G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

japan is given the option to kamikaze a cruiser bearing a marine for an amphibious assault, but if the kamis are successful, the marine lives on to take the territory (in my case the territory was undefended)

apologies if this is covered in the notes somewhere

thoughts?

yup. anzac crs bearing a marine took an undefended iwo jima, where the kamis where successful, the cruiser died, but the marine lived, and took iwo jima.

cool i thx kinda figured, but glad to know for sure

As for marines, I think all those marine guys should look like Italian ones, otherwise I can not distinguish them  :lol:

@regularkid:

@Amon-Sul:

As for marines, I think all those marine guys should look like Italian ones, otherwise I can not distinguish them  :lol:

haha. yes, the marine images that come loaded with G40 are a bit hard to distinguish from regular infantry. Thats why we created the optional download to be used with Balance Mod. Check out the second post in this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37883.0. It iincludes directions on how to install the optional files. The files will give you better marines, will make Vichy France appear in a different color, and will make all the objectives appear in the objectives panel. It has no impact on the regular game.

Wow :) That is great. I`ll go get it now :)

Example:

Turn Complete - British
            Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 3
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 119 Sea Zone. Rolls: 3,6
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 109 Sea Zone. Rolls: 4,1
            British collect 34 PUs (3 lost to blockades); end with 34 PUs total

Proposed version:

Turn Complete - British
                British collect 37 PUs
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 119 Sea Zone. Rolls: 3,6
                Rolling for Convoy Blockade Damage in 109 Sea Zone. Rolls: 4,1
            Total Cost from Convoy Blockades: 3 IPC; end with 34 PUs total

37-3=34

Shouldn`t it be better this way?

thanks :)

i’m with shin ji, after much more experience playing BM, i believe japan needs a little boost for taking all of china…really should get an NO of 5 for controlling all of china. i say this especially since it requires more than just one unit to garrison each territory if there are US bombers lurking all over…it’s just too easy for those bombers to continually stir up uprisings which cause the japanese to have to guard more heavily. besides, i can’t help but feel the allies have the advantage in BM.

it’s a dynamic that wasn’t supposed to exist…

what if territories spawned chinese guerrillas at the end of the japanese turn instead?

I actually like the fact that China is never truly conquered in this version.  It’s a fun dynamic.  Given how much faster BM games tend to be, I’m not sure how often you see Asia completely steamrolled by Japan anyway.  Japan has more important things to do, like win before the Allies do.

@Shin:

I actually like the fact that China is never truly conquered in this version.  It’s a fun dynamic.  Given how much faster BM games tend to be, I’m not sure how often you see Asia completely steamrolled by Japan anyway.  Japan has more important things to do, like win before the Allies do.

Currently I’m finding it hard to believe axis can win against expert allied play at Adam’s level. I’d like to see this belief challenged of course, by other strong players who have yet to transition over. I believe allied advantage needs a little more trimming. I’m thinking add the China bonus plus reduce Russia NO of adding 2 extra due to Japan DOW down to just 1 extra each.

Adam’s just a really really good player.  People like you and I, Axis, just aren’t on their level.  We’d have to see how someone at that level feels about it, or even better - look at the stats among the top tier players.

i’ve seen adam and other top tier players play lower tier players and win handily with both sides. that’s what i’m seeing lol. but that’s not what i’m talking about. i’m saying if two top tier players play each other, i don’t believe the axis will win, especially if they play at the level adam is playing. allies are overpowered. if i remember correctly, gamer, who is a top tier player, is saying the same thing and has as far as i’ve seen only played allies and given up one or more NOs. aren’t you at least wondering about that?

@regularkid:

@axis-dominion:

@Shin:

I’m thinking add the China bonus plus reduce Russia NO of adding 2 extra due to Japan DOW down to just 1 extra each.

Hey Axis Dom, regarding the +2-per-lend-lease bonus, the problem with reducing to just +1 is that it makes declaring war on Russia the “standard” move for Japan as soon as 125 or Archangel are blocked. The purpose of structuring the lend lease NO as is is to discourage JDOWs on Russia by attaching greater consequences to them.

On the broader point, I’ve seen Adam and other top tier players win BM games handily with both Axis and Allies. And with a 47 to 45 Allied to Axis win ratio league-wide, I don’t think we can say anything conclusive regarding the need for further adjustments at this point.

@Shin:

Adam’s just a really really good player.  People like you and I, Axis, just aren’t on their level.  We’d have to see how someone at that level feels about it, or even better - look at the stats among the top tier players.

yes he’s a very good player, but i wouldn’t say i’m not at least close to his level. many times when we play, our games are quite competitive. most of my BM games have been experimental in nature, and therefore, i have lost more games than i would otherwise. for example, when i first started playing BM i was scrambling a lot on purpose to push for SL games. i had a whole bunch of those in a row and got to experience for myself SL in BM (and for the benefit of improving BM). lately i’ve been experimenting with G1 and G2 DOWs along with late J4 DOWs to experience how those work in BM. as i’ve discussed with adam and others in the past, i really don’t like it when games feel very scripted, especially in the opening turns. one of the best things about global is that its opening playbook is quite rich, since it introduced the DOW mechanism, and of course the bid offers more variation in strategies (something the BM lacks, but makes up in other ways). so i’ve been playing around with various strategies to get a good feel for what works and what doesn’t in BM, and so far i’m feeling like the opening options for axis are more limited than the vanilla version we’ve been playing for years. of course all this experimenting has cost me league status, but earlier in the season i had already accepted that i would not be caring so much about my ranking and status. i’ve also been taking more risks because of this attitude. i’m more here to have fun playing and hopefully improving on the game i love most.

G1 and G2 declarations might be a little less optimal in BM because of the extra Russian NO money (which cannot be denied by parking a sub off Norway).  Of course, there’s a similar dynamic in normal G40 because G1 and G2 declarations allow Russia to push for the Iraq/Africa NO money sooner.  So the difference may not be all that great, but at first glance it seems G1/G2 are a little less optimal than in vanilla.

I’m looking forward to experimenting with BM.  Overall, I’m in favor of innovations that improve the game, and the Vichy and China changes might fall into this category.  But I’m partial to bids as a means of “balancing” the game because bidding can improve gaming diversity in the long run.  If the average bid is really high, then that could lead to some epic gaming where the bid strategy comes as a surprise and potentially radically changes the flow of the game.  But most likely the majority of players would not share this opinion–most tabletop gamers would probably prefer to play a game that is fair without a bid and BM seems to meet that demand.

welcome to BM, i think you’ll find it a good innovation in many ways. i feel the same as you about the bidding, that it can be a good thing for increasing the variety of strategic options. it is something i do miss sometimes, and of course it’s not ruled out by the BM–in fact i’m starting to feel i may need a bid for axis against someone as good as adam lol. i don’t think axis are able to compete–or maybe if they are, then only within a very narrow range of options–but i’d love for you (an axis expert) to prove me wrong by playing BM against adam.

@Zhukov44:

G1 and G2 declarations might be a little less optimal in BM because of the extra Russian NO money (which cannot be denied by parking a sub off Norway).  Of course, there’s a similar dynamic in normal G40 because G1 and G2 declarations allow Russia to push for the Iraq/Africa NO money sooner.  So the difference may not be all that great, but at first glance it seems G1/G2 are a little less optimal than in vanilla.

I’m looking forward to experimenting with BM.  Overall, I’m in favor of innovations that improve the game, and the Vichy and China changes might fall into this category.  But I’m partial to bids as a means of “balancing” the game because bidding can improve gaming diversity in the long run.  If the average bid is really high, then that could lead to some epic gaming where the bid strategy comes as a surprise and potentially radically changes the flow of the game.  But most likely the majority of players would not share this opinion–most tabletop gamers would probably prefer to play a game that is fair without a bid and BM seems to meet that demand.