@black_elk Rock On !!!.png
G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread
-
That’s a good idea, but I would think that should only work for Italy and not for the Allies. That would be interesting.
-
That’s a good idea, but I would think that should only work for Italy and not for the Allies. That would be interesting.
You mean the Allies would not need to have navy in the sea zone to ferry troops?
-
No I meant Italy would not need to have navy in the sea zone to ferry troops, but the Allies should have to have something more as long as Italy controls South Italy
I don’t know how formidable the defensive position of the toe of the boot would be to repelling ferry attempts - I had to look up a map to see how close Sicily and Italy actually are, and I don’t know what the topography is like or how feasible it actually would have been for the Allies to get across to a hostile Italy
But regardless of terrain or geography, obviously, adding a way for the Allies to make landfall directly on the European continent and to be able to attack inward with no restrictions just as they could from South France or Normandy is huge - huger even than South France or Normandy because it is farther away from the Germans.
Obviously it would be a huge game changer if you just say Sicily borders South Italy, with no restrictions on the Allies.
Seems like you’d have to require some kind of naval presence - wait, I know -You could just make it so that Italy can scramble from South Italy to defend against land invasions from Sicily to South Italy. They would scramble against Z95. Do you like that idea?
-
Could make it that Italy could freely attack Sicily unless there is an Allied surface warship in Z95 or if there is an airbase on Sicily the Allies could likewise scramble
If there is no naval or air attacking Z95 against a scramble, then a single scrambled plane prevents the ferrying.
-
You’re awesome Karl - this is good stuff
-
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.
I guess this is another example of BM creating illogicals that was not foreseen by the developers. Personally I think this is a minor one as at the end of the day the result is the same as in the vanilla game. You have Japanese forces in FIC. USA doesn’t care if UK declared war on Japan or not, USA does not like Japanese forces in FIC. Period. So really there is no difference compared to 2nd edition. But again the Vichy settings complicate things and makes things less logical.
A simple solution for this scenario could be that Vichy is only activated on the European map and FIC would stay French even after Vichy is activated. However, I am sure Regularkid will be against this for historic reasons……………And for Sicily, don’t do it. Why would you do that?
-
Here’s my summary of Balanced Mod generally:
- SBR rules are almost perfect!
- Additional NOs are mostly fine. Just remove the USSR/Japan DOW affecting the Persian and Northern route lend lease. I don’t care so much either way for the Pacific LL NO.
- Med NOs spice up that area - agreed with that point.
- Vichy is pretty good
- Didn’t the Germans go after Leningrad because of the industry there, like the KV-1 tank factory? Wouldn’t it make more sense for it to be a USSR bonus rather than a German one?
- The real annoyance for me is the Chinese guerilla fighters. These swing the game far too much. You could remove these and go back to a 6IPC bonus for the Burma Rd. 3IPC doesn’t reflect the historical merit of it IMO.
Just a personal comment but I thought it would be worthwhile to post it.
I suppose some people are going to say that they wanted to weaken a J1 DOW.
-
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.
I guess this is another example of BM creating illogicals that was not foreseen by the developers. Personally I think this is a minor one as at the end of the day the result is the same as in the vanilla game. You have Japanese forces in FIC. USA doesn’t care if UK declared war on Japan or not, USA does not like Japanese forces in FIC. Period. So really there is no difference compared to 2nd edition. But again the Vichy settings complicate things and makes things less logical.
A simple solution for this scenario could be that Vichy is only activated on the European map and FIC would stay French even after Vichy is activated. However, I am sure Regularkid will be against this for historic reasons……………And for Sicily, don’t do it. Why would you do that?
Actually removing FIC from the list of potential Vichy territories is a great idea, thanks.
-
A neat and elegant solution.
-
I also think making FIC unaffected by Vichy is a good call.
-
Gamerman has it right:
Any land invasion from Sicily to Italy can be contested by the Axis as if it were an amphibious assault, whether or not an actual amphibious assault is being attempted along with such land invasion, i.e. any attack on SI is an amphibious assault unless from NI.
Easy~!
-
Isn’t Italy weak enough already? Speaking from a game perspective. I don’t know the actual history. I hope this Sicily stuff goes no further than a house rule! :-o
-
Actually removing FIC from the list of potential Vichy territories is a great idea, thanks.
There is no question that the administration of French Indo China passed to Vichy France after the German-Franco Armistice. Indeed, even as other French colonies in Asia went “Free French,” Indo China remained Vichy-controlled.
There is also no question that it was Japan’s invasion of Vichy French Indo China that precipitated the US Embargo of Japan. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_French_Indochina, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)
Also, there is nothing historically illogical about having the occupation of Vichy FIC terminate “Trade With America” (which is another way of saying , provoke the US Oil Embargo), even if UK occupies Vichy FIC first. Japan’s occupation of FIC was significant, from the USA’s perspective, because it marked the expansion of Japan’s territorial ambitions beyond China. FIC, with its airfields well positioned to threaten US Philippines, was seen as a bridge too far. I fail to see why UK intervention there would change USA’s position with respect to Japanese control of the territory.
Excluding FIC from the Vichy change would be grossly ahistorical and unecessary.
-
Look at it from the game perspective rather than the historical accuracy perspective though - why should UK/USA/ANZAC get to take control of FIC if Japan doesn’t invade it first?
Or are you saying that does make game sense?
-
Look at it from the game perspective rather than the historical accuracy perspective though - why should UK/USA/ANZAC get to take control of FIC if Japan doesn’t invade it first?
Or are you saying that does make game sense?
Yes, of course it makes sense. Why not? Its no different from Uk/USA/ANZAC taking control of any other Vichy French colony, which they do all over the map after the “German-Franco Armistice” is triggered (and which they did historically too).
As I understand it, the issue that was initially raised was not UK/USA/ANZAC’s control of FIC, in and of itself, but rather the fact that even after UK makes an unprovoked declaration of war on Japan and takes control of FIC, Japan can’t invade it without losing the “Trade With America” NO.
This wss actually something I raised early on in “Vichy Mod” development as something that might be seen as “unfair,” and we did consider adding a proviso to the “Trade With America” NO that occupation of FIC does not negate it if UK has taken it after making an unprovoked DOW on Japan. But the impact on gameplay was deemed so negligible that the Mod Squad ultimately omitted this qualifier for simplicity’s sake.
If this really is deemed a significant problem the correct solution, in my view, would be to add the qualifier, rather than to have FIC remain Free French, which, as I stated earlier, would be grossly ahistorical.
-
I think the major thing with FIC going from French to Vichy to UK/ANZAC to Japan AND Japan loosing it USA bonus is, it becomes REALLY complicated and you add exceptions to general rules. Vichy rules are complicated enough as is.
It would simplify things by having Vichy only on European map and it would avoid situations that people consider unfair/don’t understand
-
It wouldn’t be that complicated. Rule should simply read: “Japan loses USA Trade NO if at war with USA or if Japan occupies FIC while under French or Vichy French control.”
That’s all it needs to say. The rules preserves the NO if FIC is occupied by another power and then taken by Japan since Japan would not be taking FIC from France or Vichy France.
-
sorry for this rather technical question, probably belonging elsewhere: Is it TripleA, the Mod, or one of my settings that I now have such quick defender rolls in combat? I cant remember having them follow so quick and automatic after my attack rolls, have barely time to register how often I hit.
-
nm, I guess its “confirm defensive rolls”. I did overlook that when I first checked the settings.
-
I thought JPN wasn’t supposed to be able to have convoy disruption on Chi? In a current game JPN dd’s (z19) blocked Chi from receiving their 3 pic’s for owning MAN?
Suggested Topics
