G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

[Amon-Sul]

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.

nobody bids a fig to scotland

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I think Russia is strong enough as it is in BM3. Might be room for an extra NO or such, but if Russia is too strong there’ll be no strategic incentive at all for the other allies in helping them out. Which of course means lots of resources put into other areas. Curtain Axis.

it seems like u re playin allies all along :tongue:

[trulpen]

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

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.

nobody bids a fig to scotland

I do!

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

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

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

I don’t know if any radical changes are needed. Just play without the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective. That should see the bid reduce a fair bit. I don’t like it much when the bid exceeds 10 - that seems to script the Scottish fighter bid.

nobody bids a fig to scotland

I do!

U play allies once in 20 games xd

[trulpen]

Yes, but when/if I get a +10 bid, a fig in Scotland is top priority.

[Amon-Sul]

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Yes, but when/if I get a +10 bid, a fig in Scotland is top priority.

i do not see other dudes follow ur steps

[trulpen]

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

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Yes, but when/if I get a +10 bid, a fig in Scotland is top priority.

i do not see other dudes follow ur steps

It’s likely because I don’t know what I’m doing as Allies. I think I’m tier 2 there and maybe E as Axis. 😜

[AndrewAAGamer]

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

i do not see other dudes follow ur steps

It is in our play group in Seattle of about 15-20 active Players. The first $10 always goes for a fighter in Scotland.

[trulpen]

@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

though I prefer to play in the Lobby because I don’t have the patience to wait for emails.

Interesting viewpoint.

Anyway, I’ve finally (and reluctantly) made this change. You will need to delete and re-download the map pack to get it working for you. It will be called version 4.0 (but still “Mod3” because it has the same objectives).

To get bombers at 12 you will have to play combat move first. Or not download the new map. Or something.

Combat move 1st was not updated as that is what the Mod Squad were thinking of.

So now that this is done, is anyone upset? I personally think it’s a bit messy with no option to play with bombers at 12 in purchase first and no update to combat move 1st. If path to victory kicks off, I guess no one will mind.

Dislike CM1st.

A simple way to handle the issue is to just add 2 IPC by edit for every sb purchase.

[simon33]

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

Dislike CM1st.

It has a couple of limitations. The ideal would be a mega phase of Purchase+Combat Move which allows either to be changed and also repair of factories to be changed. Repair of inoperative bases needs to happen first because of the effect on movement.

I think CM1st is the least worst option because if you change your mind about a move in purchase you can always load up autosave while with purchase 1st if you change your mind on a purchase during move you have to start over again.

[trulpen]

It also carries a few anomalies with it. Without, for me, giving much benefit for the thought process.

[oysteilo]

I like the combat move first. I actually prefer it over normal

[WindowWasher]

There is currently a discussion going on in the PtV thread, and I really feel that it would be applicable to OOB/BM.

It’s a problem that the axis can completely evacuate France, and not worry about the allies taking it because it’s a disadvantage. And it’s a problem that the allies don’t want to liberate an allied nation even if they could hold their ground.

If the allies hold 2 french factories in Western Europe, they should be able to produce 6 infantry a round at a minimum. Currently, liberating France prevents that, limiting 2-3 factories to 4-5 infantry at most.

My proposed fix is a +5 NO for France for holding France and Normandy or Southern France. The french earn 7 from Africa, 1 from Syria, and 6 from holding Normandy and France, which gives them a total of 14. You can only buy 4 infantry a turn consistently with this, on 2 factories. With the +5 NO it gives the french 19 so they have the capability to produce 6 Infantry, making it a feasible strategy for the allies to liberate Paris.

I Believe that this idea doesn’t fundamentally change the game too much to be included into BM, and also makes the game more fun for the allies. It makes the western front more dynamic, and could bring the balance a little bit closer to even. This also could make it harder to win in the Europe side, which might bring more action to the Japanese side.

[simon33]

I like what you are suggesting although I don’t get the 4 inf part. Normandy+France+Sth France is 3 inf and if you through in Africa and Syria+Madagascar you get 17 IPC and 5 inf.

[simon33]

Throw…,

[WindowWasher]

My suggestion applies to very common scenario i see of the allies holding either Normandy, and not being able to expand due to the Italians holding southern France. If the allies could take France, and keep normandy, the french earn 14 (+5 with the suggested NO makes it 19, enough to produce on the two factories)

[simon33]

@WindowWasher said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

My suggestion applies to very common scenario i see of the allies holding either Normandy, and not being able to expand due to the Italians holding southern France. If the allies could take France, and keep normandy, the french earn 14 (+5 with the suggested NO makes it 19, enough to produce on the two factories)

So make it original owner “Neutral - pro allies”? Actually I quite like the idea and why not Southern France too. It’s similar to the Chinese coastal territories like Kwangsi so totally doable.

Perhaps a bit illogical though, in the sense that French territories don’t give their income to France. I wonder if it would be better to reduce the IPC value to 0 and give the money to France via objectives. Also, probably should give the allied player the option to give these territories back to France??

Throwing ideas into the air there. Not advocating anything in particular.

[simon33]

Suggestion for BM5 if anyone is interested:

Disable the Iwo Jima+Okinawa objective by default.
Return to 6IPC for the Chinese objective.

I guess that makes Pacific victory harder to get. Only a minority of games go that way, so perhaps not a huge change. Or maybe that exaggerates the change.

[regularkid]

@simon33 you are free to do anything you like, but don’t call it BalancedMod (BM).

[Panther]

I have moved the postings reporting TripleA issues with BM to the TripleA support category:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35826/triplea-issues-with-bm
as those issues do not seem to be related to BM itself but rather to outdated map- or engine-versions.