G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread

@oysteilo:

One final comment/question

I think you have written something about this in the past, but I don�t find it. So you say that the main objective of BM is to create a better game, maybe especially suited for online play. Exactly what are these options that you can pursue in BM that you cannot pursue in 1st edition or 2nd edition? I guess this goes for both sides. If you know where it is written, a link is OK.

I have no idea if what I write here is correct. However, assuming that 1st edition is more balanced than 2nd edition, maybe it is not I don�t know. But you still say BM is better even though you have never played it! You say it is better because there are more options in BM. I am then returning to my point above here, please explain what these options are. I am sorry if I am slow and annoying here  (And btw, if balancing is not the main point, maybe Balance Mode is a rather misleading name?)

The modified NOs simply make what should have been viable but wasn’t in 2nd edition viable again, which adds more options and leads to more interesting games. Examples can be found on this thread.

Because I made the assumption that 1st edition is similar to 2nd edition (which it is) since they were constrained by practicality to limit the number and complexity of NOs for the boardgame release. BM is a slightly misleading title indeed, but that’s what marketing is all about  :wink:.

@oysteilo:

For marines, seems like no one buys it anymore.

@cyanight:

TripleA Turn Summary for game: World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3, version: 3.3

Round 2:

Purchase Units - British
            British buy 1 fighter, 2 infantry and 4 marines; Remaining resources: 0 PUs;

;)

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

@Gamerman01:

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

I will have to look at what you guys do with all those marines.  Typically they sit around not doing too much. So I guess I am doing something wrong……

@oysteilo:

@Gamerman01:

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

I will have to look at what you guys do with all those marines.  Typically they sit around not doing too much. So I guess I am doing something wrong……

If you have cruisers and BBs lying around, it’s a better deal to buy marines than to buy transports.

@Adam514:

@oysteilo:

@Gamerman01:

I recently bought 3 with the UK, all at once  :-)
But 4 is more than I ever have

I will have to look at what you guys do with all those marines.  Typically they sit around not doing too much. So I guess I am doing something wrong……

If you have cruisers and BBs lying around, it’s a better deal to buy marines than to buy transports.

This is interesting. Exactely how? Sure if you can take an “empty” territory and save your cruiser/battleship and marine or make the attack unfavrorable on your cruiser battleship. Maybe I worry too much about enemy sinking my ships……In general I disagree with your statement, but please explain.

Transports cost 7, the Inf to put on them is another 3.  So to take an unoccupied island, you need to spend 10.

You can do the same thing with one marine (if you already have a ship for it) for only 5.

@Shin:

Transports cost 7, the Inf to put on them is another 3.  So to take an unoccupied island, you need to spend 10.

You can do the same thing with one marine (if you already have a ship for it) for only 5.

I agree 100% with this, but you dont need 3 or 4 for this. marines/Cruiser/Battleships are great for empty areas (as long as you dont need to defend the boats)

@oysteilo:

@Shin:

Transports cost 7, the Inf to put on them is another 3.  So to take an unoccupied island, you need to spend 10.

You can do the same thing with one marine (if you already have a ship for it) for only 5.

I agree 100% with this, but you dont need 3 or 4 for this. marines/Cruiser/Battleships are great for empty areas (as long as you dont need to defend the boats)

They are more cost-effective even if you simply want to make a landing in Normandy. 2 marines cost less than 1 transport and 2 inf, not to mention a lower TUV swing if ever your fleet comes under attack since you don’t have as many defenseless tps.

Plus, those two marines can land in two different places.

@Adam514:

If you have cruisers and BBs lying around, it’s a better deal to buy marines than to buy transports.

This was my situation.  0-1 transports for London, but I had 2 cruisers and a battleship

And offloading from safe 110 with airbase cover

OK

Thanks for the input! I will investigate these options from now on

You can see what becomes of my 3 marines if you watch my current game with JWW

Also, I think we bought them for Japan and USA.

The other point is that 2 marines can assault 2 different islands, but one TT+inf+art can’t.

Gents, I am wondering: Is there a bug in the tripleA calculator?

There seems to be something wrong with Japan. Please do the following:

Japan attacks with 10 fig, 10 tacs
US defends vs 3 inf and 1 AA
–> Average TUV +4 (which is odd)

Italy attacks with 10 fig, 10 tacs
UK defends vs 3 inf and 1 AA
–> Average TUV -1,9 (which is more realistic)

It looks crazy, many combinations provide the imo wrong result
Ger vs US
Ita vs US

However Italy vs UK seems to provide the correct result.

Is it possible that the calculator has a bug here?

Can you confirm different outcomes of the same battle depending on which powers you select?

@JDOW:

Gents, I am wondering: Is there a bug in the tripleA calculator?

There seems to be something wrong with Japan. Please do the following:

Japan attacks with 10 fig, 10 tacs
US defends vs 3 inf and 1 AA
–> Average TUV +4 (which is odd)

Italy attacks with 10 fig, 10 tacs
UK defends vs 3 inf and 1 AA
–> Average TUV -1,9 (which is more realistic)

It looks crazy, many combinations provide the imo wrong result
Ger vs US
Ita vs US

However Italy vs UK seems to provide the correct result.

Is it possible that the calculator has a bug here?

Can you confirm different outcomes of the same battle depending on which powers you select?

This isn’t the right thread for this  :wink:.

I have noticed odd battle calcs between Japan and UK (Pac). In also have my suspicions about the OOL of fighters and tacs (I think it may kill all fighters then all tacs in the calc OOL).

Not sure if you messed something up when editing the BM rules or so:D

There is certainly something wrong. If you add a second AA (10 figs + 10 tac vs 3 inf + 2 AA it shows plus 9 for the attacker.

I was aware of the UK Pacific bug but in this case the battles were simply 100% or 0%, here we might have a nasty bugs that produces wrong results which are not easy to see. Where should I report it?

No I don’t mean the 0% or 100% thing, it was an Indian defense that showed 90%+ when Japan had less units than the defenders.

We didn’t touch the battle calculator haha, I’ve seen some odd things from the calc from time to time in vanilla as well so it’s not related to BM.

It would be a TripleA bug, not sure if there is a thread on this site.

@JDOW:

Not sure if you messed something up when editing the BM rules or so:D

There is certainly something wrong. If you add a second AA (10 figs + 10 tac vs 3 inf + 2 AA it shows plus 9 for the attacker.

I was aware of the UK Pacific bug but in this case the battles were simply 100% or 0%, here we might have a nasty bugs that produces wrong results which are not easy to see. Where should I report it?

I can’t duplicate this - there must be more steps involved to confuse it.

If you like you can log an issue on github but please try to come up with something reproducible first.

There is an argument that we should never show 100% or 0% when both sides have fighting units. The developers are also aware of the ridiculous bug with multinational forces on the attack.

Simon, did you see my first post about the calculator bug, too? Please check out here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39093.45
the bug can be reproduced.