Posts made by Mursilis

@oysteilo Well a few posts back there was data that the axis are winning 56% of the time. But they also said that the axis was getting a bid.

So… that would imply to me that the allies might have a bit too much money from NO’s now. But I’m not sure if this is totally accurate. Feelings and hard data a two different things.

However not being open to changes or suggestions is not a good way to be. I mean what if changing a NO by one dollar dramatically changes and balances the whole game.

But again I’m not sure if there really is a balance issue or not. With the marine this makes anzac a pain in the ass for the japanese now. Get 2 of em first round and make cruisers and take islands. Cool.

I think the +5 IPC’s stated in my above post should come down to 3 for the us. I could be wrong though.

@regularkid
Yes, I play it mainly IRL.

I think that it is fantastic and if you are fine with the cruiser then all is well.

The next point is if the axis get a bid why not slightly decrease the NO dollars that the US gets from guam/islands and morroco/north africa from 5 to 3 ipc’s.

I would like there to be no bid at all really. I don’t play with a bid and i feel that the US NO’s might be the issue if the axis are getting a small bid now. OR giving an additional NO of 2 IPC’s to Italy. Something easy like holding yugoslavia and greece.

I just don’t know what the data says. I feel like japan is where it needs to be along with everyone else except italy still seems a bit weak and US a bit too strong as far as NO bonus bucks.

The vichy rule balances out italy a bit but if the uk lands an S france that vichy rule is done. So you could change it to if ITALY controls southern france and normandy or something else they receive 2 IPC’s.

What do you think?

I was wondering if a change could be implemented to make Cruiser’s 11 IPC’s and remove 1 infantry from northern italy and add one mechanized infantry. The cruiser change would just give a bit of incentive to buy it because why buy 2 cruisers when you could get 3 destroyers. The second change about northern italy is that that one mech would give italy/germany the option for italy to take normandy round one instead of just germany taking it and france. I don’t think it would change the eastern front at all.

The 11 IPC cruiser would be somewhat more beneficial to anzac and UK PAC. UK could buy a cruiser and sub on round one if they chose to stack a fleet round 1.

I’m reading that the mod is somehow still in axis favor and I"m wondering if that it because of europe or pacific?

If it is truly an balance issue you could modify the cruiser to be 12 IPC’s and A4 D4 when paired with a BB and be able to move 1 infantry OR marine. This would make anzac slightly more powerful to balance out japan if there is a balance issue there.

I feel the board is pretty well balanced but I’m probably an intermediate player.

Hope to get a response since this thread has been dead for a month…

@barnee
Well if you use the Tamvaan mode PLUS you make the cruiser cost 12, able to transport 1 infantry and A4 and D4 when paired with a BB you could balance out both germany and japan since you slightly buff the Soviets and anzac enough to counter Japan.

My only concern is that it might make Anzac too strong. If someone else could test it as well and let me know that would be great. Perhaps if you did Tamvan’s mod plus the cruiser change it would be a better balance.

Well the cruiser is a big success. BB’s and cruisers are being purchases now and the starting positions help balance out the game in many ways. One of the best changes is making anzac a little stronger.

Everyone should give it a try. Definitely changes up the game for the better I feel.

Also if you are using the BM3 in your game live or online you want to use the vichy french rule. I was wrong about that. But you might want to take one infantry out in northern italy and add one mech infantry. This lets you pic if you want germany or Italy to take normandy to activate the vichy rule.

Alright starting up the next game. Doing Cruiser at 12 IPC 4A 4D when paired with BB and can transport 1 infantry starting round 2. I’ll let you guys know how it goes.

@Argothair

I’m playtesting it at least. But i can only playtest 1 game at a time. I’m currently doing 11 IPC cruiser and shockingly it’s not being purchased.

@Argothair

My cost restructuring was only going to lower cruisers to 10 and BB’s to 18. Keeping everything else the same. Why do you want to give transports a defense of 1 again? And why reprice everything?

@taamvan

I’m not changing a bunch of at once I’m coming up with as many ideas that I like at once and testing them one at a time. I just want to do the best ones first. For example my next game I’m going to test the 12 IPC cruiser with the ability to carry 1 infantry but that ability won’t take effect until the second round of the game. This way it won’t change the initial set up drastically but can still play a pivotal roll in the game.

I also love how the BM mod makes minor island strands an important national objective to claim and fight over. However I find the vichy france rules to be unnecessary as it hurts the allies and the axis at the same time for no real reason and kills all point of having france in the game.

Anyway I just like to have as many options on the table for me to ponder over.

@taamvan

I’m thinking BM3 in combination with your modification of Caucasus and stalingrad 5 ipcs to 3, starting tank in urals and fighter in moscow and leningrad worth 5 still might completely fix game balance. I’m also considering if having cruisers able to transport 1 infantry will change japan power in pacific because everyone can take those money islands that much faster slowing down japan.

Well the other option that was rattling around in my head was slightly adjusting costs for not only the cruiser but the BB. The cruiser would drop to 10 IPC’s and the BB would drop to 18 IPC’s. Every other attribute would stay the same. The destroyer is the infantry of the sea so the cruiser would be the fighter of the sea. Except fighters would still defend on 4s and can be used anywhere. And 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer would still be equal in price to a BB. The BB and cruiser would get a little more play due to cost reduction but would still not remove the value of the carrier and fighters.

And SS GEN I’m coming up with these ideas because I’m already playtesting the 11 IPC cruiser. And since it takes a while to play one game I want to start with the best suggestion.

I like 10 cruiser 18 BB.
Also cruiser normal price and can carry 1 infantry.
Last would be the destroyer at 1 A 2 D and 2 can pair up with a cruiser. Maybe drop destroyer price to 7 and cruiser to 11.

But the first two are simple. Usually keeping things simple is the best solution to a problem.

After much consideration I think these three are probably the most realistic and easiest fixes. So the question is which one do you guys like best? I’m going to play test whichever one you guys think would best balance out the cruiser in my next game.

And thanks again for all your time and deliberation guys!

@barnee

That’s a good idea. 2 DD for 1 CA.

@Argothair

So you feel that J1 is a bad move for Japan? Germany can just veer off and hit leningrad if they wanted. They could move down towards Gibraltar and threaten a direct attack on the US.

How do you feel about making the destroyer attack on a 1 and is buffed up to a 2 when paired with a cruiser?

@taamvan

If Japan does a J1 attack it can be very hard to come back from. Take borneo, Philippines, knock out the american fleet at hawaii, kill the UK BB, kill the Anzac destroyer/transport, take kwangtung and FIC. You are 1 or 2 turns from claiming the money islands and everyone can just stare at you. Couple this with doing a sealion and where does america go?

I agree that in OOB there are not enough island chains. However in the BM3 version are are some very important 3 ipc bonus island chains that you can claim. Some even 5 if you own all 3 islands. So having the cruiser able to carry 1 infantry would make the pacific into a more interesting and active combat zone.

I think I’m going to try this on my next game actually. I am currently running 11 IPC cruisers. Still not buying them. Just no incentive.

Alright this is where I am with this cruiser situation. 11 IPC’s and attack at 4 when paired with a battleship. Otherwise defends on a 3 and bombard on a 3.

Or just keep them at 12 and just allow 1 infantry transport. I still see the utility of it as the main reason to buy. But having it at 11 allows you to buy 1 cruiser and a sub turn 1 with UK pac.

Another thing is having the cruiser able to transport troops allows faster island hopping for EVERYONE. Not just Japan. Sure they can get a few extra places but anzac can now build a combat fleet AND drop a guy off on the money islands. Same with US and UK. Maybe that would be best. I would be much more willing to buy a 12 IPC cruiser if i could move an infantry around.

What about this…
The destroyer is the infantry of the sea right? So why don’t we just change that 2 Attack to a 1 and have the cruiser act like artillery for infantry. So every destroyer paired up with a cruiser has an attack of 2. This would force people to buy more subs for offensive punch. What do you think of that?

I’m doing the 11 IPC Cruiser. I know that pairing it with a battleship will change the med fight quite a bit and dramatically change the battles around London. So I’ll see if i get more play with this.

I’ll do pairing with the BB next game which will help the UK out quite a bit weakening the luftwaffe(good thing) and slightly help the Italians in the med. So early game might balance out. I think that the pairing with BB might be the best solution to be honest.

What about keeping the cruiser at 12 IPC’s but gets boosted up to a 4 Attack 4 Defense when paired with a Battleship?

Or maybe just 11 IPC’s for the cruiser. This seems like it would not harm the initial set up since many BB’s are already paired with CA’s. Two cruisers for 22 IPC’s vs 24 seems like a decent change but not too drastic.

So then how can we make the Cruiser a viable choice in the game? Is it fine where it is with it’s limited use? Should it cost 10 or 11 IPCs? Should it be able to transport one infantry?

Seems like most people would buy anything else over a Cruiser. Larry Harris bumped up tanks from 5 to 6 maybe the same change needs to be applied to cruisers?

I’m about to start a new game with my buddy and we are wondering if we should make a house rule or keep the cruiser as it is.

Thanks everyone!