@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.

The statistics are maintained here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pYDcR_d27qG312v_rq2q35wYEEfO6mjrX-Co1nvKrlI/edit#gid=818885946

@Mursilis The League no longer maintains separate statistics for Balance Mod and “Vanilla” win/loss ratios. 2018 was the last year they kept separate statistics. I think they stopped because the overwhelming majority of League Games are now Balance Mod.

At any rate, in 2018, the ratio for Balance Mod was about 55% wins for Axis, 45% wins for Allies. Most of these were no-bid games. Some involved single-digit bids for Axis.

This is much more even than the win/loss ratio for Vanilla games, which, in 2018, was about 60% wins for Axis, 40% wins for Allies, with virtually all games involving substantial, double-digit bids for Allies.

Why does there seem to be a prevailing trend in Balance Mod games to include a small Axis bid, even when the stats arguably point to an Axis advantage? I think you’re on the right track when you suggest that the skill level of the players may have something to do with it. Among higher skilled players, the balance may be different than for lower skilled players, because one side’s advantages may take more or less skill to utilize.

@Mursilis said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

However not being open to changes or suggestions is not a good way to be. I mean what if changing a NO by one dollar dramatically changes and balances the whole game.

Speaking for myself, I’m always open to suggestions for changes. We’ve actually incorporated quite a few suggestions made on this thread (e.g., +5 for Axis occupation of London, requiring Allied land unit (as opposed to air unit) in S. France to prevent Vichy).

However, at this late stage, any proposed changes must obviously meet a substantial burden. I offered the following guidance in that regard, in an earlier post:

“The Mod Squad used four metrics to determine whether any proposed change should be incorporated or not: (1) does it improve balance? (2) does it improve fun/strategic depth? (3) does it improve historicality? (4) is it simple/easy to understand and implement? If the change satisfied all of those criteria, it was a strong candidate for inclusion.”

When it comes to unit mechanics and initial unit setup, I think we are particularly cautious about making tweaks because such discussions tend to generate the most controversy among players, and we want the Mod to be widely accepted and played by the community. Also, as evidenced by similar discussions on other threads (see, e.g., G40 Redesign thread), debates about unit statistics tend to have a “rabbit hole” quality, from which there is little escape.

The types of proposals I personally would find more interesting would try to recreate historical events/phenomena. For example, a Russian winter mechanic. Perhaps soviet factories that are destroyed upon capture, or can be moved (have played tested this. is cool). Manhattan project/nukes.

@Mursilis responding to your points, in turn:

1. Speaking from my own experience with the mod, cruisers are already an attractive enough buy at 12 IPCs (with marine transport capabilities), that I will buy them, especially with the US. I don’t think making them a “frequent” purchase is a goal, however, due to their relative obsolescence during WW2.

2. Balance Mod avoids changes to the starting unit-setup, because it acts as a barrier to new players. And I don’t think we would break that rule in order to encourage ahistorical outcomes.

3. The Mod does not appear to favor the Axis. To the contrary, many league games include a small bid for the Axis player. Whether, and to what extent, the mod favors either side is hardly a settled question.

4. The justification for allowing battleships/cruisers to carry marines is that most capital ships usually carried a small company of marines that could carry out amphibious operations. They did not, however, carry ground infantry.

5. This thread is never dead.

Have you played balance mod?

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

What’s that pic from?

seriously? hahaha. you made the “sacred text” reference! its a very popular meme from Star Wars: The Las Jedi.

but seriously, i also fail to see how the proposed objective would encourage Allied DOW’s on the true neutrals (or why that is a desirable outcome, in any event)?

@oysteilo the lend lease is fun cuz you can chose to block it by devoting a sub to the sz, or taking the territory. I’ve played many games where Japan never invaded the middle east, but managed to block lend lease by putting a sub in sz 80. Seems like a reasonable strategic option.

@oysteilo Hey Oystello, fair question.

First, when we identified the lend lease routes, the issue of whether the SZ was marked a convoy zone was irrelevant. The only relevant question was, was this SZ used as one of the primary lend lease routes. If so, it was included in the objective.

Second, the purpose of the lend lease modification was to boost Russian income, relative to the vanilla game. Adding a convoy lane there would obviously have a reverse result.

Third, with BM, we strove to create a mod that could be played on the original map (including the OOB set) without modification. For this reason (and because we saw no overriding gameplay justification for it), we did not add or remove convoy zones.

Hope that helps!