G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

I couldn’t get you with any gotchas, I know that  :-)

@simon33:

Here’s a suggestion: Nullify the Mongolian rule if USSR declares on Japan.

No one responded to this but I think it is a fair and rational alternative to the disincentive for USSR to DOW on Japan which is over the top in BM2.0 IMO.

Any thoughts?

@simon33:

@simon33:

Here’s a suggestion: Nullify the Mongolian rule if USSR declares on Japan.

No one responded to this but I think it is a fair and rational alternative to the disincentive for USSR to DOW on Japan which is over the top in BM2.0 IMO.

Any thoughts?

Over the top as in too high of a disincentive? I think you overestimate the loss of the extra 2 per Lend-lease route, since the Mongolian rule is worth more in the early game (the most important part of the game) and Japan can then take Eastern Russia a lot easier. I’d prefer losing the 2 extra per Lend-Lease route than losing the Mongolian rule if I were to DOW on Japan.

6IPC per turn helps to defend Moscow.

I’m surprised you’d prefer to lose that than the Mongolian rule which doesn’t normally provide much help to Moscow.

I’m finding it actually difficult to take down Moscow in BM and much easier to defend. I don’t know, maybe (certainly) my German game needs some work but even so, shouldn’t a determined run to Moscow require major allied effort to stop if it can be stopped at all?

If Japan keeps the USA out of the war I think it should be almost impossible!

I’ve taken Moscow on G6 and I was far from maxing it. If Germany goes for a G6 Moscow Russia cannot defend alone that’s for sure.

Okinawa and Iwo J need some love to give the pacific a little more historical spice imo.

Holding Iwo and Okinawa gets Japan 5 IPC’s per turn?  Nooooooooo
I think it’s too easy for Japan to get to 80+ income already
1 IPC for Iwo and Okinawa each is already generous imo

Agree. IPC value actually IS strategic value!

I really think all this discussion are somehow getting out of end. I don’t want to see Japan getting a +5 NO for holding Tokyo each turn:D

getting out of hand

At the moment the Pacific money is concentrated in the DEI and the South Pacific. I think it would result in more interesting and varied gameplay if the money was spread out a bit in the Pacific, so there would be a reason to split fleets in some cases in order to maximise gains/deny income to the enemy.

The bonus could be US, but since the statistics show an Allied advantage it would make sense to give it to Japan. Also, it goes a long way to put earlier JDOWs back on the table.

what about scrapping the  USA Guam NO and shifting the bonus to holding Iwo J and or Okinawa? I don’t think I’ve seen a single J1 in BM; I know I don’t like giving USA that plus 5 right off the bat cause I don’t have enough transports to capture guam J1.

@Adam514:

At the moment the Pacific money is concentrated in the DEI and the South Pacific. I think it would result in more interesting and varied gameplay if the money was spread out a bit in the Pacific, so there would be a reason to split fleets in some cases in order to maximise gains/deny income to the enemy.

The bonus could be US, but since the statistics show an Allied advantage it would make sense to give it to Japan. Also, it goes a long way to put earlier JDOWs back on the table.

Violates historical accuracy though.

In the war, the oil was critical and in the DEI.

I agree with the comments that 1IPC each for Iwo Jima and Okinawa is already generous. If you want, you can base bombers there but that strategy hasn’t been too effective for me. Usually better to attack the IJN.

@simon33:

@Adam514:

At the moment the Pacific money is concentrated in the DEI and the South Pacific. I think it would result in more interesting and varied gameplay if the money was spread out a bit in the Pacific, so there would be a reason to split fleets in some cases in order to maximise gains/deny income to the enemy.

The bonus could be US, but since the statistics show an Allied advantage it would make sense to give it to Japan. Also, it goes a long way to put earlier JDOWs back on the table.

Violates historical accuracy though.

In the war, the oil was critical and in the DEI.

I agree with the comments that 1IPC each for Iwo Jima and Okinawa is already generous. If you want, you can base bombers there but that strategy hasn’t been too effective for me. Usually better to attack the IJN.

The NO for Iwo and Okinawa would be equal to or better in terms of historical accuracy than the majority of the NOs. Japan really did not want to lose them, and sacrificed a lot to delay their loss. The historical accuracy reason isn’t a major concern anyway, gameplay is way more important.

I know enough about WWII to know that Okinawa and Iwo Jima were never attacked until 1945, months before Japan surrendered.  Also note that they are considered part of the “home islands” so it’s almost like giving Japan an NO for holding Japan like JDOW said  :-)
Iwo was attacked for the airbases, which harried US bombing missions

My point is Iwo and Okinawa were totally end-game for USA vs. Japan, and they can be useful in A&A for this too.  Keep in mind BM now has the rule about taking Tokyo affects the Europe win conditions, so Iwo and Okinawa could be very strategically important, and even possibly affect GERMANY because of the Tokyo rule.

If you want to do something with these islands, consider adding an AIRBASE to one or both?  Not an NO, please!!

I have an idea for BM

I think the kamikaze rules of G40 should be considered

Kamikazes as far as I know were involved in fleet battles where Japan always had a SURFACE FLEET presence

With the addition of marines, kamikazes severely limit the usefulness of American marines on cruisers

I would like to see the kamikaze rule changed to be that they can only be used when Japan has a surface warship defending in the zone.  Then uncontested amphibious landings by the marines could be done.

Keep in mind that originally the kamikazes required a certain island to be taken by the Allies before they could be used, and then they were boosted significantly by the removal of that requirement (also simplified the game)

I realize this also keeps Japan from being able to stop ALL BOMBARDMENT on any given amphibious assault (and there could be a big one) unless they have a destroyer in the zone, but I think this is OK.  You could always re-think how many kamikazes Japan starts the game with, too.

@Gamerman01:

I know enough about WWII to know that Okinawa and Iwo Jima were never attacked until 1945, months before Japan surrendered.  Also note that they are considered part of the “home islands” so it’s almost like giving Japan an NO for holding Japan like JDOW said  :-)
Iwo was attacked for the airbases, which harried US bombing missions

My point is Iwo and Okinawa were totally end-game for USA vs. Japan, and they can be useful in A&A for this too.  Keep in mind BM now has the rule about taking Tokyo affects the Europe win conditions, so Iwo and Okinawa could be very strategically important, and even possibly affect GERMANY because of the Tokyo rule.

If you want to do something with these islands, consider adding an AIRBASE to one or both?  Not an NO, please!!

I really don’t see a strong reason as far as historical accuracy goes to not put an NO on them. Both sides fought over them and sacrificed a lot because they were important. The fact that it was late in the war doesn’t change anything imo.

If someone can suggest a better NO that can do the following, I’m all ears:
-Buffs earlier JDOWs (main reason)
-Gives more importance to a region lacking some
-Spreads out the income in the Pacific a bit (bonus)

If you think buffing earlier JDOWs isn’t necessary that’s another story. J3 seems to be the best by far at the moment imo.