G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

NOs are actually an elegant tool for balance. In a game with politics, you need require NOs (or some other system) in order to influence the DOW turn. Something else that NOs achieve is increasing the value of a territory without changing its PU value on the board. This makes it easier to give money to Germany for example for control of Novgorod, while not giving anything extra for Russia. And this in turn makes it a lot easier to balance the game (you can switch the NO around if it turns out that Russia is the one who needs the extra income).

We did the contrary of “manipulating the players into playing the kind of game we want”, so you’ll need to give examples of how we did that if you want us to believe you.

I couldn’t care less whether you “believe” me about anything.
You seem to have a god-complex and are unable to see anything less than perfection in the works of your hands.

I have been merely offering up my point of view about the game from my experiences - we all enjoy doing that on this website, and have for many years.  Take it or leave it, I don’t care.

Please re-read the last sentence of my previous post.  It seems to me you were upset by the second to last sentence and didn’t really get what I said after that

@Gamerman01:

I couldn’t care less whether you “believe” me about anything.
You seem to have a god-complex and are unable to see anything less than perfection in the works of your hands.

I have been merely offering up my point of view about the game from my experiences - we all enjoy doing that on this website, and have for many years.  Take it or leave it, I don’t care.

Please re-read the last sentence of my previous post.  It seems to me you were upset by the second to last sentence and didn’t really get what I said after that

Why post something on this thread if you don’t care what we think?

Assuming things won’t achieve anything.

I re-read your last sentence, I don’t see what’s special about it.

I think the Iraq loophole was fun. The African & Med ones were silly.

I’ve now got a fair few BM games played and I still notice a USSR DOW on Japan in a serious minority of games.

BM improves in a lot of areas, like breaking up the Pacific airfields NO in G40 and particularly the SBR rules. It isn’t perfect though.

@Adam514:

Why post something on this thread if you don’t care what we think?

We all enjoy posting our thoughts on A&A.  Making the case is most of the fun, that’s why.

Assuming things won’t achieve anything.

Do you even realize how condescending you are?

I re-read your last sentence, I don’t see what’s special about it.

Why am I surprised

Is that why we have all these complicated Vichy rules?  :-)

Back to more important things: any objections (with a reason) as to why we shouldn’t remove the Russian NO for taking Germany?

Reason to remove: useless NO, and takes up space in the objectives tab.

No objection here - I’m all for that

Another question about marines -

Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?

@Gamerman01:

Another question about marines -

Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?

No, it acts like a transport in these cases.

@Adam514:

We did the contrary of “manipulating the players into playing the kind of game we want”, so you’ll need to give examples of how we did that if you want us to believe you.

Well sea lion is weaker and barbarossa is stronger although the med is probably more dynamic in BM.

@simon33:

@Adam514:

We did the contrary of “manipulating the players into playing the kind of game we want”, so you’ll need to give examples of how we did that if you want us to believe you.

Well sea lion is weaker and barbarossa is stronger although the med is probably more dynamic in BM.

You think Sealion is weaker and Barbarossa is stronger in what version?

In BM Sealion is stronger and Barbarossa close to the same.

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.

@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.

How is it different from USSR getting extra strength in vanilla if Sealion happens?

@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.

How is it different from USSR getting extra strength in vanilla if Sealion happens?

It is increased by the additional NOs USSR gets in BM. That is what I meant by “extra strength” - extra compared to vanilla.

@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.

How is it different from USSR getting extra strength in vanilla if Sealion happens?

It is increased by the additional NOs USSR gets in BM. That is what I meant by “extra strength” - extra compared to vanilla.

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).

@Adam514:

@Gamerman01:

Another question about marines -

Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?

No, it acts like a transport in these cases.

Rule experts, please expand on this. This is a rule I am not aware of. So this means if you load a transport/cruiser/battleship and move this unit to a seasone where you are unloading other transports/warships all transports/warships must unload all mean in the amphibious assult? Or can this loaded cruiser/BB move to a different sea sone where you are conducting only a naval battle (I assume you can)

If we take this a step further it is possible to have a loaded transport in a sz that has become hostile (f.ex the enemy placed a destroyer there during placement phase). This transport must move and if the only safe location is where you conduct an amphibious assult these men must unload?

@oysteilo:

@Adam514:

@Gamerman01:

Another question about marines -

Can you load a marine onto a cruiser/battleship in the combat movement phase and not unload it in an amphibious assault that same combat move?

No, it acts like a transport in these cases.

Rule experts, please expand on this. This is a rule I am not aware of. So this means if you load a transport/cruiser/battleship and move this unit to a seasone where you are unloading other transports/warships all transports/warships must unload all mean in the amphibious assult? Or can this loaded cruiser/BB move to a different sea sone where you are conducting only a naval battle (I assume you can)

If we take this a step further it is possible to have a loaded transport in a sz that has become hostile (f.ex the enemy placed a destroyer there during placement phase). This transport must move and if the only safe location is where you conduct an amphibious assult these men must unload?

1. All units you load in the combat phase must conduct an amphibious assault (unless you had a half loaded tp before the combat phase). So you can’t load a marine in the combat phase unless you are also unloading it in an enemy territory in the combat phase.

2. No, since the tp was loaded before the combat phase.