G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

You don’t like it because it is broken?
Or because you don’t like the  rationalization behind?

I can see that USA increase Lend-lease toward Russia because they have to fight a two fronts war.
I see no issue. Why do you have one?

My favorite overall thing about the current version of Balanced Mod is that it speeds up the game.  Both sides are heavily incentivized to take risks and conquer quickly, as opposed to hanging back and letting money pile up.

But the option of hanging back still exists, and can be a good one in certain circumstances.

My biggest issue with it is probably that it makes SBR generally a very bad idea without serious fighter escorts.  SBR was only marginally useful before.  But that’s historically accurate and all.  It’s a small issue.

@Shin:

My favorite overall thing about the current version of Balanced Mod is that it speeds up the game.  Both sides are heavily incentivized to take risks and conquer quickly, as opposed to hanging back and letting money pile up.

But the option of hanging back still exists, and can be a good one in certain circumstances.

My biggest issue with it is probably that it makes SBR generally a very bad idea without serious fighter escorts.  SBR was only marginally useful before.  But that’s historically accurate and all.  It’s a small issue.

Do you prefer G40 SBR?
You seems to see SBR in a totally different way than Simon 33?
Do you know why?
@simon33:

Best point: SBR rules.
Worst point: Persian and Arctic Lend Lease getting a bonus based on a Japanese DOW on USSR (but not the other way around).

@axis-dominion:

adam i think you should come out with a BM4 that gives +10 NO for greenland, as there’s not enough action there, and if for nothing else, it’d fuel this great island debate between you guys some more, which is fun and enteraining to read  :-P but then, i’m sure gamer even finds a way to make greenland an important strategic island that doesn’t require any extra incentives for the axis to conquer haha

just messin’ around with you all! happy monday!

:-D

I think the SBR rules are great, and were needed since Larry added a +2!!! to Strat bomber damage rolls

@Gamerman01:

I think the SBR rules are great, and were needed since Larry added a +2!!! to Strat bomber damage rolls

Do you see why Shin Ji said what he say, then?

@Baron:

@Shin:

My favorite overall thing about the current version of Balanced Mod is that it speeds up the game.� Both sides are heavily incentivized to take risks and conquer quickly, as opposed to hanging back and letting money pile up.

But the option of hanging back still exists, and can be a good one in certain circumstances.

**My biggest issue with it is probably that it makes SBR generally a very bad idea without serious fighter escorts.� SBR was only marginally useful before.� But that’s historically accurate and all.**� It’s a small issue.

Do you prefer G40 SBR?
You seems to see SBR in a totally different way than Simon 33?
Do you know why?
@simon33:

Best point: SBR rules.
Worst point: Persian and Arctic Lend Lease getting a bonus based on a Japanese DOW on USSR (but not the other way around).

I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally.  I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine.  But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes.  For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem.  I never really understood why.

To my mind, anything that increases the ways that one can effectively win the game is a good thing.  Balanced mod has done this.  This was a major failing of the original game, where crush Moscow from both sides was the only winning strategy.  Might as well let the game be played by bots at that point.

@Shin:

I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally.  I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine.  But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes.  For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem.  I never really understood why.

Probably from an historical POV, Fighters being shot massively by flight of bombers seems awkward.

Also, bombing Axis power was what make possible D-Day and ended war on Japan.
Otherwise, Europe would have been communist and many GIs would be killed trying to submit Japan without burning many many cities. Nuke, in a few cases, were not as devasting than firestorm in other japanese cities.

So, without SBR working correctly, you WWII theme-like game is misrepresenting things.

@Shin:

To my mind, anything that increases the ways that one can effectively win the game is a good thing.  Balanced mod has done this.  This was a major failing of the original game, where crush Moscow from both sides was the only winning strategy.  Might as well let the game be played by bots at that point.

Now, how Japan can win the war in BMode?
No more Japan Center Crush on Moscow?

@Shin:

I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally.  I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine.  But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes.  For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem.  I never really understood why.

Yeah, see he said in the first place it was minor to him.

I agree with his assessment here, about the +2 damage and fighters defending at 1

That’s the same thing I’m saying, really, that when Larry changed strats to a whopping +2 damage, no change was made to interceptors/escorts.  BM made the appropriate change and I think SBR is good in BM

@Gamerman01:

@Shin:

I prefer OOB G40 SBR, but only marginally.  I think if you take away the +2 damage and leave fighters defending at 1, that would probably be fine.  But then, I’ve only ever seen it as a nice option to have, one that is used sometimes.  For some reason, others saw it as an absolute must and a major problem.  I never really understood why.

Yeah, see he said in the first place it was minor to him.

I agree with his assessment here, about the +2 damage and fighters defending at 1

That’s the same thing I’m saying, really, that when Larry changed strats to a whopping +2 damage, no change was made to interceptors/escorts.  BM made the appropriate change and I think SBR is good in BM

Triple A on 1942.2 is actually doing SBR like this StB A1 D6 damage Fg A1 D1
So both are good.

It doesn’t bother you that maxing out IC already reduced the effectiveness of StBs and Fg D2 deters bombers?

@Baron:

It doesn’t bother you that maxing out IC already reduced the effectiveness of StBs and Fg D2 deters bombers?

No
A big factor to me, is that with +2 damage the Strats are guaranteed to disable an airbase or naval base (if AA misses of course)  So the defender needs interceptors with defense of 2 I think, with +2 damage strats

So yeah, like you said, if bombers don’t have +2, then interceptors defending on a 1 is OK

With a facility that has a damage cap of 6, your average Strat bomber damage is 5 instead of 5.5
5/6 of 5, to factor in AA, lowers the average to 4 1/6.  1/6 of 12 is only 2

Maybe it’s my experience with all A&A games since the original when bombers cost 15, but I think bombers are definitely over-powered with +2 SBR damage and only costing 12 (and getting airbase boosts to range to boot) if fighter interceptors only defend on a 1.  So I am happy with the boost of fighter interceptors to 2 when you have Strategic bombers getting +2 damage

It occurs to me that if Tacs had more to do, that could solve the problem too.  Just let Tacs do everything fighters do (escort and defend against SBR), plus the +1 damage when paired with a fighter.  Might make them worth the 11.

@Gamerman01:

With a facility that has a damage cap of 6, your average Strat bomber damage is 5 instead of 5.5
5/6 of 5, to factor in AA, lowers the average to 4 1/6. 1/6 of 12 is only 2

Maybe it’s my experience with all A&A games since the original when bombers cost 15, but I think bombers are definitely over-powered with +2 SBR damage and only costing 12 (and getting airbase boosts to range to boot) if fighter interceptors only defend on a 1. So I am happy with the boost of fighter interceptors to 2 when you have Strategic bombers getting +2 damage

For me, increasing Fg to A2 D2 was a step in good direction.
But, since I like bombers get incentive to do SBR instead of regular combat, I rather prefer to keep D6+2.
Otherwise, it becomes so weak (damage vs odds of losing) that it is a non-nense to waste 12 IPCs bombers in SBR. Better keep them for regular combat support or projection of power over Naval units.

@Shin:

It occurs to me that if Tacs had more to do, that could solve the problem too.  Just let Tacs do everything fighters do (escort and defend against SBR), plus the +1 damage when paired with a fighter.  Might make them worth the 11.

To add water to the mill, many were used by Germany as Night-fighter interceptors.

@Baron:

@Gamerman01:

With a facility that has a damage cap of 6, your average Strat bomber damage is 5 instead of 5.5
5/6 of 5, to factor in AA, lowers the average to 4 1/6. 1/6 of 12 is only 2

Maybe it’s my experience with all A&A games since the original when bombers cost 15, but I think bombers are definitely over-powered with +2 SBR damage and only costing 12 (and getting airbase boosts to range to boot) if fighter interceptors only defend on a 1. So I am happy with the boost of fighter interceptors to 2 when you have Strategic bombers getting +2 damage

For me, increasing Fg to A2 D2 was a step in good direction.
But, since I like bombers get incentive to do SBR instead of regular combat, I rather prefer to keep D6+2.
Otherwise, it becomes so weak (damage vs odds of losing) that it is a non-nense to waste 12 IPCs bombers in SBR. Better keep them for regular combat support or projection of power over Naval units.

Well, yea.  I don’t think anyone is suggesting keeping fighters at 2 AND removing the +2 damage from Bombers.  It’s more like a one or the other thing.  Really, tho, it all comes out in the wash.  Right now, unless there’s something that hasn’t become apparent, BM 3.2 seems about as close to a perfect ruleset as one could really ask for, given their starting restrictions, which included not changing the cost of units and such.

Cruiser were boosted in a gamey way, not very historical but it is still a working compromise with Marines at cost 5.
Probably a more active and purchase unit now.