G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@Gamerman01:

Stalingrad not a significant city where the Germans “happened to be stopped”?

You need to read up on your history.  Ever heard of “not one step back”?
Never heard that Hitler was obsessed with Stalingrad because of its name?
Not to mention I’m sure the location was very strategic - gateway to the oil fields or something.  And then there were the massive “tractorworks”

The Germans were within spitting distance of Moscow and decided to turn and go towards Stalingrad, that’s how significant Stalingrad is.  This game is a big letdown when the Germans walk into an empty Stalingrad……  Not to mention no battle at Pearl Harbor or Midway, etc etc etc  :-)

I’m pretty sure that a fair part of the reason for this battle is that if the Germans won their forces in the Caucasus, their flank would have had some natural protection from the Volga River.

I haven’t heard that Hitler was obsessed because of its name. Interesting! Yes, I’ve heard of “not a step back”. The Soviets lost a lot of men and weapons because of this attitude, e.g. in Kiev even though that battle was before the order.

Did the tractorworks get applied to war machines? I don’t really think anything you said rebuts what I said. It had propoganda value. I guess we have an NO for USSR for propaganda. Why not one for Germany?

Re: Guam, you might also put in some air cover but even if you don’t the most likely outcome from a scramble is a dead fighter and a damaged BB. The ANZAC would need some ships in SZ54 to attack it. Unlikely anything else could reach.

@regularkid:

I also find the lack of regular game circumstances for pivotal battles at Midway, Stalingrad, and a surprise attack at Pear Harbor annoying.

Re: Pearl Habor. That battle did not achieve the Japanese goal of sinking the US carriers so given that  recon isn’t modelled in the game our perfect intelligence makes the value proposition negative.

One more comment on Pearl Harbour. Bad weather the day before had kept USS Enterprise out of the harbour. If that hadn’t have happened, the Pacific might have gone down very differently! That carrier fought at Midway and in the Solomon Islands campaign (the only full size carrier to survive it). Also provided air cover for the Doolittle raid if that raid achieved enough propaganda value to justify the cost. Apparently not in the Coral Sea for some reason.

@simon33:

Re: Guam, you might also put in some air cover but even if you don’t the most likely outcome from a scramble is a dead fighter and a damaged BB. The ANZAC would need some ships in SZ54 to attack it. Unlikely anything else could reach.

So you were imagining Japan doing the attack?  I guess like on J2
ANZAC doesn’t have to attack it, the USA can!!!  I’ve done it before

Yes Hitler was interested in Stalingrad because of the name, and likewise Stalin said not one step back partly because of the name, from the documentaries I watch anyway

Would probably be easy to check, but I think the “tractorworks” were relevant to tank building?

The USA can only attack SZ21 (Guam) if they have units in range. Same with ANZAC. I’d actually imagine that SZ54 would be hit on a J2 if there is anything there. You’d need a bomber somewhere like Wake Is or a naval base there. Doesn’t seem to likely unless Japan doesn’t position J1 to threaten SZ54 like I would.

Indeed, the T-34 was built in Stalingrad. So an NO is probably justified. Why have an NO for Germany though? Just done a bit of digging and it seems there weren’t too many bridges over the Volga in the 1940s. There was a rail bridge at Syrzan 686km by road away though.

I think when I counterattacked Guam sz with USA once, I had air at Wake, almost certainly a bomber and at least 2 planes, which could attack because of a carrier at Hawaii
You could also have the sub and destroyer from the Philippines in range, and depends on what was done with ships in 26 on USA1, so no, you certainly do not need a new naval base

Don’t make me play you…

I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone position like that.

I did say “or” a naval base.

@simon33:

I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone position like that.

Man I hear that a lot!  I think that’s a good thing……

Now with Kid’s comment, I wonder if he was the one I devastated with a counterstrike at Guam US3 - I think he was…

Done some digging in the code, my suggestion of removing bombardment support from marines isn’t possible without change. Unless there’s a huge call for it, it probably isn’t going to happen.

@simon33:

Done some digging in the code, my suggestion of removing bombardment support from marines isn’t possible without change. Unless there’s a huge call for it, it probably isn’t going to happen.

Why would we remove bombardment support from marines? It’s not like they are too strong.

I think the bombardment is overly strong. I may be the only one who thinks that.

Bombardment is severely underpowered in G40. A lot stops it, and its effects are minimal.

When I was first playing classic we didn’t know the rules and played that if you didn’t use the BB in the sea combat it could still bombard. Is it really that underpowered? 1inf+1art with 2BBs will on average kill 2 units in the first round. Kind of weird that artillery is used and gets the combined arms bonus in an amphibious assault. As if a howitzer was going to fire from a landing ship’s deck! I guess Kid is going to tell me that it did happen now.

My only gripe with bombardment is that hit units get to fire back at your landing troops!  Kinda defeats the purpose of bombarding.  It’s a house rule for my group.

@majikforce:

My only gripe with bombardment is that hit units get to fire back at your landing troops!  Kinda defeats the purpose of bombarding.  It’s a house rule for my group.

Agreed with that, casualties from bombardment shouldn’t be able to defend. Also I think a damaged bb shouldn’t be able to bombard until repaired.

Excellent point! I like it.  Total game redesign needed!  :wink:

@simon33:

I guess Kid is going to tell me that it did happen now.

:lol:

The rules have gone both ways in past iterations of A&A.  I think in the original, bombardment did blow units off the map and they couldn’t return fire.  But battleships cost 24 and you didn’t have cruisers, so apples and oranges

I think many times in WWII even heavy naval bombardment was not very effective.  I’m sure you could find instances where it was devastating and instances where it was almost completely ineffective.  Adam totally right that bombardment gets stopped by any combat in the zone, scrambles, and kamikazes.

I think it’s fine the way it is.  The fact that you can bombard with inf/art/cruiser/battleship (11 attack power) and most likely eliminate 2 units (but up to 4) is powerful.

Keep in mind sometimes the casualty is an AAA gun anyway, or it’s some defending 2’s so often has little effect.  No difference if you’re (am I the only one that does this?) suiciding a couple of units into a huge stack, say on Normandy (which normally does not have any defense against bombardment)

So there are very different situations -

Imagine attacking Iraq with the UK early in the game with a BB and cruiser.  If those both hit, 2 of the 3 infantry would be eliminated and not be able to fight.  What, your battleships in WWII can fire from the Persian gulf all the way inland to Baghdad and annihilate 2/3 of the army?

Or you have a situation where you’re suiciding 1 ground unit into a big stack, with battleship support.  In this case it doesn’t matter if the bombardment casualties can fire back or not, because there is a virtually 0% chance that the attacker will fire twice.

With scrambles, kamikazes, combat in zones (to clear a transport, sub, or destroyer, or whatever), there isn’t much bombardment in the game anyway, so changing the rule wouldn’t make much difference, but could give you extreme situations which may be undesirable, like the Iraq example