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.
Or am I missing some great Operation where the Australians fought side by side with the Russians to take Stalingrad back? :wink:
But surely this is the greatness of A&A. If you want the Australians to fight side by side for Stalingrad, it is totally achievable (if you sacrifice enough other goals).
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.
In addition to lend-lease route territories, Russia fights over their spread of Communism NO (Finland rush, or Eastern Europe with a Sealion), and they fight over 3 (4) territories to prevent Germany from achieving their NOs, which are Volgograd, Novgorod and Caucasus. They are also largely responsible for safeguarding the Middle-East, so that’s a few extra NOs they fight over, albeit indirectly. In my opinion, and imo logically, fighting to prevent an enemy from gaining income is the same as fighting to gain income for yourself. Volgograd and Novgorod for example are German NOs for balance. They would be fought over just as much if they were Russian NOs, but Germany is the one who needs the money from those NOs in this map.
If you have a proposition for a Russian NO I’m all ears, but atm I think they fight over a lot of things already.
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.
What you dislike about the 2PU-per-route bonus is precisely the reason it was added–it creates a logical in-game disincentive for an ahistorical outcome (i.e., Japan declaring war on Russia). Of course, it doesn’t force the historical outcome, but it creates an in-game justification for it.
I also tend to think that BM has enough NOs, and am reluctant to add more.
Yeah, nearly every island in the game has an NO (or 2!!) attached to it :-P
Too many NO’s in Z99 :-(
Yah, if i could redraw the G40 map from scratch, I would put islands on SZ Boundaries (like in Balance of Power), so that each island would adjoin multiple szs, making them strategically valuable without the need for an NO.
Yah, if i could redraw the G40 map from scratch, I would put islands on SZ Boundaries (like in Balance of Power), so that each island would adjoin multiple szs, making them strategically valuable without the need for an NO.
That’s the future :wink:.
They were already strategically valuable and most do not need NO’s
Especially the ones with airbases already on them
The Med island NO’s are overkill
Every one of them is already strategically valuable
They were already strategically valuable and most do not need NO’s
Especially the ones with airbases already on themThe Med island NO’s are overkill
Every one of them is already strategically valuable
What? No they weren’t, you always had either Greece or Syria as better spots for air. I might have seen a handful of times Cyprus taken without regard to denying the UK NO in vanilla.
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.
What you dislike about the 2PU-per-route bonus is precisely the reason it was added–it creates a logical in-game disincentive for an ahistorical outcome (i.e., Japan declaring war on Russia). Of course, it doesn’t force the historical outcome, but it creates an in-game justification for it.
I also tend to think that BM has enough NOs, and am reluctant to add more.
Why is the historical outcome the correct outcome? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
I still can’t see the logic of varying the bonus based on who DOW’s.
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.
What you dislike about the 2PU-per-route bonus is precisely the reason it was added–it creates a logical in-game disincentive for an ahistorical outcome (i.e., Japan declaring war on Russia). Of course, it doesn’t force the historical outcome, but it creates an in-game justification for it.
I also tend to think that BM has enough NOs, and am reluctant to add more.
Why is the historical outcome the correct outcome? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?
I still can’t see the logic of varying the bonus based on who DOW’s.
No, I don’t mean that the historical outcomes are the “correct” ones. What i mean is that the game conditions should be such that there is a logical reason for events to unfold in the historical way (even if there are plenty of opportunities and reasons from the game to divert from history). In vanilla G40, what reason is there for Russia to follow the historical path of delaying the DOW against Japan until the end of the war? None. The DOW almost always happens in the first round, cuz “why not?” The historical choice is not motivated at all.
The logic of varying the Lend-Lease NO based on who DOWs: If Russia could double its Lend Lease aid simply by declaring war on Japan, Russia would always declare war on Japan at the earliest opportunity. I think an argument could be made that the urgency of Lend Lease would be greater if Russia were dragged into a two-front war by Japanese aggression, than if Russia elected to open a second front on its own initiative
aight ya’ll. they are three NOs currently under consideration by the MOD squad. I’m submitting them here for your review and comment:
1. Trade With Germany: Russia gets 2 PUs when not at war with Russia;
2. Home Islands: Japan gets 2 PUs when at war with USA if it controls okinawa and iwojima
3. Atlantic Wall: Germany gets 2 PUs if: (1) Normandy and Holland were controlled by Axis from the start of its turn; and (2) there is at least one land unit in each of Normandy and Holland at the end of its turn.
*the “home islands” one is 3 PUs
aight ya’ll. they are three NOs currently under consideration by the MOD squad. I’m submitting them here for your review and comment:
1. Trade With Germany: Russia gets 2 PUs when not at war with Russia;
2. Home Islands: Japan gets 2 PUs when at war with USA if it controls okinawa and iwojima
3. Atlantic Wall: Germany gets 2 PUs if: (1) Normandy and Holland were controlled by Axis from the start of its turn; and (2) there is at least one land unit in each of Normandy and Holland at the end of its turn.
I like them all. IMO the more $ the better as long as it is balanced. Why not 3 for #1. one inf per turn?
