April 2009 Balance Poll

[Mazer Rackham]

Interesting.  At this point I am the only vote for giving a bid to the Axis.

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs.  A fix would certainly shift my opinion, but you have to assume box rules unless otherwise stated.

[Funcioneta]

Agreed with Egypt, DM, (only with 9 or more bid, 6 is irrelevant due lost of UK z2 fleet, not sure about 7 or 8 bids), and that’s a good reason to bid chinese infs or chinese IPCs instead allied IPCs: Europe and Africa are NOT unbalanced, is Asia the broken one. All China stuff is a mess, but setup is specially crappy: you cannot solve this with old bid systems, you have to restrict the bid to chinese infs or chinese IPCs (to have, say a 11 IPCs bid for 2 inf, tank to yun)

Giving even more advantage to axis is killing a dead man

[Funcioneta]

@Mazer:

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs

I’m assuming box rules on SBRs without any ‘fix’. Early, allies need them badly to survive. Later game, when axis economic advantage grows to 20-30 IPCs, Japan can bomb soviets to Stone Age. I don’t think a fix is needed for SBRs, even using techs (in fact, I think is more difficult abusing of SBRs without tech than with them, because there are 3 techs that counter SBRs campaings)

[Jennifer]

@Mazer:

Interesting.  At this point I am the only vote for giving a bid to the Axis.

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs.  A fix would certainly shift my opinion, but you have to assume box rules unless otherwise stated.

SBRs are not as broken as some thought when it first came out.  Not in 1941 anyway.

Both sides can use them, both sides can be hurt by them.

My assumptions are straight up box rules + whatever you voted for a bid.  House rules to nerf SBRs might shift the balance towards the axis, perhaps towards the allies.  Film at eleven.

[Lucifer]

@Mazer:

Interesting.  At this point I am the only vote for giving a bid to the Axis.

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs.  A fix would certainly shift my opinion, but you have to assume box rules unless otherwise stated.

Sadly, the ones who would give a substantial bid to axis, like $10 or more, don’t want to play against me in a  TripleA live game…  :cry:

And other players who claim that allies need a $20 bid to survive, are not interested in playing against me in a TripleA live game… :cry:

[bugoo]

I think the most telling factor from my experience is with a 9 ish bid both Subotai and I have won as both axis and allies playing against each other in LL on TripleA using a large variety of tactics (i don’t think we have yet to repeat a turn 1 move for move).  Typically which ever one of us makes a mistake, looses.  And as our allied play gets better as the games go on, i feel our bid for allies will lower as well, being that playing allies is a very different beast in AA50 as simple TUV and income each round doesn’t tell the same story as it did in revised with the much larger playing board, IC limits, capital capture rules, and the NO rules.  Positioning is so much more important in AA50 that a 100ish TUV difference can easily be overcome.

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

I think the opposite: allies need at least 4 chinese inf in Yunnan to win 50% of times (bid of 12)

With a bid system like almost all players use in AAR, open bid with pre. placed units, either one unit pr. TT, or several units placed in one TT. it would be stupid to place any bids in China, as you would get much more “bang for your bucks” with a placement in Africa or Europe. With cash only, which imo is a good alternative, the bids would go higher, but will not affect gameplay as much a unit bids.

I would be tempted to play axis against a 4 inf bid in Yunnan, assuming LL, no tech and NOs.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

I would be tempted to play axis against a 4 inf bid in Yunnan, assuming LL, no tech and NOs.

I would be also tempted, but sadly assuming LL and no tech is too much assume  :-D

Agree about the bid system. Because of that, we should change it to only chinese unit bids AND letting chineses exit from China

[Jennifer]

@Subotai:

@Mazer:

Interesting.  At this point I am the only vote for giving a bid to the Axis.

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs.  A fix would certainly shift my opinion, but you have to assume box rules unless otherwise stated.

Sadly, the ones who would give a substantial bid to axis, like $10 or more, don’t want to play against me in a  TripleA live game…  :cry:

And other players who claim that allies need a $20 bid to survive, are not interested in playing against me in a TripleA live game… :cry:

Because TripleA is flaky on people’s machines.  It’s far better to use Battlemap that works on everyone’s system, even if you are running an 80486SX chip and DOS 5.0 you can run Battlemap.

[bugoo]

It may be far better for you to use battlemap, for one such as myself though TripleA has absolutely no drawbacks  :-)

It has become standard bid on TripleA using LL to give allies 7-9 bid, i believe even a 3 allied bid is standard for using dice.  I must say though the more games I play the more options I see for the allies, it is just very difficult for an allied player to adjust to the combination of axis moves.  AA50 has an ebb and flow so to speak in my opinion that income, positioning, TUV, etc all play a part in, esp with NOs that prevents you from doing the same old build/shuck so to speak with allies every game, as every game is different.  I’ve also noticed Russian play getting much tighter and better, usually getting there 2nd NO, previously thought impossible to get, as early as turn 3 or 4! (3 is my personal record).  I have also been seeing Russia denying Germany her third NO unless Japan gets it, I’ve seen Japan also denied her 3rd NO till turn 3-4 with good allied play.

Income does not tell the entire story, sure Germany gets some high income numbers, but, they can only produce 10 units unless they build an IC which can be threatened by the allies.  Those 10 units never seem to be enough when your building air to threaten allied fleets, trading 2-4 territories a round, and trying to stack up france and push Russia.  Japan gets some sickening income, but takes sooo terribly long to setup and after setup is vulnerable to a full US push against her in later turns.  The US income is fairly large as well, but she takes so terribly long to get into the fight.  The allies cannot hold in africa/south asia/china/etc, but they have some very potent harassing potential with there troops there.  It is a race against time for the allies to be sure, and Turn 2 is there turn, i’ve noticed alot of allied players try to get in there hits on turn 1 instead of seting up for something substantial on turn 2, I myself have been guilty of this.

In the end I feel the bid will be as low as 5 for allies, still do.

[Jennifer]

You know, I could see the allies needing a bid in Low Luck because the Germans and Japanese could calculate the absolute minimum needed to win and thus, be able to stretch even farther in the first round or two than they might otherwise (cause they would bring more to the battle to assure a victory).

I don’t think the allies, in 1941, are in the same boat.  They pretty much lose most of their starting units anyway, so it’s not like they can retaliate in the first few rounds with precision mathematics.

Of course, after about 5 rounds the board would even out again, but if the Axis got too strong a foothold in round 1 because they can use Math instead of Luck, the allies might not have a chance to rebuild and push back.  So yea, I could see the allies needing a bid in LL.

BTW, my indictment of TripleA was not to say it was a bad program, I was just trying to explain why people don’t use it.  It works fine for me, as long as I don’t try to play against a real human being.

Meanwhile, I have learned how to play with Battlemap on my cellphone.  I might be wrong here, but I don’t think TripleA is compatible with my iPhone or my Razr Rokr.

[axis_roll]

@Cmdr:

Meanwhile, I have learned how to play with Battlemap on my cellphone.  I might be wrong here, but I don’t think TripleA is compatible with my iPhone or my Razr Rokr.

So THAT’S how you play 30+ games at once!  :-) :-)

[bugoo]

Yeah the problem with LL is that on G1 you can take Kar, sink the UK BB, and take Egypt, all on G1 with a possible loss of 2 figs in Kar (depending on AA shot and bombard shot), having 0-2 armor left plus the bomb in Egypt (again depending on turn 1 rolls, G on a 3 if they hit they keep 2 armor usually), and usually walking away with a fig against the BB, but sometimes that goes terribly wrong.  Also, Japan has no worries sending the 1 DD+2 figs vs Pearl, nor in sinking the DDs+trans, and even killing the flying tigers with 1 inf, 2 figs if they don’t mind loosing a fig.  Typically Japan ends in LL with only loosing 1 fig, at most 3 but that is rare.

On the other hand, Russia can do a perfect strafe on R1, China can still get dicey if you attack with just inf, and the subs in the Atlantic are dicey a lot of times too.  Also, the allies can hit exposed G planes on turn 1 with perfect odds, and we know 2 figs, or 1 fig/1 bomb will sink that cruiser, as will the US DD+Bomb sink a G sub, so while LL helps out axis immensely, it also helps allies a tad as well.

Typical bid placement is 1 unit in Karelia, and 1 unit in Egypt.

Also, i have found that KGF works well, very very well.  Step 1 - deny Germany 3 nos, Step 2 - get russia her 2nd NO, Step 3, get france + deny germany all her NOs.  Usually you can get G down to 20ish income by turn 5 and with russia making almost 50 she can hold against Japan pretty well, esp when the US starts to make 50ish as well and drops a pacific fleet on turn 4 or 5  :evil:

[Funcioneta]

@bugoo:

Usually you can get G down to 20ish income by turn 5 and with russia making almost 50 she can hold against Japan pretty well, esp when the US starts to make 50ish as well and drops a pacific fleet on turn 4 or 5  :evil:

Whoa! By turn 5!  :-o German player must be a moron. And USA building Pacific fleet round 4-5? Probably Japan made the error of not countering KGF with a Polar Express?  :|

Axis must do some wacky moves to being in such danger so soon …

[Lucifer]

The “happy days” have past for axis, although allies need a bid in LL, when playing against decent/good allied players axis cant just do whatever the want anymore, like building a huge navy, 2 air units each rnd. etc….

The small details aren’t so small anymore…
Japan can be contained, to some degree, and Japan can’t just skip mainland Asia even if Japan usually is the strongest nation in AA50.

With a 2 unit bid for allies, and placed in the right TTs, it’s not a cakewalk for either Japan or Germany, Japan can’t threaten mainland US TTs, and the road to Moscow is long, if a good allied player can slow Japan down only one rnd extra, if the Jap player is not highly effective, Japan will be still grow big, but too late to take Moscow, or take back all of Europe.
I’m thinking maybe Germany should play a turtle strat, which isn’t too logical, b/c in the first games Germany could have Russia like the US could easily get Italy if not stacked properly.

With a good German turtle then Japan can decide the game, even if Moscow will be too strong, it would be an economic victory but not a swift kill.

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

Because TripleA is flaky on people’s machines.  It’s far better to use Battlemap that works on everyone’s system, even if you are running an 80486SX chip and DOS 5.0 you can run Battlemap.

I actually got Battlemap to work on my Ubuntu 9.04 with wine, but looking at the map, who would want to use such a pos? It’s not even a game! Sure the unit icons and the map in TripleA is not the artwork of DaVinci, but it looks ok and is very playable.

[Woodstock]

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

Because TripleA is flaky on people’s machines.  It’s far better to use Battlemap that works on everyone’s system, even if you are running an 80486SX chip and DOS 5.0 you can run Battlemap.

I actually got Battlemap to work on my Ubuntu 9.04 with wine, but looking at the map, who would want to use such a pos? It’s not even a game! Sure the unit icons and the map in TripleA is not the artwork of DaVinci, but it looks ok and is very playable.

Look out where you are going Subotai. I once tried to convince Cmd Jennifer about the pro’s of TripleA, and before I knew it, it turned almost into a flame war ;-)

I think we all conceded in deciding TripleA and Battlemap cannot be compared to eachother :P

[bugoo]

I’m sorry i’d still love to see a polar express attempted on me, if you tried that Russia would liberate the entire way to FIC on her own.  I’ve played good axis players, i’m not saying i’m the best allied player out there, but I win more games than I loose on TripleA, esp as allies, as KGF works.  Japan’s turn 1 still says ‘ignore me i’m worthless for atleast 2 more rounds’ and i can’t change that.  Polar Express? heh, good luck getting US before Russia is in berlin.

I’m on TripleA every weekend, if you dont want that give me a 7 allied bid, set it to LL, put an INF in Egypt, and ART in Kar, no tech, take your G1 with tripleA and send it to me, i’ll play by email but i will not type all that crap.  And please, i’m not insulting your playing skill, don’t try to say everyone i’ve defeated with a KGF is a moronic axis player, and there are more than a few now.

[Omega]

I tried 2 games where I played against myself (so basically, I know what the other is attempting)

Russia can’t survive no matter what I do.
Germany can’t survive neither, no matter what I do.

I think, although my experience is limited, that no Nation can go in a war on multiple fronts. This is especially true for Russia. If Japanese are at their door, or even if Italian can threaten them with Amphibious assault on Caucasus, or can just clear a route for Germany to go to Moscow or Caucasus if the way is free. Russia is doomed (It’s only a matter of time).

The same applies, in my testing, to Germany. They can’t face a 30IPC (average) Russian on the east and face Allies on the West in France, Northwest and even Germany. The solution to this, in my limited testing, is minimal Naval build with Germany. If your fleet is as strong as the fleet of UK + USA, you force them into naval build to protect their transports.

This is of course with two real games experience and 2 personal. I wanted to test this thought, so I gave it a try in a KJF.
UK1 build an IC in India, supported with some Russian Backup.
Japanese1 : Build an IC in FIC. Proceed with normal strategy : emptying some islands to take others, etc. Kill the fighter in China to remove all offensive from that nation. 4 Infantry in Manchuria to face against Russian stack of 7.
US1 : Build a Aircraft Carrier and 2 Research token with some DD, transports. Now, Japanese know I am doing a KJF with USA. (In my first personal game, I got a first turn Heavy Bombers. The game was won just because of that).
On R2, the stack of 7 attacked Manchuria. 7 @ 1 vs 4 @ 2, the 7 won with 2-3 casualties in each of my two personal game. Because I didn’t make any transports on J1, there weren’t enough transports close to bring stuff to retake Manchuria so that’s -5 IPC bonus, and -3 IPC for Manchuria. The Chinese Divisions can be a nuisance. Suicide attack can sometimes take down a man or two. Sometimes, they can even take the territory!
J2 : Knowing my USA is coming for me, what will you do? I proceed with my normal play (2 tanks in FIC), but build 1 Submarine and 1 Destroyer to increase my fleet to 1 BB (I’ve lost it once against a single DD in the Philippines war!), 1 cruiser, 2 AC (4 figthters), 1 sub and 1 DD against USA 2 AC (4 fighters), 3 DD, 1 Sub.
Yes, Japan has more IPC than USA, but if Japan spends all its IPC to fight in the Pacific, that leaves UK ready to strike back in India (UK3+). And doing ground + naval is tough, even with Japan.
I personally believe that even if Japan only goes against USA, Italy + Germany could probably destroy Russia + UK. I haven’t played enough to know that, anyone knows?
On US2, the fleet can advance and take some Islands or even threaten Japan. I also realized that you can take an island close to Japan (Iwo?) so that your Bomber can actually land after attacking the navy.

Some flaws to my limited testing :
-Manchuria can be reinforced easily. (But that means a slower Japan first turn)
-If Japan does a 2 Transport build J1 instead of IC, Manchuria, even if taken by Russia, can be retaken back easily. But by doing 2 Transports, I think UK3 will be able to take ground solidly on Asia.
-Africa : What to do with Africa, when playing WITH Allies or AGAINST Allies? In all my games, Germany successfully took Egypt on G1 with various loss. From there, Africa would become Axis, its just a matter of time.
USA can of course concentrate its IPC on the Atlantic to take back Africa and to threaten Europe. But then, that leaves Japan free to go. And I’m sure UK on its own is incapable of protecting India. At most, he can probably slow down the Japanese. But when he dies, Japan gets a free IC to attack Caucasus.

But to stay on subject, I don’t feel any imbalancement yet. I do feel that Axis are probably easier to win with (only 1 real game with Germany), but winning with Allies is not impossible. Good teamwork can win the game.

Robert

[axis_roll]

@Omega:

I think, although my experience is limited, that no Nation can go in a war on multiple fronts.

Well since USA has no true ‘fronts’ per se, THEY can split their income and fight a two theatre war.  In fact, that is looking to be more and more a requirement.  The problem is deciding which theatre has a greater need for the US war machine.  Often times, the pacific investment looks like it is easier to just ignore (meaning Germany is the ‘easier’ target), but the IJN needs to be forced to keep an eye on her back door.  Those carriers need to be forced to be loaded.