G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

Some iterations of Triple A still do that from what I hear

It’s wrong

China can’t be convoyed

I am playing 19003453 and it is doing that FYI….

Yeah you need to watch out for it. I think China gets convoyed in all BM versions, while not in vanilla.

just started playing balanced mod and haven’t played before that for over a year…but does it feel like Russia makes TOO much money now? like maybe one too many lend-lease NOs?

I agree with you

And I’ll do you 1 better - the UK doesn’t need one of the NO’s in the Med (or both) and the USA has about 1 too many NO’s as well

I thought that before I ever played a balanced mod game, and I still think that now

@Gamerman01:

I agree with you

And I’ll do you 1 better - the UK doesn’t need one of the NO’s in the Med (or both) and the USA has about 1 too many NO’s as well

I thought that before I ever played a balanced mod game, and I still think that now

insert I approve of this post emoji

Mod = God  8-)

@Gamerman01:

I agree with you

And I’ll do you 1 better - the UK doesn’t need one of the NO’s in the Med (or both) and the USA has about 1 too many NO’s as well

I thought that before I ever played a balanced mod game, and I still think that now

Specifically the one for Palau, Carolines, Marianas and Marshall Is. It can be enough incentive to take these islands to reverse the air power projection. It doesn’t need its own NO IMO.

However, the point that the Med NOs spice up the play there I would agree with, so don’t mess with that one I would say.

not sure if this has been noted, but if/when the US retakes Soviet territories in the Pac they become US territories and do not revert back to USSR….

To wit:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39252.30

@Karl7:

not sure if this has been noted, but if/when the US retakes Soviet territories in the Pac they become US territories and do not revert back to USSR….

To wit:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39252.30

You are playing the bugged version of BM (2.0), I think it’s related to that. Upgrade to 2.2 and I doubt you’ll have the same problem.

You’ll need to edit the territories in your current game back to Russian controlled.

@Adam514:

@Karl7:

not sure if this has been noted, but if/when the US retakes Soviet territories in the Pac they become US territories and do not revert back to USSR….

To wit:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39252.30

You are playing the bugged version of BM (2.0), I think it’s related to that. Upgrade to 2.2 and I doubt you’ll have the same problem.

You’ll need to edit the territories in your current game back to Russian controlled.

ah, ok

thanks

Adam 514 said this:

3. Transports not defending: it makes effective fleets extremely costly especially for US, since their tps are often a one time use.

I’ve been thinking of a solution to this. How about:

When defending in a sea battle, a transport can be taken as a casualty before other defending units with a combat value if the defending units with the combat value are air units and/or damaged battleships or aircraft carriers….

or this:

When defending in a sea battle, a player may roll one dice at one for every two transports present in the battle, rounding down.

or this:

Transports cost 6.

Or this:

Any time a defender in a sea battle takes two or more hits, the defender may choose transports as casualties equal to the number of hits divided by two, rounding down.

So if two or three hits, get to choose 1 as a trn,

4 hits, you can choose 2 trans and so on…

That’s fairly complicated.

If I were to redesign the transport unit it would be able to take hits on attack and defense but have no combat value (like an AA gun or a BB hit point). It would probably cost 8 in this case. This would make it very inefficient in combat, so transports still won’t dominate the seas like they did in earlier AA versions while still being able to slightly affect the outcome of a battle.

One possibility sort of discussed in house rules is having transports which still defend on a 1 but are always taken last. I believe this is achievable in Triple-A.

That tends to reduce the ability of hitting fleets very slightly.

Note that Classic transports could only hold one tank or two inf. Not one tank and one inf.

@Adam514:

That’s fairly complicated.

If I were to redesign the transport unit it would be able to take hits on attack and defense but have no combat value (like an AA gun or a BB hit point). It would probably cost 8 in this case. This would make it very inefficient in combat, so transports still won’t dominate the seas like they did in earlier AA versions while still being able to slightly affect the outcome of a battle.

@simon33:

One possibility sort of discussed in house rules is having transports which still defend on a 1 but are always taken last. I believe this is achievable in Triple-A.

That tends to reduce the ability of hitting fleets very slightly.

Note that Classic transports could only hold one tank or two inf. Not one tank and one inf.

Wow, not bad ideas.  Probably worth some play testing. Maybe change Tac Bombers to cost 10 (I have no idea why they are 11–that makes no sense since to get a 4 power they have to pair where as a ftr get 4 natively) to balance it out.

Yes, tacs are definitely overpriced relative to fighters and bombers

I wouldn’t want to see BM institute a defense roll for transports, and wouldn’t want them to take hits either (shielding the warships just as before) even if they cost 8.  A cost reduction to 6 might be good though (if no other change to them).

And subs could probably stand to be bumped up to 7 or even 8.  Especially if you’re playing with tech and can get shipyards and super subs  :lol: but seriously.  Never mind the tech, raising the price of subs would not be a bad thing for G40.
This would help bring convoy damage down a tad, and make other ships more attractive to buy

Hang on. I’m specifically saying that transports shouldn’t defend warships like they did in classic.

@Gamerman01:

Yes, tacs are definitely overpriced relative to fighters and bombers

I wouldn’t want to see BM institute a defense roll for transports, and wouldn’t want them to take hits either (shielding the warships just as before) even if they cost 8.  A cost reduction to 6 might be good though (if no other change to them).

And subs could probably stand to be bumped up to 7 or even 8.  Especially if you’re playing with tech and can get shipyards and super subs  :lol: but seriously.  Never mind the tech, raising the price of subs would not be a bad thing for G40.
This would help bring convoy damage down a tad, and make other ships more attractive to buy

I spent a few minutes trying to look up the comparative costs of production of ships across classes, i.e. from transports on up.  I didn’t find anything specific, probably because such costs differed among countries with different production capacities and priorities, making such straight up comparison illusive.

That aside, one would assume freight production would be less than almost any warships because of all the “add ons” for warships in design and performance etc.  But then, a liberty ship had about 15k tons displacement, while a Gato class sub had around 2k submerged… so maybe not?

But point is, I don’t think it would be outrageous to make transports 6 cost.

How do you upgrade to version 2.2?