389 - 7.334 = +4.055 IPCs damage/SBR

    First target: StB A1 first strike, as AAA against up to 2 Fgs
    1D6+2: +9.561 - 6.778 = +2.783 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3: +10.996 - 6.778 = +4.218 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6: +11.714 - 6.778 = +4.936 IPCs damage/SBR

    G40 OOB D6+2: +11.459 - 5.666 = +5.793 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +8.403 - 5.666 = +2.737 IPCs damage/StB
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +8.214 - 6.315 = +1.899 IPCs damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +11.162 - 6.315 = +4.847 IPCs damage/SBR

    SBR HRules : 2 StBs doing SBR without interceptor
    Regular SBRs
    1D6+2 (avg 5.5 IPCs): +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR
    1D6+3 (avg 6.5 IPCs): +10.834 - 4 = +6.834 IPCs damage/SBR
    2D6 (avg 7 IPCs): +11.666 - 4 = +7.666 IPCs damage/SBR

    OOB G40 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR
    Triple A 1942.2 D6: +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR
    OOB 1942.2 D6: +5.834 - 4 = +1.834 IPCs damage/SBR
    1942.2 D6+2: +9.166 - 4 = +5.166 IPCs damage/SBR



  • @Baron:

    But, on the counter-part, attacker would not dare to launch an SBR when he had the same number of StBs than defending Fgs.
    Why risk to lose a 12 IPCs unit? Which have to pass through D2 + AAA D1 = near 3/6, 50% of being destroyed.
    So, you get less SBR than OOB. Remember, there is always something else to do in regular combat with an A4 bomber.
    On SBR, 4 StBs vs 4 Fgs, with A2 D2 Fg your net loose on avg. near 11 IPCs more than defender.
    OOB, it is the defender which loose near 8 IPCs more than attacker.

    Baron, with all due respect and affection, your theories don’t stand up to experience. As I’ve already said,  strategic bombings happen very often in games that use the 2 attack and defend for air raids. Repeating your theoretical assertions to the contrary doesn’t change that simple fact. Also, intercepts seem to happen more often. It isn’t even a close question. The air raid rules work great as they are.


  • 2017 2016

    Here an example of what can be done to balance things between these two extremes, Fg A1 D1 (attacker bias) Fg A2 D2 (defender bias):
    @ItIsILeClerc:

    What I would find a decent way to prevent the historic abberation and also to not affect current gameplay too much, is if attacking bombers (TAC/STR) would work the same as defending AA-guns.
    Meaning that bombers just never have more dice to roll than there are interceptors.
    That way, if the raiders want to play an effective economic game, they MUST send a decent amount of FTR along with the bombers.
    Historic rationale: bombers do not actively scour the skies for intercepting FTR, but they will fire in defense if attacked.

    Another thing I would be happy about, is if FTR escort/intercept@2 instead of just 1, like bombers. No need to explain that one. But I think this is less important than limited dice for bombers.

    Some examples that are very likely to occur in real games:
    1. Incoming raid consists of 12STR, intercepted by 3FTR. Raiders fire 3@1, interceptors fire 3@2.
    2. Same as above, but now incoming raid consists of 12STR + 3 escorts. Raiders fire 3@1 + 3@2, interceptors fire 3@2.
    3. Same as 2nd example, now with 3 additional interceptors. Raiders fire 6@1 + 3@2, interceptors fire 6@2.
    4. 30STR raiding, 12FTR intercepts. Raiders fire 12@1, interceptors fire 12@2.
    5. Last example: 7STR + 5FTR escorts, 12 FTR intercepts. Raiders fire 7@1 + 5@2, interceptors fire 12@2.

    I think above examples perfectly illustrate that in such a system, bombers should usually not raid without enough escorts. FTR could even be given their normal combat values (i.e. @3 for escorts, @4 for interceptors), but that could be too bloody for game balance…

    Another reason which goes against Fg D2 is that it has been play-tested during alpha rules development and Larry dropped it for OOB SBR G40.2. He wanted more SBRs. IDK if rising Fg attack to @2 changes a lot of things.

    If you want to convince people outside your circle it is the best change, please provides some situations which occur in your games with this A2 D2 rule.
    It will help see if it is cautious or daring kind of play or optimized one.
    I’m not against it in principles, but it changes radically the odds compared to OOB SBR from maths POV. This I know for sure.
    Also, I know that Larry provides an official SBR rule with fighter D2 in 1942.2.
    And when adapted to G40 by giving @1 first strike to bomber Dam D6+2 but A2 D2 to Fg, it is more balanced when StBs are against Fgs only.


  • 2017 2016

    Besides, does your Triple A version included the SBR with A2 D2 Fg?


  • 2017 2016

    @regularkid:

    Baron, with all due respect and affection, your theories don’t stand up to experience. As I’ve already said,  strategic bombings happen very often in games that use the 2 attack and defend for air raids. Repeating your theoretical assertions to the contrary doesn’t change that simple fact. Also, intercepts seem to happen more often. It isn’t even a close question. The air raid rules work great as they are.

    The table was provided for at hand reference. It was not an argument ad repetitum.

    From the table, it also make sense that there is more interceptions.
    Fg A2 D2 is bias in favor of interceptions with less raids while OOB is bias against any interception with more SBRs.

    Also, maybe another point is that more and more people believe that StBs are too powerful in regular combat against Naval, with a long range of power projection.
    Limiting their capacity in SBR with stronger Fg, can make for an overall more balanced unit.
    So, in SBR A2 D2 Fg is OP vs A1 bombers, but it balanced things out against an OP StBs A4 M6+1.



  • Yes, its included in the TripleA file.

    I’ve played the mod with many different people on TripleA. And so have others. Of all the changes, the air-raid rules are perhaps the least controversial. Frankly, nobody has really seemed to need convincing about that. For me, practical experience reveals more than a bunch of tables. I’ve already told you what my experience has been. Your tables don’t change that. If you’d like to play a game, lets do so. Otherwise lets just agree to disagree 🙂


  • 2017 2016

    @regularkid:

    Yes, its included in the TripleA file.

    I’ve played the mod with many different people on TripleA. And so have others. Of all the changes, the air-raid rules are perhaps the least controversial. Frankly, nobody has really seemed to need convincing about that. For me, practical experience reveals more than a bunch of tables. I’ve already told you what my experience has been. Your tables don’t change that. If you’d like to play a game, lets do so. Otherwise lets just agree to disagree 🙂

    It is a good news.
    It should be included in the Revised project.
    From my POV, it is one step in the good direction.
    I would need more adjustments to really fix SBR but it would be harder to touch Triple A codes on that matter.
    My tables are only analysis tools.
    They help compares different methods and SBR parameters.
    They reveal comparison points with OOB SBRs method. And can say which is more generous or not for attacker.
    And give the breaking point ratio when it is better for attacker or defender to SBR or intercept.

    At least, there is more interception with A2 D2 Fg.
    And, when there is no Fg on IC, SBR rate remains the same.
    However, when a few Fgs are present on IC, attacker must wait until he gets at least 1 more StB above the 1:1 ratio. That was not the case OOB.
    Or the attacker keep 1:1 ratio with 1 StB and 1 Fg escorting paired against 2 Fgs interceptors.
    To get + 0.4 IPCs /raid for each paired StB+Fg.

    Here is an example with enough details to understand the situation on Eastern front:
    @knp7765:

    I agree with you wittmann. I rarely use interceptors as I have found it to be a waste of fighters. Too often I see those attacking bombers get that lucky “1” and blasting my defending fighters out of the sky. In fact, I still remember one game where Germany sent in 4 bombers to SBR Moscow. Russia had 5 fighters so we said “Let’s intercept”. The Russian fighters got 1 bomber while Germany knocked out 3 Russian fighters! I can’t help but think those extra 4 rollers could have made a difference in the battle for Moscow a couple of rounds later.

    Clearly, this can no more happen in a A2 D2 Fg rule, unless the attacker is a daredevil.
    4 StBs A1 against 5 Fgs D2 is suicidal.
    Around -5.6 IPCs for the raid.
    OOB: + 0.4 IPCs for the raid.
    So, this is a deterrent to SBR Russia.
    Differencial of minus 6 IPCs compared to OOB SBR against the attacker.

    Can you provides some details on experiments made about first rounds actions between UK and Germany?
    Does Sea-Lion can be preceded by SBR (as OOB) or not?
    OOB, UK is better to keep Fgs on ground, so no intercept.
    In theory, A2 D2 Fg would forbid SBR on UK, on optimized play.

    May you give some details like Knp did?
    That way, it will not be just a matter of belief and subjectivism but can rely on real play-tested factual situations. So, everyone can judge for himself.



  • No, I can’t and won’t provide examples. Like I said, if you want examples, lets play a game. Otherwise agree to disagree.


  • 2017 2016

    @regularkid:

    No, I can’t and won’t provide examples. Like I said, if you want examples, lets play a game. Otherwise agree to disagree.

    I can’t agree to disagree.
    Why?
    I have doubt.
    Your fix is simple (and fit with my Fg A2 D2 M4 C6, which hit aircraft first in regular combat), but if Larry rejected it, there is probably something that matter, IDK.

    Also, I can’t convinced my fellow bodies which I play on board game only by just saying Regularkid, have a lot of experience and you should believe him.
    If you don’t remember specific situation so you cannot bring details, that’s OK.
    I can wait till you or Barney or anyone else can bring some interesting cases to analyze.


  • 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    Guys, the real meat of this mod is not the SBR rules (which are fine).  The NOs have been very carefully thought out and are excellent.  If played to maximum effect they will make the game far more historical and much better to play.  Plus we get the marines units!

    Games with these rules should be faster and more skillful.  The axis side will have to go HARD in Russia and the Pacific in order to maximize their position before the allies inevitably start earning big NO money, exactly how the game should be. Just look at the implications of those NOs for Japan and the USA grabbing islands for instance - that alone should make an enormous difference in axis strategy.  And those mediterranean islands NOs are absolutely great.

    There may yet be a few details to iron out, but this mod has tremendous potential and I hope you will give it a chance.

    G40 Balance Mod (Vichy and Marines and ANZAC Bonus).tsvg



  • thanks bro. appreciate the positive review. much work went into it 🙂


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    So USA finally loses that stupid 10 IPC for not being invaded NO?  The one that was almost never lost?

    Was there any changes to initial placement, or is the hope (experience) that NO changes alone balances the game?  (I havnt played it, downloaded it, just havnt actually looked in depth yet and it’s 2338 hours here, so not gunna look at it tonight.)



  • Hey Cmdr:

    No, all the original NOs are still in the game (including the USA one). A few have been modified slightly (e.g., “spread of communism” NO only applies to mainland europe now), but for the most part, the NOs are simply in addition to whats already there.

    Here is the most recent version of the Mod (its been a while since I’ve checked this thread). Its now in its final form 🙂 enjoy!

    G40 Balance Mod.tsvg


  • 2015

    3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).

    I just want to double check, this would not include any of the islands like Sardinia, right?


  • 2015

    Also, I’m still wrapping my head around the Vichy France rules.  It would seem that this is a choice the Axis makes, primarily.  Only thing the Allies could do to stop it would be to land a plane in Southern France on UK1.  But it seems to benefit the Allies more than the Axis - the Allies can now get all that income from the French African territories, while the Axis only stands to gain about 5 Inf total, right?

    And what happens to the French navy that isn’t in z93?  They stay Free French?



  • Yes, it’s the Axis player’s choice to make, in the first instance. Allies can do a few things to try to stop or mitigate it: (i) liberate and hold Normandy until France’s turn; (ii) put UK units in Southern France; (iii) but UK or US units in French territories that Allies don’t want to turn Vichy.

    Simply putting a plane in Southern France probably wouldn’t be sufficient to stop it since Italy could simply attack with an inf, and its 3 planes. If it clears the territory of units without taking it, Vichy France will still happen on France’s turn.

    Whether and to what extent it benefits Axis depends, of course, on whats happening on the board. In addition to the pro-axis infantry, Axis gets a free hand on Italy’s turn to do things other than deal with the French. Its gets a defensive fleet in sz 93, which, when coupled with a destroyer in 95, can serve as a handy blocker (not to mention a deterrence to allied landings in Southern France). The Vichy arrangement also potentially denies Allies a landing spot in Africa, since all the territories that planes could reach from the UK would go Vichy (unless UK takes steps to prevent this).

    No, the French ships by Madagascar and the English channel do not turn Vichy.

    Really the best way to get your mind around the Vichy France thing is to play. Up for a game?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Shin:

    3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).

    I just want to double check, this would not include any of the islands like Sardinia, right?

    That’s how I read it, so if you’re wrong, we both are!  :evil:


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 5
  • 15
  • 16
  • 312
  • 3
  • 5
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

51
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts