Here’s the Armies vs Navies idea I came up with!
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
Gamer, regarding the “Trade with Germany” NO, do you not agree that BM makes an later GDOW against Russia even more imperative than in vanilla?
-
And I edited my first post while you were responding to it already, so I hope you don’t miss all the stuff I tried to tell you, like about my game with Dominion
-
Re: Guam/Wake/Midway, I like this objective but I think the USA has too much income from objectives. Suggestion - reduce the homeland objective to 5IPC. Or remove the one for Mexico.
I think the Cretan bonus for Germany is somewhat dubious. The idea in the war was to stop it from being used as a bomber base but in the game Cyprus is just as good. Perhaps Cyprus should just be removed from the map although I doubt that would be supported.
1. Trade With Germany: Russia gets 2 PUs when not at war with Russia;
Adding needless complication. You could just reduce the Wheat NO for Germany down to 3.
2. Home Islands: Japan gets 2 PUs when at war with USA if it controls okinawa and iwojima
Oh, yes, some islands that didn’t have NO’s, need them! Not! Japan doesn’t need more money. Plus, these islands are already a 2 IPC per turn swing apiece, and Iwo especially is a strategic spot for the USA especially if Russia is not at war
When’s GREENLAND gonna get an NO? Not fair! :-P3. Atlantic Wall: Germany gets 2 PUs if: (1) Normandy and Holland were controlled by Axis from the start of its turn; and (2) there is at least one land unit in each of Normandy and Holland at the end of its turn.
Yeah this one’s neat - consider eliminating the one that includes Crete. Also consider creating a 5 IPC NO instead that is “Fortress Europe” for controlling all territories in European mainland (not Norway, Finland?) at the end of Germany’s turn. Adding an NO that involves units at the beginning of a turn just adds one more complication to the game that makes it that much harder for a newcomer to learn…… so I guess as I write out my thoughts I’m not such a big fan of it. Would I enjoy it being added to my games? Sure. But with the Mongolian rules and Vichy, this game is getting more and more complicated.
Good points from Gammerman01 here.
I guess you could add another IPC to Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
-
Gamer, regarding the “Trade with Germany” NO, do you not agree that BM makes an later GDOW against Russia even more imperative than in vanilla?
I wouldn’t argue against it, but I’m not sure yet. Haven’t played enough BM. I will say this. It is hard to quantify the positional benefits of getting into Russia early.
But now that I’m imagining doing like a G1 invasion of Russia, I immediately see the problem. The problem is all the NO’s that were added. You could fix this simply by making those NO’s (the lend lease ones and/or the +3 Allied one) dormant until round 3 or round 4 or something, instead of being at war NO’s.
-
And I am as incredulous to see that you are serious about some of these islands’ strategic importance. We must play very different opponents.
Eire is easily 10 times more strategic than Sicily, Sardinia and Crete, and it’s not worth posting an edit if I forgot to take it.
-
Gamer, regarding the “Trade with Germany” NO, do you not agree that BM makes an later GDOW against Russia even more imperative than in vanilla?
I wouldn’t argue against it, but I’m not sure yet. Haven’t played enough BM. I will say this. It is hard to quantify the positional benefits of getting into Russia early.
But now that I’m imagining doing like a G1 invasion of Russia, I immediately see the problem. The problem is all the NO’s that were added. You could fix this simply by making those NO’s (the lend lease ones and/or the +3 Allied one) dormant until round 3 or round 4 or something, instead of being at war NO’s.
Interesting. Or maybe simply have the no Allied units NO always active?
-
10 times?! lol
Alright, I’ll reveal a little something.Bombers on London threaten Rome if the Allies control Sicily or Sardinia. That’s just one of several strategic possibilities for these islands.
-
Gamer, regarding the “Trade with Germany” NO, do you not agree that BM makes an later GDOW against Russia even more imperative than in vanilla?
I wouldn’t argue against it, but I’m not sure yet. Haven’t played enough BM. I will say this. It is hard to quantify the positional benefits of getting into Russia early.
But now that I’m imagining doing like a G1 invasion of Russia, I immediately see the problem. The problem is all the NO’s that were added. You could fix this simply by making those NO’s (the lend lease ones and/or the +3 Allied one) dormant until round 3 or round 4 or something, instead of being at war NO’s.
YAS! That might be just the thing. Good idea
-
Or maybe simply have the no Allied units NO always active?
Yes, there are good possibilities like that
The problem is way too much money being hinged to the at war status of Russia -
Thanks, always great to feel appreciated
-
10 times?! lol
Alright, I’ll reveal a little something.Bombers on London threaten Rome if the Allies control Sicily or Sardinia. That’s just one of several strategic possibilities for these islands.
Yes lol, I was painfully aware of this in our game. Which is partly why I made it a point to get it back–in addition to depriving you of that NO. But I felt my swinging back to regain those islands hurt my strategic position…
-
I couldn’t get you with any gotchas, I know that :-)
-
Here’s a suggestion: Nullify the Mongolian rule if USSR declares on Japan.
No one responded to this but I think it is a fair and rational alternative to the disincentive for USSR to DOW on Japan which is over the top in BM2.0 IMO.
Any thoughts?
-
Here’s a suggestion: Nullify the Mongolian rule if USSR declares on Japan.
No one responded to this but I think it is a fair and rational alternative to the disincentive for USSR to DOW on Japan which is over the top in BM2.0 IMO.
Any thoughts?
Over the top as in too high of a disincentive? I think you overestimate the loss of the extra 2 per Lend-lease route, since the Mongolian rule is worth more in the early game (the most important part of the game) and Japan can then take Eastern Russia a lot easier. I’d prefer losing the 2 extra per Lend-Lease route than losing the Mongolian rule if I were to DOW on Japan.
-
6IPC per turn helps to defend Moscow.
I’m surprised you’d prefer to lose that than the Mongolian rule which doesn’t normally provide much help to Moscow.
I’m finding it actually difficult to take down Moscow in BM and much easier to defend. I don’t know, maybe (certainly) my German game needs some work but even so, shouldn’t a determined run to Moscow require major allied effort to stop if it can be stopped at all?
-
If Japan keeps the USA out of the war I think it should be almost impossible!
-
I’ve taken Moscow on G6 and I was far from maxing it. If Germany goes for a G6 Moscow Russia cannot defend alone that’s for sure.
-
I’ve taken Moscow on G6 and I was far from maxing it. If Germany goes for a G6 Moscow Russia cannot defend alone that’s for sure.
cuz u are G40 Jesus.
So seems like we have narrowed down the prior list of candidate changes to:
(1) Russian Lend Lease only starts no sooner than round 3, even if Germany declares war earlier…
(3) 3 PUs to Japan for control of Okinawa and Iwo Jima while at war with USA.
There didn’t seem to be really strong support for an Atlantic Wall NO.
Thoughts?
-
Okinawa and Iwo J need some love to give the pacific a little more historical spice imo.
-
Holding Iwo and Okinawa gets Japan 5 IPC’s per turn? Nooooooooo
I think it’s too easy for Japan to get to 80+ income already
1 IPC for Iwo and Okinawa each is already generous imo
Suggested Topics
