Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread


  • 2019 2017 2016

    I totally agree with most of what @regularkid said there. Remember the controversy of tanks going to 6IPCs from 5IPCs? Even changes which are quite likely to be liked, such as 10IPC tacs would attract a fair bit of controversy. Some would say why not 9IPCs! A few changes could be made but it’s highly unlikely that fiddling at the edges would see some sort of great idea. Getting rid of the most controversial rule, the guerilla fighters, would be a completely new variant IMO.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015

    @simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    I totally agree with most of what @regularkid said there. Remember the controversy of tanks going to 6IPCs from 5IPCs? Even changes which are quite likely to be liked, such as 10IPC tacs would attract a fair bit of controversy. Some would say why not 9IPCs! A few changes could be made but it’s highly unlikely that fiddling at the edges would see some sort of great idea. Getting rid of the most controversial rule, the guerilla fighters, would be a completely new variant IMO.

    Why are the guerilla fighters so bad @simon33? In my opinion this is the single best change of many good changes in BM3! I would by far like to see other BM3 stuff change long before this one


  • 2019 2017 2016

    I think they make gamey, unrealistic, outcomes. It’s like a deliberately created loophole, exactly why should USA be able to snipe out the garrisons? Also, they don’t make the game more dynamic IMO. They in fact make the decision to go after India as quickly as possible more clear. I also think that

    Interesting that there are a couple of people that like the rule. I just don’t quite follow. I’d probably only hate it half as much if USA couldn’t bomb the infantry to create guerillas, but even so it still feels like a retrograde step back to Risk where you couldn’t allow the last unit to leave.



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

    I think they make gamey, unrealistic, outcomes. It’s like a deliberately created loophole, exactly why should USA be able to snipe out the garrisons? Also, they don’t make the game more dynamic IMO. They in fact make the decision to go after India as quickly as possible more clear. I also think that

    Interesting that there are a couple of people that like the rule. I just don’t quite follow. I’d probably only hate it half as much if USA couldn’t bomb the infantry to create guerillas, but even so it still feels like a retrograde step back to Risk where you couldn’t allow the last unit to leave.

    The logic of the guerrilla rule is manifold.

    First, the historical justification for the “sniping” as you call it. US involvement in mainland china war was primarily air support, and logistical assistance to native combatants. The guerrilla rule allows the US to have a role in supporting China that doesn’t involve boots on the ground.

    Second, it slows Japan’s China crush, and helps simulate the difficulty of plunging deep into and maintaining control of inland china. It also creates an in-game justification for Japan cleaving closer to the coast, which is historical.

    Third, from a gameplay perspective, it aids in balance, and presents more strategic choices to both sides.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    FWIW, the air support is already modeled by the flying tiger. And wrt Japan sticking to the coast, they already have an incentive for that with the inland territories all being 1IPC.

    Anyway, it is what it is.


  • 2017

    China is too weak without that rule.



  • Does anyone else think that if the axis attacks on turn 1 or 2 they are much more likely to win than if they attack on turn 3 or 4? If this is a true statement and not just my imagination is there any way to balance out the game so that the axis can get an income boost IF they do wait till turn 4 to attack.


  • 2017

    Part of BM’s goal is to add more viable options, and in that optic the difference in effectiveness in the DOW is balanced enough that in-game decisions by your opponent are enough to skew the optimal DOW turn. As part of the BM team and having played over 100 BM games and with a vast vanilla G40 experience, I can’t affirm what DOW turn is best.



  • @Adam514 I think BM is fantastic and helps balance out the game and adds many more viable options. But I’m not talking about optimal attacks. I suppose you can look at it that way. But I’m not looking for which turn DOW is best. It just seems to me that if the axis wait till turn 3 or 4, or let’s say that the longer that axis wait to attack, especially turn 3 or 4, the more likely it is that the allies will win since they have more time to build up their fleets, and forces and take those money islands from japan.

    Does this seem true to you?


  • 2017

    It doesn’t seem true to me. J4 is usually bad, but not always.



  • @Adam514
    When is J4 not a poor tactical decision? Or more importantly how can you make it work if sealion does not work?


  • 2017

    G4 Sealion, UK DOW on Japan.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    Does anyone else think that if the axis attacks on turn 1 or 2 they are much more likely to win than if they attack on turn 3 or 4? If this is a true statement and not just my imagination is there any way to balance out the game so that the axis can get an income boost IF they do wait till turn 4 to attack.

    Are you talking about in the Pacific or in Europe? If you’re talking about either, waiting until turn 4 is pretty suicidal - except in the case of UK DOW as Adam said. Even then, it may be advised to reduce USA income by attacking Guam and/or Philippines. Depends on what it unleashes in Europe too. J1 DOW is somewhat different to G1 DOW.

    @Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    China is too weak without that rule.

    Sounds like a value judgement to me.

    @Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    @Adam514 I think BM is fantastic and helps balance out the game and adds many more viable options. But I’m not talking about optimal attacks. I suppose you can look at it that way. But I’m not looking for which turn DOW is best. It just seems to me that if the axis wait till turn 3 or 4, or let’s say that the longer that axis wait to attack, especially turn 3 or 4, the more likely it is that the allies will win since they have more time to build up their fleets, and forces and take those money islands from japan.

    Does this seem true to you?

    In general you’re correct IMO. Axis have neither a starting unit or income advantage so they need to capitalise on their superior starting options. If they let these fade away, they should then go on to lose. G2/G3 don’t have huge differences in most games though. G1 & G4 are radically different. J2 is just a weaker version of J1, J3 is quite different, in part because German fleet can reach the Med.



  • Is there a plan to add some value to the few smaller islands that have no game value like the Fiji islands? Do we just keep ignoring that those exist or make them worth 1 ipc or make owning gilbert islands, fiji and johnston islands worth 3 ipc’s or 5 ipc’s to the japanese?

    Just wondering.


  • 2017

    Most are included in NOs.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    Wow. That’s true. Only the French islands of Madagascar and New Hebrides don’t have NOs I think. Oh and Greenland, Ceylon, Hainan and Formosa. Far out.



  • in a perfect world, historically significant islands would sit at the intersection of SZs so that they would have added in-game strategic importance, without the need for NOs or arbitrary PU values–i.e., if an island were at the intersection of two or more seasons, an airbase there would give you air-range that you couldn’t get from a carrier. Alas, redrawing the map is somewhat outside the purview of Balance Mod.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    @Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    Is there a plan to add some value to the few smaller islands that have no game value like the Fiji islands? Do we just keep ignoring that those exist or make them worth 1 ipc or make owning gilbert islands, fiji and johnston islands worth 3 ipc’s or 5 ipc’s to the japanese?

    Just wondering.

    Additionally, I can’t see why what you’re proposing actually adds value?

    I’ve realised a few other things about balanced mod only recently. The allied move where they see Japan coming and move their stack from India to West India, then retake India to prevent units from being produced there, that is a new move in Balanced Mod. In vanilla, you wouldn’t do this because Japan would get the plunder money. This tended to promote a stand and fight vs evacuate. I guess Moscow is similar. Now the question is: which is better? I’m not completely sure to be honest.

    Another thing is why shouldn’t you get the Major complex back when you liberate your capital? And should North Italy be different? Losing the major complex seems to be a side effect of the fix for game wrecking caused by major complexes on opposition territories, and not a desirable one.



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

    Another thing is why shouldn’t you get the Major complex back when you liberate your capital? And should North Italy be different? Losing the major complex seems to be a side effect of the fix for game wrecking caused by major complexes on opposition territories, and not a desirable one.

    I think it just represents your infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities being seriously messed up by the bad guys (or by yourself upon retreat from your capital. . . scorched earth style). That stuff obviously wouldn’t just magically re-materialize upon reentry by the good guys. It requires an investment in rebuilding, represented by paying the PUs for a Major factory upgrade. Seems reasonable to me.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    Interesting theory. But not for Rome or Sydney!


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    Why not give the country capital a minor factory once liberated then on next turn upgrade it to a major or pay 10 icps to upgrade to a Major ?

    I don’t know what happens to a captured factory in this Mod but the enemy should never get a free factory on capture unless it goes to a minor but then either can never upgrade or need to wait at least 1 a turn to upgrade with a cost for this game play if need be. Its like the London Factory. Ger captures it and now how fast are the Germans going to get supplies and minerals to London to build a minor let alone a major.
    It should go to a minor on Capital Capture and cannot be upgrade period for any enemy in a game. If you liberate the Capital with enemy controlling the minor factory it is destroyed and now you need to build a factory.
    And any Minor Factory captured is destroyed.



  • @SS-GEN said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    Why not give the country capital a minor factory once liberated then on next turn upgrade it to a major or pay 10 icps to upgrade to a Major ?

    I don’t know what happens to a captured factory in this Mod but the enemy should never get a free factory on capture unless it goes to a minor but then either can never upgrade or need to wait at least 1 a turn to upgrade with a cost for this game play if need be. Its like the London Factory. Ger captures it and now how fast are the Germans going to get supplies and minerals to London to build a minor let alone a major.
    It should go to a minor on Capital Capture and cannot be upgrade period for any enemy in a game. If you liberate the Capital with enemy controlling the minor factory it is destroyed and now you need to build a factory.
    And any Minor Factory captured is destroyed.

    The factories are handled in Balance Mod the exact same way they are handled in Vanilla. This isn’t really an area where the need for a change is so obvious that it would justify fundamentally altering a game mechanic that everyone understands and seems fine with.

    Also, i strongly recommend trying Balance Mod.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer

    Naw. When I started playing AA about 9 years ago I only played 39 games over the years. When I saw G40 game and played once was enough for me that I’m not taking 5 steps backwards in AA and besides I don’t agree with a bunch of stuff that happens in G40.

    Just me. I only post suggestions. Its to give you guys more ideas for other games if looking for a tweak here or there. Plus when I suggest something it has been play tested and played in my games.

    Good Luck.



  • I have a question about the Marine. When doing an amphibious assault in a seazone occupied by enemy ships and the ship that the marine is aboard participates in the combat, can the marine then unload on the territory or is he stuck the on ship.

    Second I think that simon has a slight point about the chinese guerrilla thing. If the Japanese somehow cannot immediately close off the burma road then it can become quite difficult for Japan to actually hold onto chinese territories. Say that they were forced to keep some of their army up north and spread out towards Russia. I propose that If the Burma road is open AND the allies have control of kwangtung or perhaps just FIC, not sure which, then the chinese guerrilla’s will not spawn. This will give Japan a slight chance to move those infantry and artillery and mechs sitting on territories doing nothing until they get the situation down south under control. Otherwise Japan is sitting there with 20 IPCs of units it can’t do anything with. This would also allow a bit of an option for Japan if they needed to swing north to knock out those russian infantry.

    I hope you consider this change.

    Third. Great mod guys. I’m really enjoying playing it and not quite sure why everyone has not picked it up. It has some really great aspects that make the game more enjoyable.

    I really wish the marine was an official addition the game since it adds so much in tactical decisions especially in the pacific.


  • 2017

    The Marine is stuck on the ship. Ships can’t conduct combat and then unload in the NCM phase. If the Marine wasn’t already loaded though, you can’t load it on a ship if you aren’t conducting combat with the Marine. That’s the same rule as transports.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 8
  • 1
  • 9
  • 8
  • 5
  • 1
  • 406
I Will Never Grow Up Games

65
Online

13.3k
Users

33.5k
Topics

1.3m
Posts