• @regularkid
    yo why so much hate on bombers,? you guys already ruined them with attack of 3 and now they cost more…

    requests
    checkbox for normal attack 4 bombers
    must have airbase to produce planes, like naval units

    checkbox tech tokens persist until they hit and are dedicated to a chart
    more than one tech a turn


  • @loki17 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    @regularkid
    yo why so much hate on bombers,? you guys already ruined them with attack of 3 and now they cost more…

    requests
    checkbox for normal attack 4 bombers
    must have airbase to produce planes, like naval units

    checkbox tech tokens persist until they hit and are dedicated to a chart
    more than one tech a turn

    Because they’re over-powered in OOB/BM3. It’s en effort for balance and more rich strategic play.

    In P2V they still cost 12, but have less attack.

    Don’t think further rules will ease matters.

  • '19 '17

    @loki17 This is not the PTV thread, this is the BM thread…


  • @loki17, thanks for your requests man. 🙂 Your message is received. Yo comprendo.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    though I prefer to play in the Lobby because I don’t have the patience to wait for emails.

    Interesting viewpoint.

    Anyway, I’ve finally (and reluctantly) made this change. You will need to delete and re-download the map pack to get it working for you. It will be called version 4.0 (but still “Mod3” because it has the same objectives).

    To get bombers at 12 you will have to play combat move first. Or not download the new map. Or something.

    Combat move 1st was not updated as that is what the Mod Squad were thinking of.

    So now that this is done, is anyone upset? I personally think it’s a bit messy with no option to play with bombers at 12 in purchase first and no update to combat move 1st. If path to victory kicks off, I guess no one will mind.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @loki17 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    Will someone please do a feature request?

    We play with tech and do not remove tokens option. Our group would like to be able to development more than one tech a turn. We would also like to have tokens assigned to the corresponding tech chart.

    Thanks for your time and best regards.

    The first option is already available. Just deselect “Remove all Tech Tokens at end of turn”.

    Others could be player enforced. Seems like a hassle to me - could probably have two different techs and two resources.

    Multiple tech per turn is completely against Global rules! I’m not sure why you want this so much. I’d rather have directed tech like Revised.

  • 2022 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    @simon33

    So… here is my pitch for a BM4.

    I’ve just played a series of BM3 as allies with bids from 8 to 14 to allies and lost. Sure, it could just be me or the dice, but there was a distinct pattern wherein the Axis built up strong naval and air defenses that kept UK and US at bay and then dispatched Russia at will. This was more pronounced on the Europe side where Germany could sit in the center position and project power in every direction. The key to this strategy seems to be waiting to bring USA in until R3 or even R4. This allows the Axis to maneuver into a superior position and block the US/UK counter thrust. The bid sort of helps, but loses its impact quickly.

    Proposed solution? Well, I think the weak link is, as usual, Russia. It is so weak at the start, and really can’t become an offensive force even if it is ignored by the Axis. If it were beefed up some with some extra NOs, maybe it could pose more of a threat. Say, up the patriotic war NO to 5 and condition it to deactivate only if allied ground units in the USSR, so air would be ok (this would be historically accurate FYI, the US operated bombers out of Russia). Also maybe give another +5 NO for control of Urals, Novosibirsk and Timguska or something. Call it Siberian Industry or something. That would give Russia a relatively safe +7 turn after turn.

    Thoughts?

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    @Karl7 I support your ideas with the NO’s. This would make more sense and is maybe or probably the way to go.


  • good ideas, Karl. If there is a general consensus behind them, we can definitely incorporate.


  • @Karl7
    Our quick fix attempt was to activate Russia’s +9 Novosibirsk card for global.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '16 '15

    I like the idea of beefing up Russia some more and giving Germany more of a sense of urgency to go after the mother bear. Otherwise you will have the @trulpen ’s of the world Who will stack like 8 to 10 euro carriers and like Karl said, block any allied progress in the west and med whilst ever slowly choking Russia like a python.

  • 2022 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    @axis-dominion said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    I like the idea of beefing up Russia some more and giving Germany more of a sense of urgency to go after the mother bear. Otherwise you will have the @trulpen ’s of the world Who will stack like 8 to 10 euro carriers and like Karl said, block any allied progress in the west and med whilst ever slowly choking Russia like a python.

    Yes, I experienced that. It hurt.

  • '19 '17

    Global and its variants were purposely designed with a weak Russia. That said, I don’t see an issue here. If Germany invests most of its efforts on Russia, it will succeed in breaking through. If not, Russia will hold. With UK help, Germany can even have trouble breaking through with 100% against Russia, so be careful what you wish for.

    That said, if you want to play a game with a strong Russia, play Path To Victory. Russia is stronger, but also has more responsibilities (in the East against Japan), so more dilemmas.


  • @Karl7 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    @axis-dominion said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    I like the idea of beefing up Russia some more and giving Germany more of a sense of urgency to go after the mother bear. Otherwise you will have the @trulpen ’s of the world Who will stack like 8 to 10 euro carriers and like Karl said, block any allied progress in the west and med whilst ever slowly choking Russia like a python.

    Yes, I experienced that. It hurt.

    It’s oh so sweet! 😁

  • '19

    @Karl7 If germany buys naval on g1, then allies should be able to defend against a southern push if they make the right purchases and position units effectively. If germany invests more than g1 on navy then russia should be able to do more than just delay germany. Germany can still squeak by into the Middle East if allies dont position things right but that gives Russia a bit more time to build up as well and then they should be able to hold for a long time.

    If germany buys all ground on g1 and g2, then germany can indeed push through russia at will, but then allies should be able to easily gain control of atlantic and med and they can use that to make necessary gains.

    Germany cant both push russia around and support a navy unless allies make some questionable decisions.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17

    I certainly don’t mind if folks want to add in another optional NO, but I would probably prefer playing with the bid since I like the variation provided by bid placement. A stronger USSR is also going to narrow the Axis options early which may make the game more scripted. And I think Ksmckay is right. A heavy focus on Moscow makes Germany vulnerable to the allies in the Atlantic. Attempting to preempt the allies in the Atlantic, makes the USSR more dangerous. That creates a nice tension I think.

  • '19

    @Karl7 In two of your recent games I saw, Germany built carriers round 1 and a few support vessels, and still got past Rostov on G5. If you let that happen things definitely get ugly quick. But a few different decisions and that can be prevented and if you can hold off another round or two things improve significantly.

  • '19 '17 '16

    I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.

  • 2021 '20

    For BM4, I’d love to see cruisers reduced to 11 IPCs, and battleships to 18 IPCs.

    Also, it would be cool if it were easier for Japan to win and harder for Germany to win that way the game could be consistently won on both sides, not majority Europe like it is currently.

    I also do not think that the game needs to be balanced to the point where no bid is necessary. I think bids are fun and make each game different.


  • I think Russia is strong enough as it is in BM3. Might be room for an extra NO or such, but if Russia is too strong there’ll be no strategic incentive at all for the other allies in helping them out. Which of course means lots of resources put into other areas. Curtain Axis.


  • My point is this game should be a struggle strewn with tough decisions.


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

    For BM4, I’d love to see cruisers reduced to 11 IPCs, and battleships to 18 IPCs.

    Also, it would be cool if it were easier for Japan to win and harder for Germany to win that way the game could be consistently won on both sides, not majority Europe like it is currently.

    I also do not think that the game needs to be balanced to the point where no bid is necessary. I think bids are fun and make each game different.

    Also think it’s great if the cost of a tac is reduced to 10, like in P2V. They’re definitely not as attractive as figs in OOB with the changed air-battle value.


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

    @WindowWasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    For BM4, I’d love to see cruisers reduced to 11 IPCs, and battleships to 18 IPCs.

    Also, it would be cool if it were easier for Japan to win and harder for Germany to win that way the game could be consistently won on both sides, not majority Europe like it is currently.

    I also do not think that the game needs to be balanced to the point where no bid is necessary. I think bids are fun and make each game different.

    Also think it’s great if the cost of a tac is reduced to 10, like in P2V. They’re definitely not as attractive as figs in OOB with the changed air-battle value.

    Strangely put. Meant BM3, not OOB.


  • @trulpen In designing BM, we shied away from changing the unit roster too much because we still wanted it to be recognizably g40. That’s why we saved the major unit-cost overhaul for WW2 Path to Victory, which has all the changes mentioned above.


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

    I certainly don’t mind if folks want to add in another optional NO, but I would probably prefer playing with the bid since I like the variation provided by bid placement. A stronger USSR is also going to narrow the Axis options early which may make the game more scripted. And I think Ksmckay is right. A heavy focus on Moscow makes Germany vulnerable to the allies in the Atlantic. Attempting to preempt the allies in the Atlantic, makes the USSR more dangerous. That creates a nice tension I think.

    thats what i ve been sayin all along.

    we should bid 30+ with allies

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • 13
  • 3520
  • 26
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

30
Online

16.2k
Users

37.8k
Topics

1.6m
Posts