G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@MrRoboto:

A well orchestrated Barbarossa will kill Moscow no problem.
And consider this: You don’t essentially need to capture Moscow - if you’re able to siege them while taking everything else, that’s usually enough to win the game.

But the point you’re making is still true: If Russia is not pushed hard, they make a lot of money. So if you invest too much into your German Navy, you might be in some trouble. I think that’s a good adaptation to the original rules though. Before, it was too easy to hold off an Allied invasion of Western / Southern Europe while still sieging Moscow.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. Good gosh though, Russia can stack up quick in BM3.

Please play me sometime. I need to get better at the Allies while experiencing better Axis play. League or just for fun.

Straight up of course. I don’t think the Axis should get a bid.

If the consensus is that they should get a bid, than something should just be turned off for the Allies or that I might be right.

In order to better expose the Balance Mod to the community, this thread has been moved to “Other Axis & Allies Variants”.

@simon33:

@axis-dominion:

simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.

I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.

So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:

• Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia to USA
• Japan DOW bonus on Persia and Northern lend lease to USSR
• Carolines etc bonus to USA
• Sicily/Sardinia etc bonus to UK
• Iwo Jima/Okinawa bonus to Japan
• Perhaps some people want to disable the Indian Ocean objective to UK_Pacific?

No replies, not even a like? Seems the care factor is low to zero.

Simon,

I’m the only one who agrees with it, LOL.

But I don’t count of course because I’m new to league and really of the opinion that the Axis are outmatched in BM3.

Whatever the case, I don’t agree that Balanced Mod is “balanced.”

Heck, I just started a game; and the opponent typed, “No bid” in the initial post. What is the Axis normally entitled to a bid? If so, than people should be in agreement with me that the BM3 needs to tone down the “balancing” factors.

@P@nther:

In order to better expose the Balance Mod to the community, this thread has been moved to “Other Axis & Allies Variants”.

might be better to stickie it under “House Rules”. Seems more apropriate and probably more viewed than “other …variants” imo

Or maybe both. : )

Appreciate your time P@nther

@simon33:

@simon33:

@axis-dominion:

simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.

I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.

So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:

• Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia to USA
• Japan DOW bonus on Persia and Northern lend lease to USSR
• Carolines etc bonus to USA
• Sicily/Sardinia etc bonus to UK
• Iwo Jima/Okinawa bonus to Japan
• Perhaps some people want to disable the Indian Ocean objective to UK_Pacific?

No replies, not even a like? Seems the care factor is low to zero.

Too bad. seemed as if it was a good idea.

well, I was thinking more along the lines of, making it configurable so that players can choose what to flip on and off in the game options dialog. so yea that would require a ui change and some coding, but offer max flexibility.

@barney:

@simon33:

@simon33:

@axis-dominion:

simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.

I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.

So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:

• Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia to USA
• Japan DOW bonus on Persia and Northern lend lease to USSR
• Carolines etc bonus to USA
• Sicily/Sardinia etc bonus to UK
• Iwo Jima/Okinawa bonus to Japan
• Perhaps some people want to disable the Indian Ocean objective to UK_Pacific?

No replies, not even a like? Seems the care factor is low to zero.

Too bad. seemed as if it was a good idea.

Can’t imagine that happening. There’s a reasonable way of doing enough.

Ok, I’ve made several things from Balanced Mod optional:

• Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia bonus to USA
• Japan DOW bonus on Persia and Northern lend lease to USSR
• Carolines etc bonus to USA
• Sicily/Sardinia etc bonus to UK
• Iwo Jima/Okinawa bonus to Japan
• Vichy
• Chinese guerrilla fighters

If you want these changes right away, you’ll have to delete the global map pack and download it again. Hopefully, users will be prompted to download it soon.

Good action here.

Really nice to see the Canada mod in there.

Well done simon : )

Canada mode?

That’s a mod which adds Canada as a player, with some of the changes from bm.

@simon33:

That’s a mod which adds Canada as a player, with some of the changes from bm.

nice. U invented it?

Yes.

In the 2018 league in BM games, Axis are pulling away from the Allies, now at 53.9% Axis wins, normally with a small bid to the Axis. In G40 games, Axis are 56.6%, normally with bigger bids than in the past.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be giving bids to the Axis for BM any more?

@simon33:

In the 2018 league in BM games, Axis are pulling away from the Allies, now at 53.9% Axis wins, normally with a small bid to the Axis. In G40 games, Axis are 56.6%, normally with bigger bids than in the past.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be giving bids to the Axis for BM any more?

There is no need for an axis bid, Allies need a bid if any

Moving this here from league discussion page on Simon’s suggestion.

I had a couple of strategy questions for the UK first round in BM. I hope I’m not putting this in the wrong thread but I wasn’t sure if I should be putting BM questions in the global thread. But the absence of the bid (which I often used at least partially in the UK) changes the situation a bit and I’ve had trouble deciding on what to do now that I have shifted to mostly playing BM.

Q1 Assuming the typical attack on the UK fleet (all air in range and all but 1 or 2 subs hits the navy around UK and 1 or 2 subs hits the destroyer off of Canada and optimally divided between the two sea zones) what are the game conditions that would motivate the allies to scramble 110 or both. I’ve read on this site that  its worth it to get the trade of UK air for German air. I see the logic of that but it still seems a risky move that reduces the options for the UK after. I would be interested in hearing from people who might sometimes do that why they do so and the game effects of that choice. This question is relevant to both BM and regular but in regular games the bid (for me at least) often means an additional fighter in Scotland which often makes scrambling (in either sea zone) a safer option.

Q2 I’ve noticed that the most common UK options in BM in the first turn are to hit the main Italian fleet off of Taranto, set up off Egypt or set up off Gibraltar. When I first started playing last year I read in some of the discussion threads on global that Taranto was considered to often be the optimal UK move. In BM mode, it seems to me that the UK is a bit more vulnerable to sealion if you go for it since the allies lack the bid placement. This means Taranto is more risky, at least if there is no J1 DOW since it pulls away the air. Anyway, I’m just interested in what informs the choice that people make here and what conditions at the beginning of UK1 make one choice more optimal than another.

Simon replied:
“If UK keeps one plane in the UK/Scotland, it can still do Taranto. Even if every air unit leaves London so long as the UK mobilises 6inf 1ftr, Sea Lion still would be sub optimal. So the risk is not that high IMO.”

I should qualify my point in that moving the air for the Taranto raid makes sea lion success more likely for Germany but it doesn’t necessarily mean it is always going to work or the optimal move for Germany. Its just that in bm games, all things being equal, UK is often more vulnerable to sea lion than in regular games with an allied bid (where often some of that bid is placed  in the UK)

I had a game recently where I did taranto (with 2 fighters from London) and built the 6 inf one air in UK and then proceeded to lose the UK to sea lion. The Germans had built  navy, and had a better than average result with the dice in the first round and Taranto was a disaster (I brought everything I could and every UK unit missed). They were able to do sea lion quite easily, but I’m not sure it was the best move in the end given the opening that gave the Soviets. They ended up winning the game in the Pacific just before I was able to take Berlin with the Soviets.

The relative German success on their first turn along with their naval bid might have been a reason for me to rethink Taranto. But I’m interested in what influences other people’s choices here. I’m trying to improve how I read the board in BM and how the outcomes of the German turn (and also Japan’s) influence one’s options as UK.

I will try to answer you briefly

Q1: Scrambling Scotland. I think if Germany buys navy/carrier G1 it is a good move to sramble scotland if the BB goes to 111, because you assume he will pull back after one round to save the BB. If the battleship goes to 110, the scotland scramble might be at more risk. If Germany buys all men for Russia it’s fairly safe to scramble both 111 and 110, but I am not sure it is optimal. The logic is less planes for Russia, but you also remove your own freedom to operate. Sort of a gamble I guess

Q2: I “always” try to do taranto even in BM and I think it is safe as long as you only take to planes from united kingdom/scotland and buy 1 fighter 6 men. This might be on the weak side if Germany buys carrier and 2 transports though, but hey, you need to take some risks. Its not awefull to do taranto with only two fighters either (with all the other stuff) although I prefer 3

If 109 lives which it sometimes do when only one sub attacks, even more freedom to operate

thanks for the response Oysteilo.

On Q1, I’ll note that I’m more interested in knowing why people scramble 110. You make a good point about how where the BB is going can influence the decisions in 111. But even if 111 is a risky move, the risk to the UK is easier to take than the loss of 3 planes in 110. But my sense was that some folks do take the risk to get the trade with the German air and I’m curious how that shapes subsequent game play.

On Q2, under what circumstances would you think make Taranto too risky or another move better for the UK?

OK, so people scramble 110, but not 111 against scripted German play? I have not seen that