@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with. Y’all’s feedback would be appreciated on this last point. thanks!
+3 would make strat bombing stronger than Global. Effectively increasing the value of a raid by +0.67IPCs. Perhaps this would be a good thing though?
@simon33 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with. Y’all’s feedback would be appreciated on this last point. thanks!
+3 would make strat bombing stronger than Global. Effectively increasing the value of a raid by +0.67IPCs. Perhaps this would be a good thing though?
Don’t think it would. SBR is strong as it is. +3 dmg will certainly outweigh the +2 cost.
I am not a fan of a cost change for Bmbrs.
Bmbrs are far more purchased and played than BB’s for example.
Don’t understand why there needs to be a change made.
CR’s are more discussed for usage and pricing than BB’rs.
But if Bmbrs are going to cost 14 ipc than this will be the way, even if I don’t like it.
Can we at least set it back in the map option or where ever if we decide to play it like it was?
Thanks for listening on my two Cents I had to say.
Best regards
AetV
I think its good to see AeV contribution in this discussion. First of all I support his view but wont take that as a support to what I write here
First of all I have raised critisism to BM many times and maybe this gets old. BM is better than OOB in many ways, I admit. BUT it is far from perfect. But lets face it, we will never get a perfect game!
What I find funny is when the squad want to change something in BM, THIS is what they want to change, the cost of bombers
@Adam514 514 says it is because it will reflect the strenght of bombers better than the original cost of 12. Fair enogh i think. It also raises the question about reviewing the cost of BB, Cruisers etc, which I think adam014 is open too. Then @regularkid comes along and argues the change is more about playability (maybe i misread the original post and the following discussion. I am not sure) It makes the discussion difficult when the squad has different opinions and the reason for the change is not clear. Maybe the squad can explain the reason for this change? Is it playability or is it a strenght reflection? Or is it both? If it is a strenght question why should other units not be considered? It would be nice to know.
I also want to bring up, who is the squad?? If you read the notes I have no idea who these guys are. Really, the only people playing the game is @Adam514 and @simon33, but simon33 is not really a die-hard fan of BM from what I read. So, I am unsure why @Regularkid should have a saying as I never see he participate in league games. Maybe he has great experience and everything I dont know. I just dont understand why he should decide the rules here when he never plays. Feel free to explain why your take is stronger than anyone elses given we never see you play! Bottom line, it boils down to adam514 who wants this change I think.
I also disagree that it is a lot of support in this forum for the change. I see some people has supported it, maybe 2 or 3? I am not sure if those people play frequently in the league though. I think it would be interesting to hear what frequent players in tier M E and 1 would say. Too few of these guys have raised their voice. Maybe they silently accept, I dont know.
@oysteilo Bombers were an issue in vanilla. A few years ago a player rose to the top of the league by only playing Axis and spamming German bombers. I only beat him because he got diced in an important battle. Granted vanilla was quite pro-Axis, but the game still suffers from the spam risk bombers. Bombers reach every important location from Western Germany.
Then there’s the argument for being more in line with fighters and tactical bombers. Bombers have the best range and attack while barely costing more than the other air types. 14 is simply a fair cost for what it can do.
There can be many reasons for the change, all our reasons combined is what made us decide for the change. When regularkid posts a change suggestion, it had already been heavily discussed between him and I previously.
I can’t say I understand your criticism of BM.
fair points. I have no stake in BM but it seems far better than OOB. I think as the game is played more the strategies get better and I think the ‘squad’ is addressing that with a subtle non game-changing tweak targeted at one of the strategies that has proven very effective. I dont see this as any more than that. It will have an impact but not going to have major impact.
I think there is room for changes to some other units as well but I think those are a lot more complicated to consider than the bomber change.
OK @Adam514
So it is basically you and regularkid who have come up with this change?
And regularkid never plays in the league as far as I can see. Then I think this is your change @Adam514. Isn’t it?
I think most people (including me) will agree that Germany buying too many bombers is very difficult to counter and it gives Germany the option to threaten many areas at the same time. I see that
The solution to this is not changing the cost of bombers as bombers are are not too cheap for other nations such as russia, british, italy and ansaz.
The solution is to change the objectives for Germany. THAT is the real problem.
It still does not answer who really wants this change. Is it only you @Adam514 and what is @regularkid role here
It would be nice to have that sorted out
@oysteilo Yes, thought that was obvious. It’s also not relevant who comes up with any change, as long as it’s a good change.
I disagree with your assessment of the bomber issue.
@oysteilo. Hey, to your question: “Who the heck is THIS guy?” Haha. You can find me most days in the TripleA game lobby for live games, which is where I do most of my playing. That’s also where Adam and I met nearly five years ago, and where Balance Mod originated.
Most of the players listed in the Mod’s credits are regulars in the lobby who helped Adam and me brainstorm and play-test the Mod in its early stages. Pretty much anybody who helped in any capacity was included in credits. For example: YoungGrasshopper was nice enough to make printable player cards for a table top version of Balance Mod, so he was included as “Topper Goodwill Ambassador.” Redrum answered some of my coding questions, so we included him as “XML High Priest.” Simon33 was really helpful with fixing some coding bugs, so he was included as “Bugchaser,” and so on.
I have played numerous league games (Adam introduced me to League a couple years back) though I prefer to play in the Lobby because I don’t have the patience to wait for emails. My most recent league game was actually posted a couple days ago.
Care for a game, Oystello?
@regularkid thank you for this information. Very much welcomed! I am not so much in the triple a lobby for live games and didnt know. There are other ways of knowing this game than league play. Fair enough! Thanks for the game invite but it has to wait right now.
And a final note to @Adam514 . I agree, it is irrelevant who comes up with a change as long as it is a good one. It just seems a little odd that every suggestion made in this thread is not good, but when the squad ( Adam and regularkid) suggest something it’s a good one. Of course most of the changes suggested here should not be implemented, but there are some highlights…
@oysteilo There’s a bias there. Kid and I only suggest things we both agree on and discussed a lot (often playtesting before posting here), so only the truly good ones make it here from us, hence why we implement them. A lot of things said in this chat were considered already and discarded after thoughts and/or playtesting. There’s a lot of thought that goes into these changes, the reasoning is multi-faceted based on my hundreds of games.
OK. Go for the change! But it will be nice if bombers @12 is available too without too much hassle!
So Balanced Mod is not an official Larry Harris scenario revision? It is something that people on this website created? People who, if I am understanding correctly, have created their own rules and modifications which they deem make the Global 1940 2nd Edition game more even? Does anyone outside of this website play the Balanced Mod version?
@AndrewAAGamer said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
So Balanced Mod is not an official Larry Harris scenario revision? It is something that people on this website created? People who, if I am understanding correctly, have created their own rules and modifications which they deem make the Global 1940 2nd Edition game more even? Does anyone outside of this website play the Balanced Mod version?
Pretty much. Adds some balance to the game and more interesting options while keeping the G40 feel.
@AndrewAAGamer it is played in the tripleA gaming lobby, and i understand there is a tabletop following as well. (as mentioned above, Grasshopper made table top accessories for the mod).
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
YoungGrasshopper was nice enough to make printable player cards for a table top version of Balance Mod
Can these be found anywhere? Searched the web without success.
@trulpen never did get around to it, but I’ll be customizing all summer 2020 and should get one available before winter.
YG
@trulpen hey bro, I got the history a little mixed up (was four years ago). While Young Grasshopper expressed an interest in making National Objective cards for use in tabletop games, it was actually cyanight who wound up making them. Here is Cyanight’s post: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/post/742280.
And here is the link to the cards he designed: http://www.artscow.com/ClientDesigner/Designer.aspx?DesignId=164810677. (This link is only viewable with internet explorer).
Enjoy!
@regularkid Wonderful! Thanks! :)
the bid rules are now summarized to:
But what do U think about increasing the bids in our games, but with the new rule
I see some bad effects of bidding 3 units for UK , or something like that.
this how the bid can be bigger, but more balanced throughout the map, with more units, but 1 unit per power? (uk and uk pac are 2 powers) ?
what do U think?
cheers
Amon
