G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Or you could do the obvious thing and just wind back some of the allied objectives.

@simon33:

Or you could do the obvious thing and just wind back some of the allied objectives.

Yeah.  There’s a big list to choose from, too.

So, since Karl is the most experienced bard on the forum here, can we say that Axis are underpowered?

I suggest 3 additional NOs for Axis

1. Japan - certain number of territories in China

2. Germany - from White to Black sea (4 or 5 territories)

3. Italy - 4 islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus)

The Axis can also have more ipc for the existing NO, for example that one with Crete from 2 to 5, and the one for Norway to 7 ?

^ As the only player more experienced in the 2017 season than Karl I sighed when I read suggestions of even more NOs for BM.

A reimagined BM without guerilla fighters would be something I could get behind but I doubt anyone is really interested.

@simon33:

^ As the only player more experienced in the 2017 season than Karl I sighed when I read suggestions of even more NOs for BM.

A reimagined BM without guerilla fighters would be something I could get behind but I doubt anyone is really interested.

that would be a good compensation.

karl , what say U?

You could get rid of guerrilla fighters,  but you should then also get rid of the ridiculous 5 IPC for Nov,Stal,Mos,Cau,  and just change it to 5 for control of one.

The fact the axis can make their income explode so fiercely is brutal.

I’ve always been a believer that sometimes less is more in Axis and Allies.  And I think that’s true for Balanced mod.  Some of these rules are fun/exciting, and def add new elements to the game.  But the core challenge for balance from the beginning was the sheer amount of NO’s the axis can easily pickup, whilst the allies couldn’t get barely any.

Another bug in the tripleA calculator.

Try Amphibious assault with 2 inf and a cruiser against a single inf.

@Gargantua:

You could get rid of guerrilla fighters,  but you should then also get rid of the ridiculous 5 IPC for Nov,Stal,Mos,Cau,  and just change it to 5 for control of one.

The fact the axis can make their income explode so fiercely is brutal.

I’ve always been a believer that sometimes less is more in Axis and Allies.  And I think that’s true for Balanced mod.  Some of these rules are fun/exciting, and def add new elements to the game.  But the core challenge for balance from the beginning was the sheer amount of NO’s the axis can easily pickup, whilst the allies couldn’t get barely any.

OOB, Germany easily gets Norway and Leningrad/peace with USSR. After the fall of Moscow they should have another +15
Japan gets DEI
Italy normally gets control of the med.

Axis: +20/+35

USSR/UK: nothing
USA: +20
ANZAC: +5 for the islands.

In BM, Japan adds home islands (+3) but ANZAC gets another +1 for its islands and UK can often get the no subs NO (+3). Germany might get Crete (+2)

Not hugely different for my money.

Actually, I’m guessing that you aren’t counting the +20 USA gets for doing nothing other than maintaining North America, the Aleutians and Hawaii.

@JDOW:

Another bug in the tripleA calculator.

Try Amphibious assault with 2 inf and a cruiser against a single inf.

There are maaaaaaannnnyy other bugs in the calculator for the new triple a version

Why is this in the BM thread??

The Axis don’t need any more NOs. I agree with Variance.
Sorry Amon-Sul.
It is easier to get the Axis ones and stop the Allied ones, as the Axis player. Parity in income should not be easy to accomplish. The Axis should be behind financially, as their advantage lies in the flexibility they have in choosing the strategy and the battles that need to be fought.  Te Allies are usually reacting to the Axis moves and need the money advantage, therefore.

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

There are also weird cases if you choose “1 land unit must remain” meaning you have to loose planes before artillary (inf). Sometimes you get better (or at least even) odds with this option checked.

I dont think this has anything to do with BM, rather the new triple a version and this auto rolling is so annoying and it doesnt even do the battles in correct order! I guess this discussion should be moved to the proper place wherever that is

@oysteilo:

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

There are also weird cases if you choose “1 land unit must remain” meaning you have to loose planes before artillary (inf). Sometimes you get better (or at least even) odds with this option checked.

I dont think this has anything to do with BM, rather the new triple a version and this auto rolling is so annoying and it doesnt even do the battles in correct order! I guess this discussion should be moved to the proper place wherever that is

I have not done this calculation today, but have done similar trials. Try to add two bombers and remove the battleships……It just shows something is wrong

@oysteilo:

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

There are also weird cases if you choose “1 land unit must remain” meaning you have to loose planes before artillary (inf). Sometimes you get better (or at least even) odds with this option checked.

I dont think this has anything to do with BM, rather the new triple a version and this auto rolling is so annoying and it doesnt even do the battles in correct order! I guess this discussion should be moved to the proper place wherever that is

It only auto rolls SBR (in the correct order), defenseless battles and then if only one battle remains it will roll that. It is a little annoying that it will ask you to submerge if you use a sub to kill a transport. Otherwise, it’s more correct than it was in 1.8. You could say that moving into an empty enemy territory which is resolved in combat movement is incorrect but does anyone really care? Why would you want to click those battles anyway. It gave me the proverbial when I clicked a defenseless amphibious assault to get an error that I hadn’t rolled the defenseless transport kill first.

Why would you want to have to do those extra clicks? I don’t get it.

The auto combats are also good for China guerrilla fighters.

For the record, the auto SBR was more for online - as it was, it caused a pass of control between attacker and defender if there was a scramble/kami and an SBR. This wasn’t desirable and it was also against the rules.

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

I can’t duplicate this problem. I think there are some problems when the powers aren’t at war, like AA Guns not firing or something. Not sure how you got this one.

@simon33:

@oysteilo:

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

There are also weird cases if you choose “1 land unit must remain” meaning you have to loose planes before artillary (inf). Sometimes you get better (or at least even) odds with this option checked.

I dont think this has anything to do with BM, rather the new triple a version and this auto rolling is so annoying and it doesnt even do the battles in correct order! I guess this discussion should be moved to the proper place wherever that is

It only auto rolls SBR (in the correct order), defenseless battles and then if only one battle remains it will roll that. It is a little annoying that it will ask you to submerge if you use a sub to kill a transport. Otherwise, it’s more correct than it was in 1.8. You could say that moving into an empty enemy territory which is resolved in combat movement is incorrect but does anyone really care? Why would you want to click those battles anyway. It gave me the proverbial when I clicked a defenseless amphibious assault to get an error that I hadn’t rolled the defenseless transport kill first.

Why would you want to have to do those extra clicks? I don’t get it.

The auto combats are also good for China guerrilla fighters.

For the record, the auto SBR was more for online - as it was, it caused a pass of control between attacker and defender if there was a scramble/kami and an SBR. This wasn’t desirable and it was also against the rules.

f. eks a defenslese transport is killed by an autorolling sub before an amphibious landing. It does not matter in this case, but I believe the correct order of combat is SBR runs, amphibious battles and then all other battles.

Also if you do multiple SBRs it is rolled so fast it is impossible to figure out what is going on. I don’t see how autorolling is achieving much.

You still get all the popups which show what happened. I don’t see it as a problem.

@simon33:

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

I can’t duplicate this problem. I think there are some problems when the powers aren’t at war, like AA Guns not firing or something. Not sure how you got this one.

Are you sure? Usually my reported bugs could always be reproduced. This screenshot was made in a game at turn 8, so Germany and Russia are definitely at war and as I know that there is a big with AA fire in case Japan fights UK (Not UK Pacific because this is and always was bugged), so I tried this battle already in different constellation, also tried Italy vs UK and I got the same result.

@JDOW:

@simon33:

@JDOW:

Phew, the calculator seems to by very buggy in BM.

When adding BBs for shore bombardment to an amphibious assault the calculator goes nuts. The battle is 2% without the 2 BBs

I can’t duplicate this problem. I think there are some problems when the powers aren’t at war, like AA Guns not firing or something. Not sure how you got this one.

Are you sure? Usually my reported bugs could always be reproduced. This screenshot was made in a game at turn 8, so Germany and Russia are definitely at war and as I know that there is a big with AA fire in case Japan fights UK (Not UK Pacific because this is and always was bugged), so I tried this battle already in different constellation, also tried Italy vs UK and I got the same result.

I tried on build 7386 which works correctly. However, I have now been able to reproduce on build 7527 so I’ve logged an issue on Github.