G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

  • Regarding Chinese guerrillas, because coastal territories in China are exempt from the garrisoning requirement, the possibility of guerrillas doesn’t put that much of a dent in Japan’s efforts to close the Burma road early on, speaking generally.

    Its only if Japan elects to plunge deeper into China that the garrisoning requirement entails obvious trade offs (e.g.,a slower takedown of India, reduced ability to harass Russia). And those are precisely the kind strategic choices that Balance Mod is designed to create.

  • @Adam514
    Can you add a line on the BM rules page that says something to the effect of, “The Ship carrying the Marine will work in the same way as a transport” OR “You cannot conduct sea combat with the ship carrying the Marine and then use that same marine in an amphibious assault.” Just to clarify it.

  • 2019 2017

    Your question wasn’t clear then. You can use Marines in amphibious assaults just like units on a tp, doesn’t matter if there’s a battle prior or not.

  • @Mursilis I think what Adam was trying to say initially is that, during the noncombat phase, a marine cannot unload from a cruiser/battleship that has already engaged in combat that turn.

  • 2019 2017 '16

    Adam’s answer assumes that you are talking about NCM. The marine can’t move in NCM. Nothing prevents the marine from doing an amphibious assault from that sea zone if there’s a suitable territory.

  • I’m going to hit this one more time since I’m not really sure why it would interfere with slowing japan from taking india.

    If the burma road is open AND FIC is either controlled by US, UK, or ANZAC, but not france, AND japan is at war with UK AND Kwangtung is allied controlled, THEN and only then will the chinese guerrillas not spawn.

    This would assume that japan has failed in the south and needs it’s northern units moved.
    I hope I am being more clear this time than with the marines.

    Can you explain how this interferes with slowing down the Calcutta crush?

  • 2019 2017 '16

    I don’t get why this is such a great idea. If the allies are beating down Japan enough that they hold FIC & Kwangtung, then the guerilla fighters are unlikely to be a factor.

    Guerilla fighters don’t slow down the Calcutta crush and in fact focus Japan on Calcutta.

  • @simon33

    Wait I thought you thought the guerrilla fighter rule was a bad idea. I like the guerrilla fighter rule but I just find that if japan is having some trouble down south and things are going really badly they can at least move those 20 ipc’s worth of units back to help. Otherwise they are just stuck sitting there till they die.

    It doesn’t have to be a big beatdown either, If the burma road is not closed and FIC falls kwangtung will go as well. So the japanese could possible move the units stuck in those chinese territories while doing amphib assaults to retake the territories.

    Maybe it’s just too little too late but it can help japan a bit to regain some territory or hold a line before manchuria falls.

  • 2019 2017 '16

    I do but I don’t like the idea of functionally keeping the rule but adding a few more complications to it. KISS!

    Anyway, it seems like I’m in the minority on the guerilla fighters.

  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15

    @Mursilis The way i read your suggestion is if Japan had some poor dice (or poor judgement?) Then you are going to compensate them by tossing in a new or revised rule set for this? In my opinion this violates everything that Axis&Allies is about. I dont want it.

  • 2019 2017 '16

    Why are moderate to skilled players still including bids in games for Balanced Mod?

  • Ok, the tribe has spoken it was a bad idea and too complicated. I let it marinade in my mind over night and came to the ultimate conclusion that it didn’t help japan enough to warrant the rule.

    One last suggestion. What if the chinese can only spawn 1 infantry at the beginning of their turn. So if there is one open japanese territory or 5 open japanese territories the chinese can only spawn 1 infantry.

    Good, bad, dumb, your thoughts.

  • 2019 2017 '16

    Might not be possible to implement in triple a.

    Also it is not that common to get 2 guerillas in the same turn.

  • @simon33
    So simon, would you just keep the chinese as OOB or reduce the burma road to 3 ipcs instead of 6 or have a different suggestion?

    I’m going to try this with china. If the burma road is open china gets 3 IPCs. If the burma road is closed then china can place 1 guerrilla fighter at the start of its turn in an unoccupied japanese territory not on the coast as the current rules demand. So its a slight rule change.

    Not sure if 6 would make china too powerful. I’m going to try this rule in my next game.

  • 2019 2017 '16

    Yeah I think I would just leave China as OOB. Saying that China is too weak is a bit like saying France is too weak. China still usually dies in BM, it just takes a few more turns.

  • Well I think that OOB china is a bit too weak and that BM china can be a bit too strong.

    What about this proposal. Each territory that makes up the burma road adds one ipc to the chinese economy. So if the burma road is open china will get 4 IPCs. If say Yunnan and Szechwan are captured then china would get 2 additonal IPCs instead. Then the guerrilla rule could be removed since china would have a bit more money to play with.

    The extra supplies would be historically accurate since the burma road was captured by the japanese and supplies were airlifted into china over the Himalayas. You could even allow china to purchase artillery if either szechwan or yunnan was china controlled. If both were taken than no artillery would be allowed.

  • @Mursilis how is this materially different than the existing National Objective (+6 if Burma road is open in OOB, +3 if Burma in Balance Mod)?

    Do you have much experience with Balance Mod? China gets crushed in virtually every game involving competent Japan player. If anything, the Guerrillas aren’t enough.

  • @regularkid
    Well I’m glad you asked that question. I play balance mod exclusively now. I’ve played 10 games of it so far. And yes china gets crushed almost every game because japan pushes south and wipes out yunnan and cuts off the road. Once that road is done china is pretty much over. Japan parks its airforce in kwangsi and soon szechwan falls. It is not hard for japan to keep all those chinese territories locked down unless japan has some really bad luck which it doesn’t usually. Or decides to attack amur’s stack of russians. This would give china time to build up down south.

    My option would give china +3 ipcs when yunnan falls and an extra turn to try to buy artillery. And when szechwan falls then they would get +2 ipcs. Having that artillery lets china actually fight back instead of sit there and build infantry. China would be a threat, a small one, but something instead of just a nuisance waiting to die.

    Your mod is fantastic and like I said it is the only one I play. It does add a lot of strategic options across the whole board. I know a good thing when I see it so that is why I continue to play the Mod. This one place, China, is where I feel Japan can do only one thing and knock out the burma road ASAP. Then china is done. So we tried some different options with japan.

    I’m not an expert and we like to try new strategies when we can. I would put my self as an intermediate player and we never use bids. I think your Balance mod is as close to balancing this game as Larry harris’ 42.3 setup.

    And you just admitted that china is too weak now. I think either way it comes down to giving them Artillery options and my proposal would do that.

    It fits with your criteria for balance changes.

    1. does it improve balance? (I think it does)
      (2) does it improve fun/strategic depth? (I think it could)
      (3) does it improve historicality? Yes
      (4) is it simple/easy to understand and implement? Yes
      "If the change satisfied all of those criteria, it was a strong candidate for inclusion.”
      So why don’t we test this out and see if it fits.

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

    My option would give china +3 ipcs when yunnan falls and an extra turn to try to buy artillery. And when szechwan falls then they would get +2 ipcs. Having that artillery lets china actually fight back instead of sit there and build infantry. China would be a threat, a small one, but something instead of just a nuisance waiting to die.

    This would be instead of Guerrillas? Guerrillas seem like that they are a bigger help to China and bigger hindrance to Japan than what you are proposing . . .

  • @regularkid
    Most of the time Guerrillas don’t show up on the board this is true. But Japan is also sitting on 20 to 30 ipc’s in territories it can’t do anything with.

    So if you break it down if yunnan falls then the chinese will still have +3 ipcs every turn until szechwan falls. That’s a guaranteed extra infantry instead of hoping that japan moves a unit out of a spot or USA bombs a japanese unit to death. The artillery is also crucial to fighting back against the japanese. 4 1’s or 4 2’s going into an attack with a fighter for back up.

    And like I said before, if yunnan does fall then china still have a chance to buy a few more artillery to put up north or stack for a counter attack. Even if yunnan and szechwan fall then they would still get +2 ipcs to put down as long as burma and india remain open which is almost a guaranteed extra infantry.

    I think it is worth a test and if it is still too weak maybe add it in on top of the guerrillas, but I think my proposal will beef up china in a logical way. Every time I can get some artillery I can usually put up a good attack force to beat back japanese forces. You can even look at bloodbath rules where they add cavalry at an attack of 2. This lets them deal with the japanese threat a bit better but they keep the +6 NO for burma road.

    I don’t think you should shoot down this idea without testing it. I think more access to artillery is the key to making china not just instantly die.

  • 2019 2017 '16

    @Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    BM china can be a bit too strong.

    This is probably the part of where you’re coming from where I have a problem.

    Why’s the testing burden on the mod squad? Have you play tested your proposal?

  • @simon33

    Yeah they can be if yunnan somehow doesn’t fall. But most games it does so it isn’t an issue. In fact why even have the NO bonus for china at all since the burma road usually is out of commission by turn 2 and since it’s closed they have no access to artillery which makes the whole NO rule useless, does it not? You could give the chinese 30 IPCs by having the Burma road but again, it usually is closed off in turn 2 so it isn’t an issue. I know with 30 IPC’s that would be a game changer, but the point stands. It is not open enough to get the bonus cash and get artillery units.

    That is beside the point though. And yes I’m going to test this rule in my next game which i’m probably going to start in the next few days.

    My suggestion can be amended or tested. Now they have more people than just little old me, im sure. The idea might be sound.

    Of course if India falls then the Chinese can’t get any extra IPC’s since the air dropped supplies will be coming from India.

    If it does work out simon then this would make you very very happy I would assume. IF at the very least my whole idea is not accepted then letting artillery be purchased if szechwan is not controlled by the japanese might be enough. But my whole concept might fix your issue with the rule and add some extra options for the chinese(Artillery).

  • @Mursilis i’m not sure i understand the goal of the proposed rule modification. it seems like the rationale keeps shifting between “China is too strong” and “China isn’t strong enough”

  • 2019 2017 '16

    There’s two aspects to the Burma Road rule:

    1. If it’s open at the start of the turn you get artillery if you want
    2. If it’s open at the end of China’s turn you get the NO.

    Reducing the NO from 6 to 3 reduces the incentive to trade Yunnan for China - versus doing something else. Perhaps this actually increases strategic depth, because China becomes less of a one dimensional power.

    You’re normally doing reasonably well as allies to get the NO for two turns in the whole game if the axis J1. Perhaps this is part of the reason it was reduced to 3, to reduce the incentive to J1.

    I tend to like the incentive for the allies to go hard after the Burma Road. I’m guessing some feel that this is a weakness or it wouldn’t have been changed against balance.

  • @regularkid

    I’m sorry about that. I might be mistaken from my games but it just seems to me that as long as japan hits yunnan and shuts down the road then china gets 3 ipc’s for a turn, never has a chance to get artillery and then the idea of the guerrillas makes perfect sense and works out perfectly. Now the only problem for me comes to the point that if japan loses control of the road they have all those units sitting there that they can’t move or else a chinese infantry will be spawned.

    So looking at the board and seeing 6 units of japanese troops that I can’t use or i’m going to have a chinese infantry to deal with and lose a territory instantly seems a bit strong. I feel that china is too weak at the beginning of the game and can be too strong and the end of the game. The current balance change for china doesn’t help improve their tactical standpoint at all. If you look at every other change that was made you can see it adds money to a power through more NO’s.

    Anzac is a great example of a wonderful change that when you look at it from a numbers standpoint looks bad, “Hey, I’m going from getting 10 ipc’s to 9, why would this be better if i’m getting less money?” But when you look at it from the actual game play point of view, you see that they are instead getting a guaranteed 3 ipc NO boost while still being able to get the other money. And since Malaya is usually in allied hands for a while instead of having that 5 ipc boost per turn you get 6.

    If you look at the vichy rule this is obviously there to help out italy from being killed immediately.

    There are a lot of great changes in the mod but I feel that the china one is somewhat lacking.

    I think if you simply give china an extra chance to put that artillery down on the field it might help china’s early game while not making the late game overpowered.

    Perhaps having the burma road open would be 4 ipc’s and if only szechwan, burma, and india are open china gets +2 ipc’s and can still buy artillery. If yunnan and szechwan are closed than the guerrilla rule kicks in. This might be a better balance so that the chinese can fight early game, but if they lose too much territory, then the guerillas kick in to either regain some territory or just annoy japan.

Log in to reply

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 429
  • 45
  • 3521
  • 1
  • 2
  • 15
  • 9
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys