Should there be a requirement for the Axis to hold 7 Victory cities for the win if the Allies hold Rome for any part of the turn? Maybe 8 if they hold Berlin.
We considered it, but Rome is too easy to take, and 7 Pac VCs just because of Rome would be quite harsh.
I’ve been bidding for the Axis lately. Small bids - the 6 range - but still. ANyone else been doing that?
I would like two or three NOs removed from the Allies. I can’t win as the Axis, with the allied NOs as they are. Then I would feel I had half a chance.
I hear that, but that would require remembering and using edit mode. Too likely that we’ll forget.
It’s not hard to remember. If the Allied player forgets, the Axis player will remember
Yes there are a couple too many NO’s - too many islands, too many in the Med
Only have played balance mod twice. Once as each side. Won both but I probably shouldn’t have won as the axis. Seems like the chips are stacked against the axis. I liked the marines and sbr rules. Quite a lot of NO’s but I can get used to that. My only complaint is the spawning Chinese. Japan should get a hefty bonus if they hold all the Chinese territory or when the territory flips control no unit should spawn. Just my two cents. Looking forward to more games of this version. Great job everybody!!
So is there likely to be a BM3.0 with all this feedback?
I think what we have is really, really close to the Platonic Ideal here. Just shave off a few Allied NOs - the British Med islands one and maybe the Russian Persia bonus? And we’re probably pretty much all good.
I love the new China mechanic, personally. I’d hate to see it go.
Shaving off a few NOs is something I’d support too. Particularly for the USSR IMO.
One thing to keep in mind is the fact that we are used to vanilla Axis, which are blatantly overpowered. If you use vanilla Axis as a reference point, you will be disappointed in the sense that BM Axis have been nerfed in comparison and can’t pull off such easy wins anymore. It will take more effort to win as Axis now, but is it easier to win with Allies? I’m not convinced. I’ve lost as Allies in BM while I’ve never lost as Axis.
Also, it’s impossible to balance a game for all levels of play. For example, some tabletop players think vanilla Allies nearly always win and are overpowered, so they bid for Axis. The bid varies a lot between tiers, with the bid getting higher as the tier goes up, which means that different players interpret the balance differently. There will inevitably be at least a part of the spectrum of players that will require a balancing mechanic, whether it’s a bid or taking off NOs.
With that being said, I’ve been thinking about a couple of NOs since BM2 to address some issues I’ve found while playing, and they would slightly help the Axis.
Well said Adam!
Yeah, there is a big difference in game experience depending on who you are and who you play, a great point
just give the Vichy occupied ipc income to Germany. This will provide more incentive to go for Vichy France and will provide the axis with what they need to counter the allied nos. Historically this would also b e accurate as supposedly the Vichy France regime had to pay Germany lots of money for the occupation forces.
It would also give the allies more reasons to counter or grab as many of the vichy tt’s as they can and as fast as they can.
@Nozdormu:
just give the Vichy occupied ipc income to Germany. This will provide more incentive to go for Vichy France and will provide the axis with what they need to counter the allied nos. Historically this would also b e accurate as supposedly the Vichy France regime had to pay Germany lots of money for the occupation forces.
It would also give the allies more reasons to counter or grab as many of the vichy tt’s as they can and as fast as they can.
Disagree. The “only” thing that is great about Vichy is that the axis actually have to activate these territories. If activation is not required too much free money. Allies should not go after silly nm Africa areas for 1 ipc
That would give massive incentive for the allies to block Vichy which they can always do, so long as they take down SZ96 UK1 by using the TT to land an inf on Southern France.
I see people start to bid for axis in BM. What is the rational for this? How does a bid of 4,5 or 6 make a difference in the long run? I don’t see it. Must be hugely more important not to make mistakes.
I honestly have no idea if it helps. I’m just gathering data with my bidded BM games.
It’s probably not about how much it helps
If both players want Allies, then the way to settle it is to bid
After a small bid of 4, 5, or 6, the other player is unwilling to give more to the Axis player, and so that’s where the bid amount settles.
The #1 purpose of bidding is to allow both players to be satisfied with their side and situation before starting.
How does a bid of 4,5 or 6 make a difference in the long run?
I bid of 6 could be 2 more inf on Africa I guess or a sub. A lot of the bid in vanilla tends to go to to the med so helping the Italians is where a BM axis bid would probably go. One inf changes Ethiopia from a 79% assault to a coin flip at 49%. One sub turns a 2 fighter Taranto raid to a 29% chance of the BB surviving - so you need a 3 fighter one.
An inf on Tobruk with the fighter blocks a no TT assault and gives a 50% chance of taking out all the ground troops against a maximal assault.
Still, is there any proof yet that the Allies are overpowered?
What does the general statistics say?
Adam hasn’t lost a single game as Axis yet, but as Allies
My personal (very limited) experience is, that it is pretty even and that Axis has valid winning chances, I do not see a clear necessity yet to make changes in order to strengthen the Axis.
