G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

[gamerman01]

I guess think about it from the Mongolian’s viewpoint.  If Russia isn’t attacking (a territory bordering, or Korea), then the Russians are not generating any hostilities near Mongolia.

[Talleyrand19]

@Gamerman01:

I guess think about it from the Mongolian’s viewpoint.  If Russia isn’t attacking (a territory bordering, or Korea), then the Russians are not generating any hostilities near Mongolia.

yeah, I guess I get what you’re saying, still a bit cheeky haha…but thanks for responses

[simon33]

The other way of looking at it is the DOW is a bit of a generation of hostilities. Near the border or not, why should the Mongolians then help the USSR?

[gamerman01]

I split several posts to a separate, unstickied, thread because they were not related to balanced mod.
(I was the one who got it off-topic too)

[simon33]

@Adam514:

@simon33:

I think BM makes Sea Lion weaker, because if you attempt it USSR gets some extra strength. Barbarrossa is made more urgent to whittle down those extra NOs.

…
In BM London is worth 5 more to Germany, and UK Euro’s income potential is bigger than in vanilla. I think that those are more than enough to counter the few PUs Russia gains (until they would get Iraq and the rest for example).

Re read this comment and I notice that someone liked it but I must say that I have trouble with it. 5PUs for Germany? Pffft.

Compared to the extra 4PUs per turn for USSR, at least in most games, it doesn’t stack up. Germany needs to spend more than 1PU of income to take 1PU from USSR because it needs to attack and often must buy fast moving units while USSR can buy a lot of infantry.

I suppose Sea Lion means those UK Europe NOs go to waste but even so, it is extremely difficult for the UK to trade IPCs even nearly 1 to 1 with Germany.

[Shin-Ji]

I’ve been saying that having the 5 PU bonus for holding London stack with the one for Egypt was a good idea.  Taking the one makes the other easy to take, as a general rule.  But even then, I’d be wary of a Sealion in most circumstances.

[Karl7]

So if UK take French Indo, declares war on Japan before USA is at war, and Japan takes back FI, the +10 is gone?

That doesn’t make any sense. The neutrality of FI was breached by UK, who then unilaterally declared war on Japan, so USA shouldn’t care if Japan takes a UK occupied FI.

[gamerman01]

The UK can’t take control of FIC before Japan takes it - it would remain blue

And of COURSE the USA would care if Japan attacked UK forces in FIC

The whole reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor at the same time as all the European holdings is because they knew the USA would use the Pearl Harbor fleet to come after them - “knife aimed at our throat” and all that.

They didn’t attack the USA for the sake of attacking the USA

[Adam514]

He’s probably talking about a Vichy FIC.

You are right that it doesn’t make as much sense, but for the sake of simplicity and brevity (and staying true to the original rules) it’s better to leave it like this, unless you have an elegant solution.

[gamerman01]

You probably posted this while I was editing

If Japan attacked UK forces in SE Asia, the USA oil would definitely stop.  Simple as that

[Adam514]

@Gamerman01:

You probably posted this while I was editing

If Japan attacked UK forces in SE Asia, the USA oil would definitely stop.  Simple as that

Not if UK was the one who declared war on Japan, which is what Karl said.

[gamerman01]

No, the oil would still stop.  It was about to stop anyway.  If Japan was waging war with European powers or their holdings, the oil would stop no matter who started the war.

[Adam514]

@Gamerman01:

No, the oil would still stop.  It was about to stop anyway.  If Japan was waging war with European powers or their holdings, the oil would stop no matter who started the war.

Perhaps, but in the game rules it is assumed that the oil wouldn’t stop if UK declared war first, since Japan still has that NO if it doesn’t attack FIC and takes UK holdings and the DEI.

[gamerman01]

Good point -

I think the game rules are wrong about that

So we’re agreeing it’s a good idea to leave it as is

[gamerman01]

So SUCK IT Karl!!  :-D

[Karl7]

@Gamerman01:

Good point -

I think the game rules are wrong about that

So we’re agreeing it’s a good idea to leave it as is

I don’t think you two are agreeing…

What sense would it be for the US to cut off oil only if Japan attacks FIC, but keeps it flowing if Japan takes the DEI, or India for that matter, if UK DOWs first…?

If FIC goes Vichy, is occupied by UK, UK DOWs on Japan, then Japan should be able to take it without nullifying the NO.

[gamerman01]

We are agreeing that the rules don’t need to be changed (unless someone comes up with a preferable solution)

[gamerman01]

@Karl7:

If FIC goes Vichy, is occupied by UK, UK DOWs on Japan, then Japan should be able to take it without nullifying the NO.

Yeah and you totally threw me off with your post at first because you said nothing about Vichy

I suppose you have a point.  The FIC rule was made when Vichy was not a thing.  You’re just like me, finding problems with the overlay of BM on 2nd edition (allied marines on cruisers)

It’s just so fun to give you a hard time because of your (beautiful and special) personality

[gamerman01]

Well balanced mod guys (Adam)?  All you have to do is add a statement to the Vichy rules to fix this.  I don’t know if the coding to TripleA is a big deal or not, but there are plenty of things we have to edit for anyway.

[Karl7]

Cool, fix that, make Sicily adjacent to S. Italy and we are good to go!

Is there a list of proposed fixes?