2016 League Post Game Results Here

oh yeah, Stalingradski beat me, forgot to post

oysteilo over Pherman

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36857.90

I am claiming this one due to inactivity. I have not heard from the guy since December. I see others have done the same

2 years in a row now, he’s left with about 8 or more games going.  Beware playing him in the future, unless you like your opponent disappearing  :-P

@Gamerman01:

2 years in a row now, he’s left with about 8 or more games going.  Beware playing him in the future, unless you like your opponent disappearing  :-P

I am not surprised

@Gamerman01:

I do understand the points, and the realism argument.

I would suggest choosing from this menu:

1. Increase cost of Bombers back up to 15, and consider fighters to 12 (leave over-priced tacs alone), just like they used to be.  Tanks won’t look so expensive any more :)
2. Remove the +2 SBR for Strat bombers, or make it +1.
3. What you’re saying.  Lower bomber attack value or do a 1 round thing.  Bombers attacking at 4 in air to air combat or in naval combat is ridiculous.  Very few instances of bombers actually attacking fleets in WWII to my knowledge.
4. Lower cost of Strat bomber unit and make it so it only does SBR.  No conventional attacks allowed.  Who ever heard of bombers flying over an army of 20,000 and killing them all, anyway?  And whoever heard of infantry shooting down bombers?  Or tanks shooting down bombers?  What is WRONG with this game anyway?!  :wink:

What I experimented with is STBs attacking only @ 2 BUT any land unit can support the bomber with +2 attack bonus. In sea battles again attack is only @ 2 but each surface warship can support up to 2 bombers with +2 bonus. This change improves realism a lot and importantly does not alter the OOB mechanics as long as number  of bombers in a battle is small. It still allows for “dark skies” strategies, but makes them significantly less optimal.

There you go - good stuff

you know what? That sounds like an extremely good idea.

It prevents these annoying bomber-only attacks on the Allies fleets in Med, Atlantic or the Canal, as well as the typical Egypt / London captures with 1 inf and 30 bombers.

16L G40 ArtofWar1947 (Axis) vs. JWW (Allies + 22) Rematch: JWW (Allies+22) over ArtofWar1947 (Axis)

ABH over AldoRaine.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37358.0

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36312.300

Legion386 over Giallo

Variance as Axis over Strategic Planner as Allies http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37119.75

cds over Surprise Attack Id # 37130.0

Cyanight (Allies +22) over Pherman1215 (Axis)

I guess he has gone missing again. I have not heard from Pherman1215 since December.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=36903.120;num_replies=127

@nerquen:

@Gamerman01:

I do understand the points, and the realism argument.

I would suggest choosing from this menu:

1. Increase cost of Bombers back up to 15, and consider fighters to 12 (leave over-priced tacs alone), just like they used to be.  Tanks won’t look so expensive any more :)
2. Remove the +2 SBR for Strat bombers, or make it +1.
3. What you’re saying.  Lower bomber attack value or do a 1 round thing.  Bombers attacking at 4 in air to air combat or in naval combat is ridiculous.  Very few instances of bombers actually attacking fleets in WWII to my knowledge.
4. Lower cost of Strat bomber unit and make it so it only does SBR.  No conventional attacks allowed.  Who ever heard of bombers flying over an army of 20,000 and killing them all, anyway?  And whoever heard of infantry shooting down bombers?  Or tanks shooting down bombers?  What is WRONG with this game anyway?!  :wink:

What I experimented with is STBs attacking only @ 2 BUT any land unit can support the bomber with +2 attack bonus. In sea battles again attack is only @ 2 but each surface warship can support up to 2 bombers with +2 bonus. This change improves realism a lot and importantly does not alter the OOB mechanics as long as number  of bombers in a battle is small. It still allows for “dark skies” strategies, but makes them significantly less optimal.

This is similar to HBG’s rules in the Amerika game.  Bombers have 2 attack values 4(1). The high value is for bombers attacking without any enemy fighters in the battle.  The second attack value is much lower and is used if the enemy has fighters in the battle.  Amerika does not have any naval ships in though so this rule is for land based attacks only.  Another thing I like about their game is each attack round has multiple phases in it.  Planes conduct and initial air to air phase prior to air to ground combat phase.

Looking through these threads, I appreciate what you guys are doing in changing the game, but honestly, it’s not at all the Axis & Allies that I have in my boxes – to balance this game, you are making so many changes that you really should call it a different game.  And, balancing units doesn’t balance out territories, so if the problem is the way that the territories connect then you are almost spinning your wheels a little.

After some experience with other games, may I suggest that people take a look at the mechanics of games like New World Order in TripleA and even World At War?  Here is why:  those games are much more balanced than Global 40.  They don’t even really require a bid.  There are bombers that cost 14, there are then after 4 turns bombers that cost 12 for some nations (att def move of 4/2/5) and others get them at 18 (5/2/8), and the ones at 18 even give support.  What keeps the game in balance is 1) the spacing of the territories and map construction, and 2) the fact that infantry grunts only cost 2, not 3.  That is a huge difference in the dark skies strategy, and dare I say that it destroys bomber only purchase strategies against the Russian front.  There are more units in these games as well (and it sounds like you are incorporating more units into your mod, so I’d take a look at those too).

Again, this is a different game, but instead of making change after change with little testing (after all, that seems to be how the initial game was developed lol), perhaps looking at those comprehensive mechanics of a different, well-functioning game may help.

Otherwise, I honestly would prefer going back to AAG50 where at least the game was less complex and more balanced.  I do still like my actual Europe and Pacific board games tho – very cool when set up.  They just don’t seem to be very balanced from a league perspective (and having to bid 25-30 is not balance).

Why tweak G40 when these other games (New World Order, World At War, etc.) are already out there, with different unit mechanics, etc.? The answer to your query is pretty simple. I don’t like those games; I wanted to like them! I really did. But they just weren’t love at first play (like G40 was).

I love G40. Ever heard that song “I love you. You’re perfect. Now change”? Thats pretty much how it is with G40. After playing vanilla G40 a lot, I (and other G40 devotees) identified a few ways that an already awesome and deeply engrossing game might be made even awesome-er. Some of those ideas ultimately found their way into G40 Balance Mod. Others were tried and discarded. The end-product remains very much recognizable as G40, but with a player community’s firm imprimatur on it.

Even if a majority of the ideas are never implemented in any meaningful way, I think continued discussions about how to improve the game I love are always fun and sometimes even constructive.

majikforce +20 Allies -VS- dawgoneit Axis majikforce WINS
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36945.120

MrRoboto (Axis) defeats StuckTojo (Allies +15)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37363.60

Rubioton (Aliies +17) defeats Odonis

Failure to take France in Round 1 doomed this game from the start, but well played by Rubioton!

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37161.new#new

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=54.0

Radiant (Axis) defeats Talleyrand19 (Allies)