Just how balanced is the Balanced Mod?

I think the no subs in the Atlantic NO is a factor - I mean, 2nd edition doesn’t even have that.  That gives Germany incentive to wage more war on London

Since everyone’s throwing out so many wish list items, I’ll add a little one -

Give back the 1 UK infantry in Egypt that they took away toward the end, that was there before!  Taking away that infantry helped skew the balance even harder toward the Axis and necessitate larger bids (well, about +3 larger anyway).
I realize all the other changes were made in light of no returned infantry to Egypt, but YG’s talking about London 5, which was taken away, reminded me of this one which was also taken away inexplicably

Perhaps these 2 would kind of offset?!

@Gamerman01:

I think the no subs in the Atlantic NO is a factor - I mean, 2nd edition doesn’t even have that. That gives Germany incentive to wage more war on London

I think it gives Germany incentive to have a sub in the Atlantic, not necessarily incentive to spend almost 100 IPCs + starting units for one landing while jeopardizing any success of Barbarossa.

Fine, then I’ll say that +5 for controlling London is a very small factor in deciding whether to actually buy all the transports, etc.  2nd edition doesn’t have the NO, why should the balanced mod have it.  It’s not a no-brainer.  People including you probably wouldn’t even be thinking about it if there wasn’t originally an NO for London by the official rulemakers along with that crazy +10 for Russia taking Berlin which is never a factor

For that matter, I think all NO’s for taking CAPITALS are stupid, including the ones for NSW and India.  (Throw in WUS too because it has a major complex)  Isn’t it already enough that you raided their money and they can’t build?

Why not give Germany a +5 NO for having Paris?  Same logic

If you want a +5 for London, just house rule it - you house rule a lot of things already - why bother the balanced mod people

@Gamerman01:

why bother the balanced mod people

Why would they feel bothered, they have already said that the London NO was probably the only thing they were open to adding in some capacity… I’m just campaigning for it.

@Young:

However, not giving Germany a NO for control of London just won’t work for us, I know that this one may be on the block for consideration… and I think you should find a way to make it work.

Yup. I agree completely. And we have decided to include a London NO in the next release of Balance Mod (which we expect will be forthcoming in the next two weeks). The NO we have settled upon, based on user feedback in the “G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread” is this:

“5 PUs if Germany has a land unit in either Egypt or the United Kingdom (London).”

The upshot of this NO is that Germany now has two ways to achieve the 5 PUs from the OOB “Presence in Egypt” NO. But if Germany captures both UK and Egypt, it still only gets +5 PUs. This NO was the brainchild of Adam514, the Master League player who co-created the Mod. We play tested it. Its awesome. And was well received in the feedback thread.

We did initially toy with the idea of giving Germany a separate NO for London alone (so conquest of both London and UK would mean +10), but there was some well-reasoned opposition to it from League players. And after play testing several sealion games, we agreed that the separate NO would make Sealion overpowered, unduly limiting UK’s strategic options.

sorry Gamer. its gonna be part of Balance Mod. the people have spoken! :)

@Gamerman01:

Give back the 1 UK infantry in Egypt that they took away toward the end, that was there before!

Yah, two things the Mod Squad kinda agreed at the outset was not to fuss with starting unit setup and initial territorial alignment (hence, no change to Sierra Leone). We want the mod to operate “under the hood” so to speak. If more allied units are deemed necessary by players despite all the other changes (I very much doubt this), that can always be addressed by way of a bid.

@regularkid:

@Young:

However, not giving Germany a NO for control of London just won’t work for us, I know that this one may be on the block for consideration… and I think you should find a way to make it work.

"5 PUs if Germany has a land unit in either Egypt or the United Kingdom (London)

I’m on board with that… It’s a direction play, in my gaming experience Germany sometimes won’t give Italy the support it needs to take Egypt for other endeavours, and Italy may simply turtle in Rome to give Germany support on the Eastern front. Therefore, I can see more desire for an African campaign coming from the Axis, as it should be. However, this makes a joint operation for Egypt a standard move IMO given the relative ease if US stays neutral, and the initial importance of Ciaro along with the new 5 IPC evaluation for Germany (and it puts sealion back on the table). My only question is… would this replace the German land unit present in Egypt NO, I assume it would. BTW, I’m not a fan of changing the initial setup, so I would support any decision to revert back from any changes made to Egyipt.

Grasshopper, yes it replaces the Egypt NO. Obviously Germany can still get its 5 Pus from putting a land unit in Egypt. But, in a successful Sealion, it will get the same 5 PUs from occupying London (at which point the occupation of Egypt just becomes a matter of getting the necessary VCs).

YG, no changes were made to the unit set up in Balance Mod. When Gamer says he wants to revert back to the original Egypt setup, I think he’s referring to the prior edition of the game.

@regularkid:

sorry Gamer. its gonna be part of Balance Mod. the people have spoken! :)

Oh you don’t have to say sorry - to me this NO makes about as much difference as the +10 for taking Berlin to Russia.  If I actually lose London, I’m getting it back before long at all and the Russians are going to go crazy.

My argument is it has a negligible effect, so I don’t care either way

But it is punitive to give NO’s for capitals - and that includes Moscow.  They can’t collect income, they can’t build, the major gets knocked down to a minor - jeez, and why don’t we throw in bonus money every turn for the victor as well.  Moscow, Berlin, WUS, India, ANZ - none of them need NO’s

@Gamerman01:

@regularkid:

sorry Gamer. its gonna be part of Balance Mod. the people have spoken! :)

Oh you don’t have to say sorry - to me this NO makes about as much difference as the +10 for taking Berlin to Russia.  If I actually lose London, I’m getting it back before long at all and the Russians are going to go crazy.

My argument is it has a negligible effect, so I don’t care either way

But it is punitive to give NO’s for capitals - and that includes Moscow.  They can’t collect income, they can’t build, the major gets knocked down to a minor - jeez, and why don’t we throw in bonus money every turn for the victor as well.  Moscow, Berlin, WUS, India, ANZ - none of them need NO’s

I think your views on this support my belief that a 5 IPC bonus for London does not make Sealion a forgone conclusion.

@Gamerman01:

@regularkid:

sorry Gamer. its gonna be part of Balance Mod. the people have spoken! :)

Oh you don’t have to say sorry - to me this NO makes about as much difference as the +10 for taking Berlin to Russia.  If I actually lose London, I’m getting it back before long at all and the Russians are going to go crazy.

My argument is it has a negligible effect, so I don’t care either way

Hahaha. perhaps this will induce you to be bit a more conservative with your UK1 purchase/move? Maybe less inclined to the pull the trigger on scramble in sz 110/111? mmm? if so, i will call this the “tame gamerman and axis dominion NO”

If we worry about historical accuracy surrounding the state of Sierra Leone during world war II, then surely we must also not forget how the Red Army got their $10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9prP_FhVx0

@RK - No, not at ALL

Variance, there’s only one player that worries about Sierra Leone  :lol:

@cyanight:

@Young:

I like the lend lease ideas, but the execution is clumsy in my opinion. Trying to figure out how to apply my card design to this concept is difficult, I would basically have to create 6 cards for one mechanic (2 IPCs each 3 NOs, and 4 IPCs each for the same 3 NOs. I would make them 3 IPCs each no matter what the political situation is between Japan (seems like a lot of words for one declaration of war). This way a Japanese ship in SZ 5 won’t mean a lick when it comes to taking away the 3 IPCs, Japan will be forced to declare war on Russia just to make their ship in SZ 5 an enemy ship. I have not played it yet, this is my inexperienced opinion… but I like clean worded rules, and this Lend Lease bump from 2 to 4 IPCs is far from it.

You and I think alike my friend. I just revamped my NO cards to use with balanced mod and ended up just putting a note on the bottom to double the cost. I also thought of the +3 instead of +2/+4 as well… Anyways, I have not updated them on Artscow yet but I have the card images made. Now I have to paint some Vichy France inf, artillery, cruiser and destroyer. Also have to paint Russian and Anzac Marines. I doubt the Russians will ever be used But I can see Anzac using them.

Hey Cyanight,

We should work together on how to make balance mod compatible for table tops.

Balance mod sounds like another name for my grandmother’s bra… any desire to give it some legitimacy with a more universal name?

hahaha@Young:

Balance mod sounds like another name for my grandmother’s bra… any desire to give it some legitimacy with a more universal name?

hahaha. that made me chuckle. We might be a bit past the point of no return–at least, as far League games are concerned (everyone is already using Bal Mod or BM in their topic headings to designate games using the mod). But when we release Balance Mod 2.0 (next week sometime), we could certainly include a subtitle if someone proposes something good. E.g., “Balance Mod 2.0: The Allies Strike Back” thats terrible, but u get the idea. It would have to be descriptive of the mod, short, and catchy.