Pre release of the new version of Triple-A with the ability to post is here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/1.9.0.0.13066
Download if you want to become a beta tester. If you have any issues, I can pass them on or you can post yourself on github if you set up an account.
Note that you need to update the topic ID for the post step to work. The new topic ID is the number after “/forums/topic/” in the URL of the thread.
@Adam514 said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Russia is one of the most boring nations in vanilla… In BM you’ve got interesting choices to make depending on what the Axis do (China,Korea, Scandinavia), and there’s interdependancy with the Western Allies to push for the lend-lease territories at the same time as the Allies clear the sea zones. Russia becomes interesting to play in BM.
I think it’s still pretty boring in BM. There’s a big disincentive to do anything in Asia with the loss of the potential lend lease income. Perhaps it’s less a of a obstacle to go after Scandinavia but still there’s a big hurdle there. A few players will go hard after Japan anyway but they make a sacrifice to do so.
Most people attack 106, 110, 111 and ignore 91 and 93.
If you’re doing a G1 DOW you might attack 106, 110 and 91. A few people do 106, 111 and 91 but not sure of that idea. Never heard of anyone attacking SZ93 as Germany. So many better targets!
@Shin-Ji said in League General Discussion Thread:
is the dice server down for anyone else?
MARTI seems to be working.
You know what, you’re on if you still want.
One additional thing from what Argothair said is that you can go for the Med objective AND the Roman Empire objective if the Brits use this gambit. Hitting the fleet doesn’t prevent the amphibious assaults. I’d be thinking of that but it does likely cost you a transport to take Gibraltar.
I still think this needs a bid unit to make sense. Not building infantry in London doesn’t seem smart but I’m not focusing on the UK buy part - it doesn’t seem central.
I think a badge for league champion each year would be a great idea.
I didn’t see this thread when it was created.
This is a change I would be in favour of. It is much more historical this way. Paratroopers were specially trained units so a higher price makes sense. As opposed to the tech which makes every inf a potential paratrooper. Got to say that I do prefer the automatic air transport in G40. Or make a special unit for air transport as exists in some other (non-A&A) maps, so long as the expense isn’t prohibitive. I don’t much like the being carried in a bomber idea from earlier maps. Paratroops did meet up with other troops (hopefully soon) and fought as per normal so artillery bonuses should still apply.
@DermMannInDerHochburg said in Opinions of Bad Guy plans for new game:
@simon33 There exists a pacing that can get the ANZAC fighters, and certainly the starting ones, to Russia proper in time for a turn 6 defense, without using any islands.
You mean Queensland -> Malaya/Shan State? It’s possible but the fighters are still pretty exposed there. Japan can and almost certainly should hit those.
I don’t think 18 is enough. And the allies still need a bid in BM3 IMO.
Even though paratroopers without amphibious or overland support does have historical precedent such as Crete, the degree of abstraction in axis and allies makes it impractical to stimulate this. I feel it would add negative value. If realism really bothers you, an air transport unit would be the first place I would go.
Taking Iwo Jima US1 usually costs you a transport though. I think that’s a bad trade. A third TT for the Pacific could be a worthwhile investment. I guess you could bring across the Atlantic one just as quickly.
Japan might not be able to build any more Navy until J4 with what I’m outlining. J1: buy 3TTs, J2, buy naval base and air base in FIC (maybe), J3 buy IC in FIC. So if you lose all your DDs, you aren’t getting a new one for a while. That certainly means it won’t have much to buy J3. Perhaps it will buy another IC in China? It may be optimal for Japan to avoid buying an artillery so it can buy the two facilities and an IC for FIC. Hadn’t thought about that before.
You actually only really need one DD to hit SZ6 and devastate a sub force, even if it’s part of a mixed fleet.
I actually kind of like your plan - I wasn’t looking to criticise it. I would be cautious about putting a bunch of subs in SZ6 though. They can so easily be trapped and not able to escape. Running to Midway is only any good if you can stand and fight there. You would need a force able to strike a DD+scramble every US turn so I think you should be thinking of taking Korea, best done as USA. Otherwise Japan could even build an airbase there. The bigger threat is the IJN though.
I’m also interested in playing allies again, if anyone is looking.
Yeah, if reasonable price points could be developed, I would be keen to see this in balanced mod. Also, just have one paratrooper per air transport. Ideally the aa guns would shoot at the transports and the troops would die if hit. I reckon 4ipc per paratroop would be about right. Or do you think it should be more?
One more thing. I wouldn’t bother with upgrading units to become paratroopers, just recruit paratroopers from scratch. Or provide both. If it took longer to get a paratrooper than a battleship that would be ridiculous.
Now as for the idea of having different capabilities per nation, death to your feeble plan!
Running from Moscow makes sense if you can’t defend it and won’t kill many troops standing firm, but the probability is that you won’t get to the Middle East before the Germans will unless you go down via Kazakhstan and Eastern Persia. Going that way doesn’t really save Egypt in any likely scenario.
So I’ve certainly seen it done. And there are times it makes sense to do so. It just isn’t as good as holding Moscow and closing in on the Germans and Italians from Norway, Greece and/or Normandy. And convoying off the Italians’ income.
To be honest, I would rather reduce their attack value. Last night actually I discovered there was an incidence of a B-17 actually hitting a surface ship. Never heard of that before.
Still, an increase in their cost may be an improvement on the status quo.
This idea was a bit out of left field.
If Germany keeps its troops together, there is no way that USSR can counter attack. End of story really.
Regarding Moscow falling G6, the allies need a plan to prevent this because it’s really hard to win if this happens. The normal plan is the allies, particularly UK, flying a bunch of fighters to Moscow, normally done out of the Middle East. Going via Scandinavia is also possible but a lot more difficult.
Just rolled it, but I don’t think you could have seen the results. You said final answer so I’ll roll the fighter by “Roll Dice”.
@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Maybe crusiers should be even lower, maybe 10.
I wouldn’t like that so much. That makes cruisers nearly as good value as a mixed carrier group 4Cru only slightly less than 1ftr 1tac 1cv if they are being attacked and the cruisers have more attack value.
@regularkid said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
Also, like others, I am apprehensive about changing other bomber stats like range and attack power. Among other things, doing so would upset opening moves with God-knows-what unintended consequences.
Alright, let’s go through the potential changes to opening attacks.
SZ111 no scramble 1BB 2sub 1ftr 1tac 1bomb. Now: 99.7% A3 bomb: 99.6%
SZ111 scramble 1BB 2sub 1ftr 1tac 1bomb Now: 95% A3 bomb: 93%
SZ110 no scramble 2sub 3ftr 3tac 1bomb Now: 100% A3 bomb: 100%
SZ110 scramble 2sub 3ftr 3tac 1bomb Now: 92% A3 bomb: 71%
SZ37 1ftr 1cru 2bomb Now: 99.9% A3 bomb: 99.3%
Yunnan 3inf 1art 1ftr 1tac 2bomb Now: 100% A3 bomb: 99.9%
Yunnan 2inf 1art 1ftr 1tac 2bomb Now: 99.8% A3 bomb: 99.6%
Only one to be at all concerned with there, IMHO, is SZ110 w/scramble. Perhaps the change will be positive, or perhaps swing it too much then. Perhaps both.