G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

[Amon-Sul]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I will prefer to keep cost of bombers at 12 and attack value at 4. There are so many reasons not to mess with any of these numbers. I agree that Germany can project threats to many areas at once with a stack of bombers. If you want to fix that you need to do something with Germany’s income. Remove the Crete objective and/or/partly change (some of) Norway, peace with USSR, Nov/Leningrad/Caucasus objectives to 4. You then achieve pretty much the same thing as increasing the cost of bombers while only targeting Germany.
Is the original post by Regularkid an April fool? I haven’t seen him around for ages and then he suddenly appears on April 1?! :blush:

i sign this 1/1 :)

[Adam514]

As said before, the issue is bomber balance compared to fighters and tactical bombers, not bombers. Which is why the solution to this issue is changing bombers.

[oysteilo]

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry

[oysteilo]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry

But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)

[Amon-Sul]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry

But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)

and it is a pretty big question will people massively buy tacs once bombers go to 14 ipc. think not.

[Amon-Sul]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry

But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)

battleships, cruisers, tacs, tanks and marines need a change. that change would make people buy them often, and it would make the game more interesting, and people wouldn`t just swarming inf/mechs, figs/ACs and des/subs

[Adam514]

Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.

[Amon-Sul]

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.

Thank U. By change I mean either the cost or the abilities.

[ksmckay]

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry

But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)

battleships, cruisers, tacs, tanks and marines need a change. that change would make people buy them often, and it would make the game more interesting, and people wouldn`t just swarming inf/mechs, figs/ACs and des/subs

Nothing wrong with tanks. Solid offensive and defensive stats for their cost, mobility and blitz capability is a strong plus. Plenty of reason to buy tanks.

Cruisers and BB are a different story, almost no reason to get them ever. Marines make them a little more useful but marines are a bit expensive. I think cruisers at 11 and bbs at 18 could make them more interesting. Cant make marines cheaper, but maybe if you bumped up their attack to 3 and cost to 6 that could make them more interesting.

[oysteilo]

@ksmckay said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry

But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)

battleships, cruisers, tacs, tanks and marines need a change. that change would make people buy them often, and it would make the game more interesting, and people wouldn`t just swarming inf/mechs, figs/ACs and des/subs

Nothing wrong with tanks. Solid offensive and defensive stats for their cost, mobility and blitz capability is a strong plus. Plenty of reason to buy tanks.

Cruisers and BB are a different story, almost no reason to get them ever. Marines make them a little more useful but marines are a bit expensive. I think cruisers at 11 and bbs at 18 could make them more interesting. Cant make marines cheaper, but maybe if you bumped up their attack to 3 and cost to 6 that could make them more interesting.

Totally agree with this. Maybe crusiers should be even lower, maybe 10. If marines where at 6 and 3 attack, thats a big deal. (Maybe armor should be at 7…)

[regularkid]

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.

hmmm. I think I’d rather focus the conversation on this discrete issue: will increasing the cost of bombers to 14 improve balance and gameplay? If there is a general consensus that it will, then we will incorporate it. (Briefly addressing battleships/cruisers, from a historical standpoint i’m ok with new capital shops not being frequently purchased, because WWII did see a decline in their utility… aircraft carries supplanting them as the centerpiece of naval combat).

Also, like others, I am apprehensive about changing other bomber stats like range and attack power. Among other things, doing so would upset opening moves with God-knows-what unintended consequences.

[simon33]

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Maybe crusiers should be even lower, maybe 10.

I wouldn’t like that so much. That makes cruisers nearly as good value as a mixed carrier group 4Cru only slightly less than 1ftr 1tac 1cv if they are being attacked and the cruisers have more attack value.

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Also, like others, I am apprehensive about changing other bomber stats like range and attack power. Among other things, doing so would upset opening moves with God-knows-what unintended consequences.

Alright, let’s go through the potential changes to opening attacks.

SZ111 no scramble 1BB 2sub 1ftr 1tac 1bomb. Now: 99.7% A3 bomb: 99.6%
SZ111 scramble 1BB 2sub 1ftr 1tac 1bomb Now: 95% A3 bomb: 93%
SZ110 no scramble 2sub 3ftr 3tac 1bomb Now: 100% A3 bomb: 100%
SZ110 scramble 2sub 3ftr 3tac 1bomb Now: 92% A3 bomb: 71%
SZ37 1ftr 1cru 2bomb Now: 99.9% A3 bomb: 99.3%
Yunnan 3inf 1art 1ftr 1tac 2bomb Now: 100% A3 bomb: 99.9%
Yunnan 2inf 1art 1ftr 1tac 2bomb Now: 99.8% A3 bomb: 99.6%

Only one to be at all concerned with there, IMHO, is SZ110 w/scramble. Perhaps the change will be positive, or perhaps swing it too much then. Perhaps both.

[Adam514]

@simon33 There’s the Japanese opening too.

[simon33]

I included that.

[Adam514]

@simon33 Meant J1DOW.

[simon33]

Yeah, did.

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

SZ37 1ftr 1cru 2bomb Now: 99.9% A3 bomb: 99.3%

Or were you thinking of something else?

[Amon-Sul]

@ksmckay said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Amon-Sul said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 ahhhh, then I misunderstood. Sorry

But there is no plan for changing the cost of battleships and cruisers. Would that follow the same logic or is this not an issue (given no one really buys)

battleships, cruisers, tacs, tanks and marines need a change. that change would make people buy them often, and it would make the game more interesting, and people wouldn`t just swarming inf/mechs, figs/ACs and des/subs

Nothing wrong with tanks. Solid offensive and defensive stats for their cost, mobility and blitz capability is a strong plus. Plenty of reason to buy tanks.

Cruisers and BB are a different story, almost no reason to get them ever. Marines make them a little more useful but marines are a bit expensive. I think cruisers at 11 and bbs at 18 could make them more interesting. Cant make marines cheaper, but maybe if you bumped up their attack to 3 and cost to 6 that could make them more interesting.

And who buys lot of tanks ?

I agree 18 for battleships.

As for marines I agree again. Can not be cheaper then 5, but if U make them cost 6 , hm I do not know.

Maybe to give them attack on 3 only on first round, or cost 4 attack 2 only in first round.

[Amon-Sul]

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Maybe crusiers should be even lower, maybe 10.

I wouldn’t like that so much. That makes cruisers nearly as good value as a mixed carrier group 4Cru only slightly less than 1ftr 1tac 1cv if they are being attacked and the cruisers have more attack value.

Compare cruisers with destroyers, not with AC and figs. Making cruisers cost 10 would make them (almost) similarly attractive as destroyers.
At least they should cost 11.

[trulpen]

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.

hmmm. I think I’d rather focus the conversation on this discrete issue: will increasing the cost of bombers to 14 improve balance and gameplay? If there is a general consensus that it will, then we will incorporate it.

Might be a good idea.

Why not try it out in a series of casual games and then evaluate? All you need is a bunch of happy guinea pigs and happy editing. 🙂

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.

hmmm. I think I’d rather focus the conversation on this discrete issue: will increasing the cost of bombers to 14 improve balance and gameplay? If there is a general consensus that it will, then we will incorporate it.

Might be a good idea.

Why not try it out in a series of casual games and then evaluate? All you need is a bunch of happy guinea pigs and happy editing. 🙂

I like Ur idea, but still I think that (for SBR) people will still take bombers and not tacs, since bombers have a better range, they can bomb ICs, and they have +2 to the dice roll per bombing. Even at 14 IPC makes them a (lot) better buy than tacs are.