G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015

    @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?



  • @oysteilo

    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)


  • 2019 2017 2016

    ^ 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.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    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?



  • @simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    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?

    hahah. Simon, I never said historical “outcomes.” The point of the game is to be able to change history, under reasonably historical conditions.

    In regular Global, Russia and Japan will often declare war in round 1, just for sh*ts. There is literally no reason not to. So the game starts on an ahistorical footing, and there are no real in game consequences for that. I suppose reasonable minds can differ, but I find that bothersome.



  • @regularkid actually, i did say “ahistorical outcome.” inartful wording on my part. heh



  • With the extra money that america can get plus, if japan declares war on russia, it is quite easy to see how the allies can gain an advantage. Later on in the game usually the subs are clear from the atlantic and the US has control of the british channel and gibraltar/north africa. Playing america correctly dictates whether the allies win or not.

    Russia will usually get the +3 ipc’s for not having other allied nations in their territories. Also persia is usually open so that’s another plus 2. So they get a guaranteed 5 ipc’s every turn almost. This extra money allows Russia to do the mech/tank purchases it needs to beat germany into the ground. If you couple this extra income with the extra income that the US get’s as well as well as EurUK it can be hard for germany and italy to make a great impact. There is really no reason to attack russia as the Japanese since you will be giving them so much money.

    I don’t see how going from +2 to +3 in each seazone is going to shut the whole game down. Perhaps if you put in the +3 ipcs to italy it can remain at +4.

    The italy change will allow them to have that extra money to rebuild it’s navy or help push into russia. I still feel that italy is too weak especially if they have some bad luck or the allies stop vichy france from occuring. Italy has to move into iraq early on. So if italy somehow has a bad start, they are just stuck in italy essentially.

    The china change is awesome, definitely put that in.

    From what i’ve read there are a lot of people who actually play with an axis bid and others who just don’t know how to play america/russia properly.

    Don’t be so afraid to change some of the numbers on your balance mod. Or you can have two versions to see if one is better than the other.

    My china change actually helps balance out china and makes them more fun to play.

    The pacific is perfect. The changes for ANZAC and PacUK are perfect! Try my china mod out. Again why would japan ever declare war on Russia if they know that the +2 is going to shoot up to +4. Maybe you can change it to as soon as european axis is at war with russia the lend-lease kicks in instead of round 3.



  • @Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    Don’t be so afraid to change some of the numbers on your balance mod.

    I’m not afraid to. I just don’t see a reason to. The mod is reasonably balanced. The fact that after literally hundreds of games, there is no consensus as to who has the advantage is a testament to that fact. And the changes you’re proposing sound like a step backwards tbh.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015

    @regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    @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 just have to throw in my two cents again. BM has done 0 -zero- in order to enhance playability for Russia. yes, you trow in some ekstra money, but Russia does not have a saying in how much of this they get. In my opinion Russia is much more fun to play under the original rule set


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @oysteilo I don’t completely agree. Yes, it isn’t as good as the extra fighter and tank, but the extra money makes it possible for USSR to fight when OOB they would be running or dying.



  • @oysteilo, assuming the typical case of a G3 DOW (with a German sub in sz 1), Russia’s income is 7 PUs higher in BM than in vanilla. And this income differential typically lasts multiple rounds. I don’t really understand what you mean by “but Russia does not have a saying in how much of this they get.” They get all of it.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    I think he’s saying that USSR can’t really open their own lend lease lanes. It’s really up to the other allies to prevent their closure.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015

    @simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    I think he’s saying that USSR can’t really open their own lend lease lanes. It’s really up to the other allies to prevent their closure.

    EXACTELY. This makes it less fun.



  • @oysteilo I personally like the lend lease rule. The russians are supposed to be hanging on for dear life until the allies arrive. There are many aspects of the mod that I feel are necessary and the extra russian money is one of them. Getting 7 extra dollars off multiple turns far out-ways getting an extra 16 from a fighter and tank right from the get-go. If you clear out sz125 and still hold archangel thats another 4(assuming that japan declared war).



  • Either way I’m having Barnee make up my suggestions into a series of mods.

    The china change really should be examined by yourself kid and adam. It actually makes china fun to play and again it is basically +3 ipcs every turn to china.

    I guess leave the lend lease lanes alone, I may have jumped the gun on that one.

    The US north africa one is just too easy to get for 5 extra ipcs to be completely honest. That’s why i proposed +3 instead.

    And something needs to be done with Italy and I stand by this one like I do the china one.
    If not +3 for holding all original territories then +2 or +3 for holding sicily and sardinia or maybe if they own less than 6 territories. Italy can either be very powerful or so weak they can’t do anything.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015

    @Mursilis if vichy is activated, north africa is not easy. Well, easy in a way that you will get it if you go for it. But many times you loose a lot of momentum by doing it


  • 2017

    Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.



  • @Adam514 I agree. However now China is the most boring nation with zero choices. Every game you just stack up infantry in one territory and sit there since you can’t buy artillery and don’t have enough money to do anything. It is also very boring for Japan to fight in china since you just move a unit in and sit there. Then leap frog another mech in front of that.

    My China suggestion will help fix this. Maybe each burma road territory needs to be +2 instead of +1. Either way my suggestion makes china a fun place to play.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.

    I think it’s still pretty boring in BM. There’s a big disincentive to do anything in Asia with the loss of the potential lend lease income. Perhaps it’s less a of a obstacle to go after Scandinavia but still there’s a big hurdle there. A few players will go hard after Japan anyway but they make a sacrifice to do so.



  • @simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    @Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.

    I think it’s still pretty boring in BM. There’s a big disincentive to do anything in Asia with the loss of the potential lend lease income. Perhaps it’s less a of a obstacle to go after Scandinavia but still there’s a big hurdle there. A few players will go hard after Japan anyway but they make a sacrifice to do so.

    Simon, for a more dynamic Russian theater, you should try the 1941 v 3 anniversary edition. The territories are drawn in such a way that games do not always devolve into monollithic, competing stacks in the Far East. Unfortunately, other aspects of the game prove a bit flatter than Global (e.g., absence of airbases/seaports, no convoy zones, lack of politics, etc.).



  • Speaking for myself only (and no one else on the Mod Squad), i would be willing to consider enhancing China by making artillery a permanent item on its unit roster–i.e., not tying it to the Burma Road. With this change, the Burma road would be a simple cash National Objective (+3 if open at the end of the round).

    This might require an offsetting NO of some kind for Japan, because I do think it would make an Axis win in the Pacific much more challenging. But I can see benefits for gameplay, historicality, and simplicity.



  • @regularkid
    Well the idea was give china the +3 income with the theory of getting artillery for most the game and removing guerrillas till the road is closed. If you just give china artillery alone AND still have the guerrillas spawn I feel that it might be too strong.

    If you give the chinese artillery AND +3 for the burma road not being closed and remove guerrillas completely then that would probably be a balanced game without the need to include an additional japanese NO. The logic being that the japanese don’t need to have a unit sit on a chinese territory for the whole game.

    Perhaps giving china a +2 if the burma road is not COMPLETELY controlled by the axis and they can have artillery no matter what.

    Either way my concept was to give china the extra infantry instead of having japan lose the infantry sitting on a territory.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 2
  • 15
  • 1
  • 3521
  • 8
  • 1
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games

63
Online

13.5k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts