@trulpen said in TT Pejones (X) vs adam-dominion (A+16) BM3:
Oh, ok. Well, mainly looking at to place 1 mech more in WG and leaving 1 inf, 1 art in Finland. Trust that’s ok. If it is, Peter can take care of that before executing battles with J.
Oh oops didn’t see, yeah all good.
@Sovietishcat Vichy victory? Never heard of that.
Same victory conditions as vanilla, except if Berlin is in Allied hands then Japan needs 7 VCs instead of 6, and if Tokyo is in Allied hands Euro-Axis need 9 VCs instead of 8.
@oysteilo It hasn’t been addressed, but it’s likely that everything in sz 93 turns Vichy.
Maybe games last longer because it’s more balanced :thinking_face: .
@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod 3.0 - Rules and Download:
VICHY FRANCE RULE SET
Can Axis use the neutral naval base in S France?
Yes they can.
@ksmckay It’s practice for blitz BM3 with a chess timer :joy: .
@witt said in TT adam-dominion (X) vs Coltwitt (A+20) bm3:
@adam514 @axis-dominion i changed t he US purchases by editing, as I rolled no dice. It is hard getting on the computer at the moment, as both my young children need it for home schooling. I could not afford the time to redo.
I trust this is acceptable.
Not a problem.
@simon33 You’re forgetting the German bomber in the Pac which severely limits the options of the smaller US fleet, can’t block without wasting many ships.
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD
Hey all. The Mod Squad is contemplating a new change to Balance Mod, and would like to solicit your feedback. The proposed change: increase the cost of strategic bombers from 12 to 14 PUs.
The rationale for this proposed change is as follows: It appears, from the increasing number of BM league games wherein players have agreed to an Allied bid (albeit smaller bids than we typically see in vanilla games) and from the slightly skewed win/loss ratio in favor of Axis, that our goal of balancing the game hasn’t been totally realized.
One of the reasons for this is the Axis’s continuing positional advantage on the map; they are able more readily to project threat across the board, to multiple key points at once. This advantage is particularly pronounced when it comes to bombers, with their long range, high attack value, and added utility as strategic bombers. We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. But bomber spam remains a viable strategy, and continues to be OP, especially for Germany.
Increasing the cost of strategic bombers to 14, we think, would more accurately reflect the unit’s strategic value and go a long way to rectifying the foregoing issues. We would be interested to hear the community’s thoughts on this.
Thanks!
The cost is also better in line with fighter and tactical bomber cost for its effectiveness. Currently, bombers are a much better deal for the price compared to tactical bombers in nearly every situation.
Going forward we’ll ignore that official rule. Strafing is hard enough already.
Since we are opening the debate to change 1 unit’s cost, other cost changes can be debated.
@aequitas-et-veritas said in TT Oberkommando BrAeV (X) vs adam-dominion (A+18):
I apologize to all for being slow. I have been promoted at my job and therefore my responibilty has grown. Will try to be more committed to our game @Adam514 and @axis-dominion .
Again, I am sorry.
No worries, congrats!
Bidding rules have been territory-based over unit-based in all my games I think, and NG inf is a classic. I see no reason to change how most people have been bidding. It doesn’t break the game, far from it.
Feel free to consider the cost increase as a reduced effectiveness, hence requiring more planes to do the same damage.
@666 Lesson for next time to play Axis ;).