• @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.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @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.


  • @Mursilis i dont think works. Japan will just mop up all of china and leave them with one Burma road territory.


  • @oysteilo Well that’s why I want to make sure china can still have extra income if burma or yunaan is controlled. Japan starts with a lot of stuff and if china does not have that constant +3 or +2 income, even if they can build artillery, they will get crushed by japan’s air and ground.

    If you keep the guerrillas and let china buy artillery they could put 1 inf and 1 artillery up in northern china, against russian territory and slowly push up defeating the japanese 1 territory at a time since they would be so stretched thin.

    Whatever the solution is, letting china have artillery, allowing a few extra ipc’s for them, and removing guerrillas should make china more fun to play in since there will be a world of new options especially for china.

  • '19 '17

    Tying guerillas to territory ownership is not a good idea.


  • Yes I agree with you. My concern is if you keep the guerrillas in and give china artillery will this make china too strong. The thought is to remove the guerrillas completely and just give china a +2 or +3 if the burma road is not completely controlled by the axis and no matter what let the chinese place artillery.

    I think giving that extra infantry to china is better than having a japanese unit stuck in a territory all game.


  • @Mursilis i know what ur idea is. lol. I’m saying removing guerrillas is a nonstarter. If you feel that China is still uninteresting to play, and your proposed solution is to add more artillery, why not just give china the option to build artillery at any point in the game, rather than tying it to an NO. (Having a tiered NO, based on the Burma road being “partially” opened sounds way too complicated for the benefit it would bring. . . a difference of 1 or 2 PUs).

    You say that allowing artillery as a permanent unit option would make China too strong. For what its worth, other members of the Mod Squad think it would have very little effect. The only way to really answer that question is to playtest it. So if there is really an interest in that aspect of your idea, its something I would amenable to trying.


  • @regularkid Alright. Well let’s playtest this thing then!

    If just adding in the artillery makes china more enjoyable to play without screwing with the balance then I’m in!


  • From playing my china mod I have come to the conclusion that letting china simply have artillery won’t really askew the game. Chinese guerrillas must still remain in the game unless you make the economic boost for china +2 for each burma road territory. But putting in the artillery aspect is a must since it does increase the fun factor and strategic options for china. If japan is not careful china could have some artillery pushing into the north or retaking lost territory in the south.

    All I know for sure is that +1 for each burma road territory is not enough money to offset japan leaving a troop behind for the guerrilla rules.

  • '19 '17 '16

    One thing I’ve noticed only recently that there is no incentive for Japan to take Rabaul (New Britain) as they did, unless they also take 3 other territories, one of which has incentive on its own. This is quite ahistorical.

  • '19 '17

    @simon33 It blocks 1 (2 if you count Malaya) NOs for Anzac, and is an NO for Japan. That’s 1 NO extra compared to vanilla.

    Map design doesn’t make Rabaul useful strategically, NOs won’t change that.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I’m assuming Malaya is in Japanese hands.

    Yes it does block 1 NO but I can’t see a situation where you would not land on the Solomons instead and block 2 (3 if the allies hold Malaya). Protecting the invasion transport?

  • '19 '17

    @simon33 Solomon is easier to take back since air from the fleet in Queens can support the attack. Taking New Britain with 2 inf makes it pretty hard for the Allies to take it back.

  • '19 '17 '16

    Possible, but unlikely. I suppose you’re right. It would have been more accurate if I had said “minimal incentive”. Normally in that sort of situation New Guinea or DNG is taken first.

  • '15

    I’d like to second the idea of letting China buy Artillery at any point in the game. In the tiers I play, generally around Tier 1, where we ain’t nothing special but we do have some idea what we are doing, Axis seem stronger, so giving Allies just a tiny boost like that might make the difference.

    And, as regularkid mentioned, it’s not going to have a huge effect one way or another anyway.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Shin-Ji said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    I’d like to second the idea of letting China buy Artillery at any point in the game. In the tiers I play, generally around Tier 1, where we ain’t nothing special but we do have some idea what we are doing, Axis seem stronger, so giving Allies just a tiny boost like that might make the difference.

    And, as regularkid mentioned, it’s not going to have a huge effect one way or another anyway.

    I don’t really like the idea. Artillery is supposed to be something you work for.

    If there should be a readjustment, the first place to start would be on the IJ/Ok objective.

  • '15

    If you want to eliminate that, you can just do that. There’s a box to check for it. Lots of people use it as a bid. So, go for it. I’d happily play Axis against you with that for a bid.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts