Thanks gents. I’m currently editing my video for upload to YouTube and my argument sounds nearly exactly identical to @Cernel .
I appreciate all the feedback.
How to achieve balance
-
The bid system is not used to “balance” but rather to determine who plays what .Say I don’t want to play them unless you give me that much IPC. Someone can then bid lower to play with them, etc.
Actually the bid does both. It might not if both players bid zero, but other than two zero bids, there will be some sort of altering to the initial set-up with the bid. Even $1 IPC is altering the set-up. It’s probably so small to really affect the game, but it might alter soemones preffered buy for G1 (like 5 tanks and 2 inf, for example)
-
My FTF play group is trying several combinations of the above, and that wasn’t an option for the voting.
Reducing NOs, optional rules (tweaked the interceptor rule to NOT subject the ftrs to aaa fire), and our own China mods (simpliest was to allow the ftr tyo be moved before the game starts). Will these mods be played online or in a tournament? Probably not, but I would rather have a balanced game in my FTF play group than worry about playing with universally accepted rules.
One game in and we have a great game going. More testing is needed, but the results are favorable.
We have found that unless Japan is kept in check somehow, the axis will eventully prevail. This is not easy to do af often Germany is the bigger problem early and you can not just ignore that problem. Oh, and it’s not such an easy problem to address for the allies either. Therein lies the issue.
-
My friend and i have tried many rule variences and have come to the conclusion that with NO’s and/or fighter escort the axis are too strong and tech simply is too much of an unknown and can unbalance both ways. We’ve found the most fun and balanced game is no NO’s, no tech, no fighter escorts and closing of the Dardanelles.
-
But by not playing with NOs, the Pacific theater cease to be one : what’s the point of retaking islands if they do not benefit neither side?
But if we “follow history”. Didn’t Rommel successfully pushed the UK forces in Africa and failed to destroy them because of lack of resources and Allies’ reinforcements?
Right now, my group isn’t as dedicated as me. We don’t go and read all strategies. So we aren’t feeling any imbalancement yet. But I intend to suggest the bid system if they it. Otherwise, we usually use the dice. Highest gets to pick first, etc.
Robert
-
/axis roll
I took the easy way and just listed the alternatives. How did you change NOs in your group? We can set-up a larger poll if people want after this one.
Another possibility for bidding would be to say: we bid number of territory changes to NOs. So if Allies win the bid with 2 territories, they might choose to make the third German NO need both KAR and CAU and then make the UK home NO count with 5 of 6 territories (i.e. Egypt can be lost and still get it).
-
My friend and i have tried many rule variences and have come to the conclusion that with NO’s and/or fighter escort the axis are too strong and tech simply is too much of an unknown and can unbalance both ways. We’ve found the most fun and balanced game is no NO’s, no tech, no fighter escorts and closing of the Dardanelles.
I play with the same rules except the closing of the Dardanelles. I have found the game to be very balanced with that rule set so far.
-
/axis roll
I took the easy way and just listed the alternatives. How did you change NOs in your group? We can set-up a larger poll if people want after this one.
We made the NO’s worth only $4 instead of $5.
-
Perhaps NO tweaking has some potential. I think bids are best.
Without NOs, Axis will need a bid of at least 10, maybe 15.
With NOs, Allies need the bid. Probably around 9-13.
-
AA50 does not need any balance. Look at the thread regarding results which show pretty clearly no issues.
If anything China may need help to make it more playable, but thats not really addressing any balance issues but its just making China less dynamic because the flying tigers is destroyed in most cases and this leaves a sour taste historically, because thats how it went. The playtesters did a really good job on this game.
However, if LL is played thats not AA anyway.
AA is a dice game with strategy and lots of players.
-
"However, if LL is played that’s not AA anyway.
AA is a dice game with strategy and lots of players."
I agree with this.
Playing a 6 players game is not the same as doing a 1v1. 6 players have different views of how to get things done. Because of that, funny things happen. Lack of cooperation, insults, good jokes, etc. I for one hate to have someone dictate my moves.Real dices is different from any program. It adds some “fun/surprise” to the game. Some people hates this, but I think it prevent games from becoming too linear. History is full of lucky/unlucky events
Robert
-
@Imperious:
However, if LL is played thats not AA anyway.
AA is a dice game with strategy and lots of players.
I strongly disagree with your statement on LL.
FYI LL is still dice, and A&A with LL is still a strategy game, although with less randomness.
A&A can be played by 2-6 players, so 1vs1 is within the rules. -
Real dices is different from any program.
Robert
ADS is also a program as LL, if you play a software version of A&A.
Many times when I read the arguments against LL, I get the impression that none of the players who are against LL have ever tried it, it seems they don’t know what it is. If some of you ever happen to try some LL games in a hypothetical future, you’d be amazed of how much luck there can be in some LL games. It removes the extreme wild swings, but it’s fully possible to win a LL game mostly based on luck, believe it or not. Just ask me, or better, ask some of my opponents if they have been very unlucky also in LL games.
-
@Subotai:
As for tweaking NOs or China mod, or any other mod, those are house rules, so it’s an unacceptable choice imo, as long as we can easily change the balance with cash or units, this is a type of modification we can do and still avoid house rules.
Of all Axis and Allies games, zero of them have bids (or LL) as OOB rules, so both are house rules
I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system. Too few (6-8) is not enough). Too much (9+) can be … too much. I continue saying that China and her nasty combo of poor setup and poor rules are blame of it. Bids restricted to China can paliate the poor setup, but the only way of paliating the poor rules of page 10 is … house rules :|
-
I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system. Too few (6-8) is not enough). Too much (9+) can be … too much. I continue saying that China and her nasty combo of poor setup and poor rules are blame of it. Bids restricted to China can paliate the poor setup, but the only way of paliating the poor rules of page 10 is … house rules :|
At a grander scale, there has to be a way to slow down Japan for the allies.
OOB, China is a mere speed bump.
India IC is sub optimal, and if Japan is played right, not even a realistic option EVER for UK.
Neither is Egpyt for that matter. Australia… perhaps, but it very costly.Same as a full out naval push by USA. It is doable, but at such a cost that the european theatre may need to be sacrificed to do so. Not a very pretty option for the allies.
-
Of all Axis and Allies games, zero of them have bids (or LL) as OOB rules, so both are house rules
I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system.
Technically it can be argued that every single little change from OOB rules are house rules, but I think we should make different definitions on what is “general” house rules, like rules changes, and on the other side, units/cash bids to make an even game balance. I could also make this statement to IL, if he ever played revised w/o bids or w/o tech, it’s not A&A.
Every A&A game can be balanced as so both sides will have close to equal chance of winning, and both revised and AA50 can easily be balanced with unit bids or cash bids.
With balancing I define this as making changes, preferably units or cash bids, so that both sides have equal chance of winning. I think this should be the defition of the word balance, when discussing bias in A&A games.
If someone wants to make changes other than modifications which matters only to which side are favored to win, then it’s not (game) balancing, but other modifications which will affect other parts of the game, not only a (imo) slight axis advantage in 41 +NOs.In AA50 41 China is only a speed bump, but if we don’t like it then we don’t like AA50. There are several factors in AA50 in which I disagree with the choices made by Larry Harris and the design team, but overall I think AA50 is much better than revised.
-
To slow down Japan : Remove NOs
That removes them the 10-15 IPC they gain from stupid undefended islands/territories
It’s already incredible they can take the two 4 IPC islands from UK that are undefended. Why should they earn 5 more?"ADS is also a program as LL, if you play a software version of A&A. "
I don’t play software version of AA. I play it with 5 other real person in real life. Not saying program is worse or whatever. Just saying that I enjoy physical game more than online games.
Programs take into account probability, I guess. Like, you have 1/6 to roll a 1 with a dice, for example. But in real life, it isn’t a perfect 1/6. Depending on how one rolls the dice, it can be less, or it can be higher.
I play enough cards to know that physical shuffling is not the same as software shuffling. Physical shuffling is never perfect. Software shuffling can never perfectly imitate physical shuffling.We have played several games now. Axis did won more games than the Allies. But the fact the Allies have won some games suggest us that there might be not any imbalancement yet. We think that we haven’t sufficiently developed strategies.
That said, we are pretty sure it is more balanced than revised (without the bid/tweaks, we were never aware of those changes). I mean, we haven’t won a game with Axis in revised, not that I remember of. In AA50, although Axis won more than Allies (4 to 2), the fact that we were able to win with both sides suggest that the game is more balanced than revisedRobert
-
@Subotai:
As for tweaking NOs or China mod, or any other mod, those are house rules, so it’s an unacceptable choice imo, as long as we can easily change the balance with cash or units, this is a type of modification we can do and still avoid house rules.
Of all Axis and Allies games, zero of them have bids (or LL) as OOB rules, so both are house rules
I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system. Too few (6-8) is not enough). Too much (9+) can be … too much. I continue saying that China and her nasty combo of poor setup and poor rules are blame of it. Bids restricted to China can paliate the poor setup, but the only way of paliating the poor rules of page 10 is … house rules :|
How about a standard bid of 3-6 Chinese infantry? Not sure about the right number. However, as Axis, I’d rather have 4 or possibly even 5 more Chinese than an extra unit on Egypt and Karelia.
-
If the game is played globally (USA fighting in pacific and atlantic) then IMO it is a toss up on who wins the game.
If game is played as KGIF then allies have about a 60/40 edge in victory. But thats just my opinion. My father-in-law tried the polar express move with Japan and he just couldn’t keep up the pressure and take asia so he lost.
Someone said the USA spent 20% of their income for the pacific war. In this game spending 20% on the pacific is like trying to put a band-aid on a severed arm. It may have worked in the real war but it does not simulate well in AA. You could probably go 20% into the Atlantic and secure africa and be a thorn to Italy. Putting 80% into the pacific would slow japan and make a dent(but you would have to be a perfect strategist).
I voted for NO tweaks because I feel to get the true global war you need to make all USA NOs in the pacific. This way they must fight Japan to be strong if they fight KGIF then they will only be collecting 38 ipcs a turn. Sure they could still do a KGIF but it would at least be a bit harder.
-
Right now the leading answers to the poll is 42% bids, 23% NO tweaks, 19% China Mod. I like axis_roll’s idea of tweaking NOs but also the flexibility of bids, in that you could have a change from game to game following how strategies change. Tech & opt rules change the game in many ways, but don’t strike as directly at balance as the other concepts (except Dardanelles-rule). Maybe bidding could be linked to NOs in some ways? My idea in my post earlier to bid for number of territory changes could be seen as too complex. What if bids are still in IPCs but go towards reducing NO-bonuses for the other side? An Allied bid of 6 IPCs would then mean that you could reduce 6 Axis NOs to 4 IPCs each. My 0.02$! :-)
-
@Subotai:
In AA50 41 China is only a speed bump
I would like a definition of “speed bump”. As english is not my mother language. I saw that word in various places and I’m not totally sure of its meaning
I could agree or disagree if the word means a thing or another :-)
Suggested Topics
