Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

[souL]

@Subotai:

I strongly feel that I can improve my strats and tactics when I play allies in AA50. But my learning curve has been to acknowledge the need for bids. Allies need bid in 41 +NO and no tech. I can also improve my axis play, there’s a lot to learn in AA50 from Revised.

Yep, there’s a lot to learn.  Including the fact that a well-oiled allied machine keeps at least an even-up record against the Axis.  I’ve been taking on all comers with the allies for over 60 games now and I’ve got over 40 wins.

There are some who believes LL is part of the reason why axis have advantage in this setting, but this statement would only be true if one side gets more hits than the opponent. LL is close to average dice rolls, but luck is reduced, not removed. If it is true that axis is better of with LL than regular dice than you also assume that allies is more lucky than the axis side…   :roll: and that this is happening not only in one game, but several games, more than 50%…   :roll:

I have yet to find good allied strats if playing w/o bids, thats why I don’t  :wink:

Low Luck, no luck, it doesn’t matter.  Bringing it is bringing it.  You just need friends who are better allies players.

Imo we could start with a 6 ipc bid to allies, or bid down from whatever amount is appropriate.

The main reason why there is an axis bias in 41 +NOs is that it’s much easier for Japan and Germany to get hold of 10-15 each of their NOs, while allies have a hard time getting the same income level as axis, because for allies it will be proportionally more difficult to get their NOs as it is easier for the axis side. You don’t have to be an expert player to know this, and quickly learn how to play axis so that you get your cash by grabbing NOs and TT’s which used to belong to allies. W/o bids you will not be able to deny Germany 15 ipc NOs from rnd 1-2 and rest of the game, if Germany wants to, and why shouldn’t the axis player try to get maximum amount of cash? Unless I make grave mistakes, you will not stop me from owning Karelia most of the game, thus I’m getting my 15 ipc for Germany, either by trading Karelia or by stacking it enough so that Russia or UK cannot take it back. This is why allies need a bid.

So can I assume with Ger you’re talking the majority of your luftwaffe at Karelia?

Firstly and most importantly, how do you deal with sz 2, sz 12, and Egy?  When so much money is poured into Karelia, it leaves the Med VERY vulnerable.  If you leave sz 12 unattended and have never lost your Italian fleet before they got a turn, your friends just aren’t creative enough.  Say you hit sz 12 and don’t hit sz 2 or 9, you leave both British trn on the board.  If sz 2 and sz 9 are both in tact, the British can do the same thing to fra you just did to kar, and the bad news is there’s no AA gun to chew up their air units, their support shot is better, you’ve likely got less units there, and it’s worth more.  If Egy is in tact and you lose fra first turn then it’s pretty likely the British are going to collect over 50.  There’s just NO way people can go at Kar first turn without feeling some sort of AWFUL wrath from Britain because the Germans aren’t doing their part to neutralize them.

Same goes for Japan, although UK+US can possibly hold or trade India for some rnds, same goes for Australia. If allies makes it their goal they can stack Australia, but none of this helps allies win w/o a bid. I only need one landing in Bury J2, then the rest goes south to Frindo, and towards India. If India is stacked then i take Australia. I get my 15 ipc with Japan most of the game. This is why allies need a bid.

Slowing the Japanese down isn’t about stopping them from getting bonuses.  They’re so far away from anything, it’s about delaying them for enough turns to do what you want to Germany/Italy.  Before they go the Russians get to present the Japanese with too many threats to counter, and the allies react accordingly.

Seriously, I can’t see any point in discussing strats for either side in AA50 if the setup is 41 +NO, without mentioning where to place the bids, and what units should allies buy with their bid.

I can’t seriously see the point of continuing conversations with you if you’re not in the play boardgames forum putting your money where your mouth is.

[Lucifer]

@souL:

I can’t seriously see the point of continuing conversations with you if you’re not in the play boardgames forum putting your money where your mouth is.

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/mywiki

I’m in the unstable lobby, putting my money where my mouth is…

I see bids being used already in the lobby, but not all players use bids though.

Ok, so you do not agree with me, and what many players think, 41 +NOs favors axis, you think its balanced, or maybe even favors the allies?

It’s not very unbalanced imo, but I do think that it will be hard to beat me w/o any bids for allies.

Download the unstable version, it’s not perfect yet, might have to use the editor a few times, but both of us knows the rules of AA50 so it’s not a problem.

Send a pm when you got time to play, remember the premise: AA50 41, no tech, low luck, NOs. No bids!
I’m playing axis.

[Lucifer]

@souL:

So can I assume with Ger you’re talking the majority of your luftwaffe at Karelia?

Thats a tricky one, I’m not sure if Kalia G1 attack is more optimal then G2. Usually Germany can take and hold, or trade Kalia from rnd 2, but all of my (+NOs w/o bid) games regardless of which side I played, Germany was able to get 10-15 ipc from rnd 2 until the allied player concedes.

If you played 60 AA50 games then you’re more experienced than me, I’ve only played about 15-20 games.

[Lucifer]

@gandhi:

those of you who do play with a bid for the allies, how high a bid is needed? and do you have any restrictions on where to put it? and in either case where do you put them?

I would put one inf in Egy and maybe one in Kalia, but if the Kalia G1 attack is bad for Germans, let they do it.

As for now, I would bid 9 ipc for allies, one unit pr. TT. About bidding for a new game such as AA50, we must try and fail before we know where the most optimal bids are.

All of my perceptions of game balance is open for modifications, if the empirical data changes. When I start losing games when I play axis in 41 +NOs, no tech + low luck, then I will start bidding lower instead of playing axis against 6-8 bids.

[Lucifer]

@souL:

So can I assume with Ger you’re talking the majority of your luftwaffe at Karelia?

Firstly and most importantly, how do you deal with sz 2, sz 12, and Egy?  When so much money is poured into Karelia, it leaves the Med VERY vulnerable.  If you leave sz 12 unattended and have never lost your Italian fleet before they got a turn, your friends just aren’t creative enough.  Say you hit sz 12 and don’t hit sz 2 or 9, you leave both British trn on the board.  If sz 2 and sz 9 are both in tact, the British can do the same thing to fra you just did to kar, and the bad news is there’s no AA gun to chew up their air units, their support shot is better, you’ve likely got less units there, and it’s worth more.  If Egy is in tact and you lose fra first turn then it’s pretty likely the British are going to collect over 50.  There’s just NO way people can go at Kar first turn without feeling some sort of AWFUL wrath from Britain because the Germans aren’t doing their part to neutralize them.

Even if I do the Kalia attack G1, and if it is suboptimal for Germany, I don’t think you will win against me if the premise for the game is 41, +NO, LL, NT. I’m axis and there is no bids.

In one or two of my games I started trading France from rnd 1, maybe not optimal, but it only prolonged the game…

Now I’m wondering if a UK sub bid in sz 12 might be a smart bid?

[gandhi]

First of all, thanks for the reply Subotai.
In regards to the sub in seazone 12, i dont think it would matter. In an german opening like the one i set out above you can just ignore the gamble part in seazone 9 and bring an additional sub to seazone 12. The end result wouldnt change much. I am pretty certain that Egypt is the key to changing the course of battle. But then again, i dont seem to be able to find the the proper way to grease the wheels of the allied machinery to have it run smoothly, so there might be something i miss completely. souL, can you give any tips on how you set it up?

[Mazer Rackham]

@Subotai:

There are some who believes LL is part of the reason why axis have advantage in this setting, but this statement would only be true if one side gets more hits than the opponent.

Hey Subo.

It’s not just the number of hits, it’s risk management for strafes and allocation of offensive power (particularly airpower).

1. LL dice favors/allows precise strafing.  Does one side benefit from strafing more than the other side?  In AA4 the Axis gains a major strafing advantage in the managment of WEU/EEU.  Often if you attempt a strafe out of Berlin but accidentally take the territory then Berlin falls.  This means the Axis can gain one or two rounds by inflicting a maximum strafe without dropping Berlin.  I suspect this accounts for bids being slightly lower in LL than I would expect them to be with normal dice.

The Allies theoretically should have a similar advantage coming out of Moscow, but functionally the stacks are different and LL favors the Axis in regards to large strafes.

2. LL gives precision attacks allowing near-complete knowledge of force needed to take a territory.  For instance, both players know how much airpower to send in small battles to swap land.  This would theoretically be a wash, but since Germany has more airpower than Russia the Axis gain a slight advantage here as well.  You know if you send 1inf 2ftr at 1inf then you take the land 67% of the time and never lose a plane.

There are a few other risk dynamics that are negated by LL, but I’d say in general a LL bid will differ from a normal bid by several IPCs to reflect the leverage gained by more complete knowledge of the dice.  Note in AA5 I’m not saying yet which side benefits more from LL, I’m merely pointing out that LL should have a slightly different bid than normal rules.

Peace

[DarthMaximus]

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

Japan doesn’t have to worry about a bad Pearl with 1 dd, 2 ftrs vs. 1 bb.  2 ftrs are guaranteed to sink the UK dd in Sz 35 and US dd sz 56.  Ger is guaranteed to kill the DD in Sz 12 with an attack of 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca.
Ger is guaranteed to only lose 1 air in attack on Kar if they do that.  There is just no risk to any of the Axis attacks.

The biggest Allied adv in AA50 is the number of Axis attacks on rd 1 and the mathmatical probability that all of the combine attacks won’t succeed.  LL removes that.

20 attacks with individual odds of 95% to succeed still means you will only succeed in all of them like 35-40% of the time.  This of course doesn’t even count that Egy isn’t a 95% winning battle.

Although, I do still think the Allies will have the Adv.  I don’t think the Axis can maintain the economic lead long enough.

[Jennifer]

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

As for the Pacific being “bad” I think it’s far superior to previous versions.  Previously there was no way to break your fleet up in the Pacific and make some land grabs because Japan could sit in Sea Zones 49 or 50 and hit just about everything in the Pacific that was a threat to Japanese income. (SZ 49 cannot hit SZ 53, but that’s not a big issue since your fighters and bombers can hit SZ 53 from SZ 49/Japan easily.)  The only safe spots were SZ 53, 55, 56, 62, 63 and 64 in Revised.

That’s different now.

If the Japanese fleet is in SZ 36 (one of three spots to find it, 62, 36 and 37 being the 3.)  America can be immune in SZ’s:

42, 45, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, and 65 in Anniversary

So we went from 6 viable staging grounds for American fleets (viable as in out of range of enemy submarines/destroyers, etc) to 14 viable staging grounds for American fleets.

If anything, the Pacific was made a MORE viable campaign setting; not a ruined setting!

[Blaarg]

@DarthMaximus:

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

Japan doesn’t have to worry about a bad Pearl with 1 dd, 2 ftrs vs. 1 bb.  2 ftrs are guaranteed to sink the UK dd in Sz 35 and US dd sz 56.  Ger is guaranteed to kill the DD in Sz 12 with an attack of 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca.
Ger is guaranteed to only lose 1 air in attack on Kar if they do that.  There is just no risk to any of the Axis attacks.

The biggest Allied adv in AA50 is the number of Axis attacks on rd 1 and the mathmatical probability that all of the combine attacks won’t succeed.  LL removes that.

20 attacks with individual odds of 95% to succeed still means you will only succeed in all of them like 35-40% of the time.  This of course doesn’t even count that Egy isn’t a 95% winning battle.

Although, I do still think the Allies will have the Adv.  I don’t think the Axis can maintain the economic lead long enough.

Interesting analysis.  I’ve never played with LL, but it sounds unappealing.

[Jennifer]

Reading more of what Mazer and DM said and I have to agree that LL in Anniversary would probably be the death knell for the Allies without a significant bid.

I’d have to say Russia would need a 30 IPC bid to stay in the game (2 Fighters, 2 Armor).  England and America can adapt, but Russia does not have time to adapt.

Of course, in regular play, Russia does not need to adapt, they just need to build up to fight Germany. (unlike previous incarnations, Russia actually has a good chance to take on Germany without English and American assistance (and actually get penalized for getting Allied assistance!) but it takes time to get there - and of course, the players have to be of comparable strength, otherwise, the better player will always win.)

[Lucifer]

LL vs ADS, tried some rnd1 battles, with regular dice, all German battles went fine.

My typical J1 moves (NOs, LL, NT) includes 3 infs 1 art against 2 infs Philly.

This is 93% battle. Just played it against myself and it failed  :|

Also both my ftrs was shot down in sz 56,  thats 95%. Both of them together its 1 in 20 games. But most important is the Kwantung battle + Philly, because its a NO and allies wont take it back before several rnds later.

The Kwantung battle, 1 inf, 1 arm, 1 ftr vs 1 inf is 100%, also in regular dice, is the battlecalc in TripleA really correct in this?

This Kwantung battle is from Frood.net

http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=3&aArt=1&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=2&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

And the Phillipines battle:

http://frood.net/aacalc/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=3&aArt=1&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=2&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Bom-HBom-Des-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=Revised&gameid=&password=&turnid=&territory=&round=1&pbem=

How often do the Kwantung battle + Philly battle combined fail? Also it might be better to skip the sz 56 attack, and use all 4 ftrs + DD against US BB in ADS, but all this is minor details, which will not impact the playing balance of AA50.

Another reason why the AAR bids on this forum is perhaps lower than in the TripleA lobby is that here you can place all units in one TT, while other rules say 1 unit pr. TT.

[a44bigdog]

Between here and what I do offline call it 100 games.

Philippines fail with 3 INF 1 ART 3 games.
SZ53 fail 2 games.
Australia not fall round 2, 2 games.
Kwangtung fail, probably 3 to 4.

That is off the top of my head and does not include what may have happened with Germany or Italy.

I am becoming more of the mindset that most games are determined in round 1 or 2. Unlike the earlier games where the Axis had to knock out Russia as he clock was running I find AA50 about the Axis immediately grabbing what swing resources are out there. The side that comes out on top of this scuffle should prevail as time NOW benefits their side where before this was an Allied benefit.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

I’d have to say Russia would need a 30 IPC bid to stay in the game (2 Fighters, 2 Armor).  England and America can adapt, but Russia does not have time to adapt.

Then I take 29 ipc, I use the bid for whatever I want, you take axis and the game is no tech, LL, 41 +NOs?

Send pm so we can arrange a TripleA game Jennifer  :-P

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

Then it will be me as axis, 5 bid to allies, game is 41 scenario, NOs, no tech, low luck.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

Ok, then the game is 41, regular dice, no tech, no bid, NOs, I’m axis, you are allies, send pm, we make an appointment, and you learn me how to play allies  :wink:

[Lucifer]

I assume that the 41 scenario with NOs favors axis. I also assume that if low luck is being used, it does not affect the game balance any more than ADS, and I also think that LL bids in AA50 should not be higher than maybe 3 ipc more than ADS bids. It’s possible, but unlikely, that in contrast to Revised, LL vs ADS could mean the bids have to be higher in LL games than ADS games. I can’t see any reason why the difference should be significantly more than in Revised.

Those who play Revised (regular dice) in the TripleA lobby use axis bids like 8-9, same as LL players, a little less than on this forum but here you can place all units on one territory. The same is (was) true for the TripleA ladder, which is gone, but being rebuilt as we speak. Most players used LL, but some used regular dice, both LL and ADS players played axis @8-9 ipc bids.

Even if it is true that one or more battles will fail for axis rnd1 when using ADS, I can’t see that this will affect balance any much, specially not in the long run. For many games dice rolls even out. The way I see it, if in an ADS game, more battles will fail for axis than LL, given equal luck on both sides, then also some of the axis battles will be decisive victories, allies will not get a single hit. Or, the luck evens out on rnd 2, same amount of battles that failed for axis rnd1 will now fail for allies rnd2, or even rnd1. Say axis stacks Libya rnd1 instead of attacking Egy, UK attacks and fails completely, or UK attacks Italian navy + German transport and fails completely. Either luck evens out or it doesn’t!!! If not then one side is more lucky than the opponent. May point is that if in ADS, one or more axis battles fails badly, then also one or more allies battles fails badly, with the same result!

But if some of you think otherwise, be free to challenge me for a 41 game, regular dice, +NOs, no bids, no tech. I’m axis and you play allies.

It will obviously take more than one game to find out if the axis bias is mainly b/c of LL or the game itself.

[Blaarg]

I’ve seen the Battleship at Hawaii (SZ53) survive against 2 fighters and a destroyer on J1.  I’ve seen the Battleship in SZ2 survive the G1 attack of 2 subs and a fighter.  I’ve seen G1 Egypt turn into a disaster where both the British tank and fighter survive.

[Lucifer]

Even if it’s true that the number of axis attacks rnd1 affects balance in LL, I think this is not a major factor for the game balance. But there’s a possibility that the (ADS) bid needed in 41 +NO will be somewhat lower than with LL, if we compare AAR LL bids vs ADS bids, which is the same.

Lets do this gedankenexperiment, let’s assume ADS for first rnd battles. What battles will you not do in ADS which you would do in LL? For Germany I usually take all 3 TT’s on the eastern front which gives me the 2nd German NO. Sometimes I do the Kalia attack G1, but Egy seems better. So if I don’t do the Egy attack G1, or the attack on the UK BB, or the Kalia attack G1 then the battles would be like LL, less risky, more overkill.

For Japan there are many battles which are standard moves rnd1, especially in LL.

I usually attack Yunnan, Philippines, Kwantung, and 2 out of 3: Fukien, Hupeh and Suiyuan. Then the sea battles. Sz 53, sz 50, sz 35 and sz 56. So lets say I reduce the risk, skipping sz 56 helps a lot. Would this change the balance of the game? I think not.

If we assume LL, but I don’t do the battles which could go terribly wrong rnd1. What’s the difference? Would you challenge me for a 41 +NO, LL, NT and no bids if I do not do the most risky battles rnd1?

I think not. The axis bias is not dependent on Egy, or Kalia, sz 2, or the combination of sz 53 and sz 56.
And the bias is not dependent on no battles goes wrong rnd1 either. It helps alot I admit, but this is not the core issue of game balance in 41 +NO.

It’s as easy for axis to get the NOs in ADS as it is in LL. This assumes equal luck on both sides. The number of rnd1 attacks is not dependent on this. Even if axis don’t do any risky attacks rnd1, and reduce the total number of attacks, the axis bias is obvious. I’m not sure how big it is yet, it could be even less than in AAR, but the game is not balanced once you start analyzing AA50 in depth.

And what about all the players who use regular dice who also claims that axis are favored? You can’t just dismiss all the evidence which is available for the 41 scenario.

Unless someone can disprove what is pretty obvious, we can conclude as a fact that axis have the advantage in 41 with NOs.

[Jennifer]

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

I’d have to say Russia would need a 30 IPC bid to stay in the game (2 Fighters, 2 Armor).  England and America can adapt, but Russia does not have time to adapt.

Then I take 29 ipc, I use the bid for whatever I want, you take axis and the game is no tech, LL, 41 +NOs?

Send pm so we can arrange a TripleA game Jennifer  :-P

No, it’s 30 IPC split as 2 Fighters and 2 Armor in Moscow, as I said.  That’s the balance point so that Russia has a prayer to be as influential in 1941 as normal using LL rules.

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

Ok, then the game is 41, regular dice, no tech, no bid, NOs, I’m axis, you are allies, send pm, we make an appointment, and you learn me how to play allies  :wink:

Sure, start a thread and we can use Abattlemap as a mapping utility (or we can just post a unit locations list for each other.)  Germany goes first, so when you are ready, I’ll show you how the allies can play to take out the Axis.  No bid, no technologies, but national objectives turned on to make it fair, with actual dice.

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

Then it will be me as axis, 5 bid to allies, game is 41 scenario, NOs, no tech, low luck.

We can do a second game with 5 bid to the allies.  Split it 1 IPC to Russia; 4 IPC to America - Low Luck.

---

---

Also, you are attempting to take a game with a completely different map, extremely less income for one side or the other and significantly stronger Russia and comparing it to Anniversary.

I don’t think that is a valid comparison.

For one, Germany earns 120% of what Russia earns for the better part of the game and starts out with infinitely more fighters and bombers than Russia does. (Four is infinitely larger than zero!).  With 4 fighters and a bomber, Germany can be guarenteed to trade at least three territories for the cost of only 6 infantry.  Russia, with no fighters and no bombers, is guarenteed nothing, they’ll have to risk artillery and armor every round.  So Germany will have the financial edge, they’ll have Italy right there for support AND they won’t have to risk high value equipment like Russia.

That is why Russia needs the bonus equipment.  The Armored units are significantly back from the front lines so they cannot threaten German territories (as in the grey ones, not the ones captured) and the fighters give Russia a chance to build up without risking high value targets or blowing all their cash on fighters and thus not having units left to trade.