Could you plz share what those changes are going to be so we have an idea?
BM3 release is tentatively set for the beginning of 2017, and it’s possibly the last iteration of BM (apart from bug fixes). So if you have ideas or anything to say in order to see a change, now is the time.
For example, you could:
-have an issue with NOs
-feel that some areas of the board are under or over represented in terms of income
-feel that something is scripted
-etcI only have 2 minor NOs in mind at the moment, so it’s probably going to be a small change in the end.
I think sharing them later is a better idea so that the discussion is not centered around them, and rather on whatever people feel the mod can improve upon.
You’re aware of my leaning that Marines are overpowered - although they are arguably expensive. At least disallowing bombardment support from a marine. Only inf/art/mec/tanks should count IMO.
Those are probably my main thoughts. I might have a bit more if I think of it.
Oh and put combat movement before repair and purchase, FFS! I want to know what combats I’m going to make before I finalise my purchases.
Is it feasible to only collect income on territories you held at the start of your turn?
- I want to reverse the Novgorod bonus to be a bonus for the USSR holding it rather than a bonus for Germany. Ties in with the KV-1 Tank factory there the way I see it.
- USSR lend lease routes - do the Persian and Siberian routes have historic precedent? Particularly the former one through those mountainous regions. The latter one I guess had the Trans Siberian railway. Perhaps some stuff went that way.
- West Indian ocean free of Axis subs - this is a bit too much of a gift for the Calcutta economy IMHO.
- East Pacific Islands ANZAC NO: I think it is too easy to hold
You’re aware of my leaning that Marines are overpowered - although they are arguably expensive. At least disallowing bombardment support from a marine. Only inf/art/mec/tanks should count IMO.
Those are probably my main thoughts. I might have a bit more if I think of it.
Hey Simon,
Addressing points in turn:
1. Interesting historical point, but the changes under consideration now for BM are to bolster Axis (ever so slightly) rather than to bolster Allies (who already have a slight win advantage in league stats). This proposed change would help Allies, so its probably off the table, despite its historical justification.
2. USSR Lend Lease Routes - YES! there were three major lend-lease routes into Russia (its a little annoying that classic G40 only represents one). You can read about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR. Delivery was via the Arctic Convoys (i.e., Karelia), the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route.
Regarding the Persian Corridor specifically, because the other two routes were in the north, “[t]his latter route became the only viable, all-weather route to be developed to supply the nearly insatiable Russian needs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Route
And the Pacific Route remained an important channel for US aid to China, even though it ran straight through the Sea of Japan. As wiki explains, “Even though Japan had been at war with the USA since December 1941, it was anxious to preserve good relations with the USSR, and, despite German complaints, usually allowed Soviet ships to sail between the USA and Russia’s Pacific ports unmolested. . . . As a result, during most of the war the Pacific Route became the safest path between the USA and the USSR.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Route).
3. While the “no subs in Western Indian Ocean” NO is difficult or inconvenient to contest early game, it isn’t insurmountable for Axis. Certainly by mid and late game, when the Axis moves in on Persia, the objective is readily negated. The point of the objective (in addition to bolstering India’s ability to delay India crush) is to represent the substantial submarine activity that occurred in the Indian ocean, including by the Kriegsmarine Monsun Gruppe (Naval Monsoon Group). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_in_World_War_II
4. Definitely hard to hold. Wish it could be a little easier.
I don’t know how to change game phase order. And yes it is possible to make it so you collect income only on the territories held at the start of a turn.
important channel for US aid to *Russia (not China)
Very interesting rk! Thanks for that.
Re: (1) I don’t quite follow why reversing the Leningrad bonus helps the Allies?
Re: (3) By the time Axis are on Persia, isn’t Calcutta normally down?
Re: (4) I don’t think I’ve ever seen any of Gilbert Is, Samoa or Fiji fall to the Axis! I wasn’t referring to the NG objective.
What about the bonus to Lend Lease for Japanese DOW on USSR, is the theory behind that one because war materials can go via Amur? For that to make sense to me, it should only apply to the Pacific Route.
I’ve changed the phase order before. If there’s agreement, I can work out how I did it. Somewhere in the <gameplay>block I’m sure.
I guess the theory with the collect income including newly conquered territories is that ti rewards aggressive play.</gameplay>
The theory would be that the material would stop trying to go through Amur and go to the other routes instead.
The phase order needs to stay as is, since carrier purchases affect the movement of aircraft. I think it isn’t a big deal to plan the combat before purchase, but if need be you can purchase and then try some moves and change your purchase by saying it in the thread, or practice in local mode.
Indeed that Anzac NO is rarely contested (even among island objectives), perhaps we should add the Solomons to that NO as well.
Re: (1) Because instead of giving extra money to Germany for taking Leningrad, ur giving extra money to Russia for holding it. Therefore, more money to Russia, and less money to Germany over the course of the game, resulting in a net benefit to Allies.
Re: (2) Not really. Putting a sub in the Persia sz is such a major benefit for Axis (cuz it negates two NOs), that I’ve seen it done before India falls in a number of games
Re: (3) I have seen games where one of those islands has fallen to Japan. Adam’s played a few. I’ve played a few. It requires an extreme KGF or Allied ineptitude.
Adam is correct regarding the rationale for boosting Lend Lease if Japan DOWs Russia. The other ‘real world’ justification would be an even greater sense of urgency/priority placed on the Lend Lease program by the Western Allies, if Russia found itself in a two-front war. One could imagine that aid would have been even greater than it was.
The way I read simon’s idea about Leningrad/Novgorod is that he would like to see a war objective for Russia that they can fight over. I totally agree with this, but I am not sure what it should be. Russia should also have war objective(s) they realistically can meet. I have mentioned this in the past and I still think this is the poorest change in BM
I get that war between ussr and Japan affects lend lease, but I still don’t see the logic on it being modified based on who started it.
Re: Leningrad. I see what you are saying. 3ipc means 1hit and 2power to ussr but less to Germany and it also has to be gotten to the front.
Regarding carrier purchase, I would prefer an edit mode fix in that case. It isn’t very common.
Actually, it easy enough to have two orders by having two maps. That way players can make their own decisions on what is important.
The way I read simon’s idea about Leningrad/Novgorod is that he would like to see a war objective for Russia that they can fight over. I totally agree with this, but I am not sure what it should be. Russia should also have war objective(s) they realistically can meet. I have mentioned this in the past and I still think this is the poorest change in BM
What about instead off
*** 3 PUs** if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
have these 2:
*** 2 PUs** if Russia is at war with European Axis, Russia controls Novgorod and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
*** 2 PUs** if Russia is at war with European Axis, Russia controls Volgograd and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
Consequences:
a) It would provide extra incentive for Russia to fight for Novgorod and Volgograd.
b) If Germany secures Novgorod, which is typically not that difficult, Russia would have 1 IPC less compared to BM 2.0.
c) In a Sea Lion game, Russia would have 1 PU more, as long as it can control Novgorod.
I guess all a),b), and c) are desirable.
A drawback would be quite a long description of those NOs. So alternatively one could drop the requirement of Russia being at war with European Axis and thus having
*** 2 PUs** if Russia controls Novgorod and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
*** 2 PUs** if Russia controls Volgograd and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
AND remove in setup 1 inf + 1 art from Moscow and 1 inf from Archangel.
This way, for a G3 DOW, which is quite typical in BM2.0 the net gain for Russia would be -1 IPC ( = -10 setup +4 in R1, +4 in R2, +1 in R3), so quite negligible… but G1 DOW would be for Russia -8 IPC (= -10 setup +1 in R1 +1 in R2). G2 DOW would be -5 IPC (= -10 setup +4 in R1 +1 in R2). G4 DOW would be +3 IPC (=-10 setup +13 NO). So compared to BM2.0, the Russian economy would be -8/-5/-1/+3 IPC for G1/G2/G3/G4 DOW. I believe this would be desirable as G1/G2 DOW look pretty suboptimal, compared to G3/G4 DOW.
Novgorod and Volgograd are already 9 PU swing, which is many times more than the average territory. I don’t think they need to be worth more. And whether the NO for those territories is German or Russian doesn’t change the value of fighting over them.
Russia already has a decent amount of NOs it can fight over, I don’t see something that can be added for that.
Nerquen you are right about early GDOWs being suboptimal, and I have an idea for an NO to make them more viable (essentially Russia would receive PUs for being at peace with Germany the same way Germany receives PUs for peace with Russia). It can be better though, and your NOs are interesting in that sence. However like I said, I’m not a fan of adding more value to Novgorod and Volgograd.
Adam. BM is good, I am not contesting that. But honestly you can’t claim that Russia has a decent number of objectives they can fight. The other allies can fight for Russia such as the lend lease, but Russia does not control this. Maybe you can argue that the no allied units is something they control, but it is not something they fight over. Realistically most games will pass by without claiming any axis areas in Europe. Berlin no has no practical meaning. So which NOs do they fight over? I know none.
But honestly you can’t claim that Russia has a decent number of objectives they can fight. The other allies can fight for Russia such as the lend lease, but Russia does not control this.
? Sure there are - Russia can fight over Amur, Persia, and Archangel (in 2nd edition Archangel was often not a factor because of Z125 or Allies in Russia)
I think Russia is fine the way it is now in BM 2.0
But honestly you can’t claim that Russia has a decent number of objectives they can fight. The other allies can fight for Russia such as the lend lease, but Russia does not control this.
? Sure there are - Russia can fight over Amur, Persia, and Archangel (in 2nd edition Archangel was often not a factor because of Z125 or Allies in Russia)
Gamer, in most games what you write is not a factor. However in a few games it could make a difference. I think you know this so I am not sure I understand why you think this is important?
One idea could be to remove the no allied units in Russia objective with a +3 objective for Russia to hold novosibirsk. This is done in Europe version and for BM it would provide additional incentive for Japan to attack Russia (when China is conquered.)
I think my games are different than most…
I don’t say things that I don’t mean
It is not unusual at all for Archangel, Amur, and/or Persia to be contested by the Russians in my games
Please do not listen to anyone saying take away the no Allied units in Russia NO.
I believe the opposite. Don’t take this as feedback for balanced mod, but - All Allied units should be disallowed in Russian held territories and Russia should be compensated appropriately, I sometimes think
Kid talking about historical appropriateness of lendlease routes - if you want to talk historically appropriate I think Allied units should just flat out be debarred from joining the Russians. Or am I missing some great Operation where the Australians fought side by side with the Russians to take Stalingrad back? :wink:
Ok, I agree with the bit about keeping the no Allied units in USSR objective and agree about the positive consequences of de-linking SZ125 from this.
Don’t really agree about Persia being a contestable objective for USSR. If that happens, Germany is basically defeated! I presume you aren’t referring to an early game activation.
Amur is a contestable objective sort of - Japan has to compromise to contest it. If the Persian and Northern routes are open, they have to allow 4IPC of objective to stop 2IPC and also activate Mongolia. This is part of what I dislike about the 2IPC bonus per route for USSR if Japan DOWs on USSR.
More generally, I think there are too many objectives in BM. I guess that is a personal viewpoint though.
Now back to carrier purchase affecting combat move, perhaps we can add an engine option to assume carriers would be purchased.
