G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15

    @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.


  • 2019 2017

    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.


  • 2019 2017 '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.


  • 2019 2017

    @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.


  • 2019 2017 '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?


  • 2019 2017

    @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.


  • 2019 2017 '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.


  • 2019 2017 '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.


  • 2019 2017 '16

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

    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.

    I’d play but I’m not really that confident with allies. I think you might be the favourite.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    You know what, you’re on if you still want.


  • '15

    I just had another game come through, so I’ll have to pass for now, but maybe in a week or two?


  • 2019 2017 '16

    Ok, I can’t see if this has been discussed before. One the things I find somewhat irksome is that the French ships block the control of the Med objective I1 when all the other ships have been cleared from the Med and Vichy is inevitable. Was there a reason Vichy couldn’t be activated afterItaliansPlace rather than at the start of the French turn?


  • 2019 2017

    It’s part of the balance of Vichy at this point, and makes more sense for it to happen on the French turn.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    2 points I want to make here.

    1. Bids are reaching the magical 10IPCs (ftr Scotland), I submit there may need to be a change. Or we could just stop playing with the Ok/IJ objective, which I would also point out re-strengthens the J1 DOW.

    2. If a German sub stops Lend Lease through SZ125 even though Germany isn’t at war, in the event that Japan is at war with USA & UK, shouldn’t a Japanese ship in SZ80 also stop Lend Lease through that lane (Persia)? The logic here being it is the other powers whose ships are being used in both cases. Not sure which is the important power though.


  • 2019 2017

    @simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    2 points I want to make here.

    1. Bids are reaching the magical 10IPCs (ftr Scotland), I submit there may need to be a change. Or we could just stop playing with the Ok/IJ objective, which I would also point out re-strengthens the J1 DOW.

    2. If a German sub stops Lend Lease through SZ125 even though Germany isn’t at war, in the event that Japan is at war with USA & UK, shouldn’t a Japanese ship in SZ80 also stop Lend Lease through that lane (Persia)? The logic here being it is the other powers whose ships are being used in both cases. Not sure which is the important power though.

    1. I don’t see an issue with bids of 20 and under. Bids are good way to keep the game fresh and balance it through the ages, as such a complex asymmetric game cannot stay balanced as strategies evolve. J1DOW was nerfed compared to its vanilla effectiveness even with the Iwo Jima objective, given that Italy has an important role to play in BM.

    2. German subs don’t stop Lend Lease if Russia isn’t at war, Russia doesn’t get any NOs until they are at war with Germany or Italy. Perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    @Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    German subs don’t stop Lend Lease if Russia isn’t at war, Russia doesn’t get any NOs until they are at war with Germany or Italy. Perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying.

    If Italy is at war but Germany isn’t, the USSR objective is supposed to be stopped by a German sub.


  • 2019 2017 '16

    Krieghund said that’s because it’s the UK/USA’s ships being targeted, and those powers are at war with Germany. Well, presumably in the USA’s case.


  • 2019 2017

    @simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    @Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

    German subs don’t stop Lend Lease if Russia isn’t at war, Russia doesn’t get any NOs until they are at war with Germany or Italy. Perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying.

    If Italy is at war but Germany isn’t, the USSR objective is supposed to be stopped by a German sub.

    I don’t think it should be stopped by a ship it isn’t at war with. It’s not something that happens anyway.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 443
  • 3521
  • 56
  • 8
  • 45
  • 9
  • 15
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

76
Online

14.5k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts