@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
How to achieve balance
-
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 :-)
-
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.
Yep, I agree. It can solve the thing
-
It was Axis_roll who used the word “speed bump”, I think it’s a good description of China in AA50. It doesn’t stop Japan, only slows her down a bit.
If we want to change something other than which side are favored to win, then I don’t consider this balancing, as in game balance. It’s easy to change the game so that Pacific is more important, and mainland Asia. But this isn’t the discussion of the balance issue that I thought the OP meant when he started this thread.
If we don’t like the setup in AA50, it’s easy to make some modifications, i.e. China mod or similar. But I don’t see any big problems with AA50. For me, the only issues are the same as in revised, game balance, unit bids or cash bids, so that allies are not favored any more than the axis side. The other issue for me is randomness, this has nothing to do with game balance, or theater balance, but I prefer games in which there are little external factors which the players cannot control. So I prefer to nerf the impact of the dice gods, and let players have a greater influence of the outcome of a game.
Imo a strategy game which takes many hours to complete is not so fun if the players decisions isn’t the most important factor to decide who wins. But again, that is not game balancing, but rather balancing randomness and luck vs skills&experience. -
I have to agree with Sub here, China exists for the single purpose of slowing down and blocking Japan’s advance down the middle, the extra territories slow her down in the north forcing a showdown in south asia. This is the way it is designed and we must accept that. Not to mention giving china that many inf can screw with that theater of the war much more than an inf in egypt and/or kar do, those just remove a small number of options from the axis on turn 1. China having 4-7 inf plus a plane on there first turn would really change the pacific and impact the game for many turns, it is not a balancing it is a restructuring of the game. There are alot of changes I personally would love to see in the setup and I may make a mod someday with my vision, but that would not be AA50.
And honestly, first time I did a KGF it failed, the more I do it the better I get at it and the more it works. Someday we will see a pacific first strat that works, I hope.
-
I have to agree with Sub here, China exists for the single purpose of slowing down and blocking Japan’s advance down the middle, the extra territories slow her down in the north forcing a showdown in south asia.
In fact, vanilla China doesn’t slow down Japan. It gives Japan even more speed: easy IPCs, no oposition, more buffer from soviets in case of Polar Express … China simply cannot slown down Japan because there is no real China in this game since Japan should kill them round 1 all games. It’s enough for Japan keep the starting surviving units at nin-sik, some forces to Siberia (6-8 would be enough) and focus their income in the other 2 fronts: Indian ocean (India/Africa) and Pacific ocean (islands, or America if allies suicide and try ignore Japan)
-
Typically in the end Japan has around 5-6 units in china, and china has 2-4 inf left in Ching, along with a small russian force Japan is bottle necked along the center route, which I believe was the original intention of china.
Also, as far as stating Japan is the problem, why is it that Russia is about as pathetic as China without US/UK help? The entire setup and typical axis turn 1 movements force the KGF tactic, which works, it works very well. Until that changes, axis turn 1 that is, the game will continue along this pattern. Perhaps more baltic fleets, or japan taking away the 2nd US NO on turn 1, or Egypt not getting hit on G1, etc etc would lead to a different playstyle among the allies as well. But as long as G typically pumps out armor going for russia’s throat, and Japan tries to make herself money and setup on India instead of Hawawi / Australia, this trend will continue. I’m confident that in time allied strats will be shown to work against these typical openings, I’ve gotten very good with a KGF style beating players on TripleA who I believe are better players than I (note: I never did win a game of revised on TripleA lol). I feel in another month the bid for allies on TripleA will be as low as 3, even in LL.
-
Typically in the end Japan has around 5-6 units in china, and china has 2-4 inf left in Ching, along with a small russian force Japan is bottle necked along the center route, which I believe was the original intention of china.
Also, as far as stating Japan is the problem, why is it that Russia is about as pathetic as China without US/UK help? The entire setup and typical axis turn 1 movements force the KGF tactic, which works, it works very well.
China should not have more than 1 inf in Ching unless crappy dices J1. Soviets usually cannot spare enough units to make a hold in Ching
Soviets are not as pathetic as China even in crazy dreams. Soviets usually can resist at least 5-6 turns (again, unless crappy dices). China simply doesn’t exist because the only thing they can do is pop one inf at Chingai round 1. End of chinese actions. Well, they give Japan many free IPCs. “Puppet” China is a good addition to axis :-P
And KGF simply doesn’t can be even done if Japan plays Polar Express, that is ridiculously easy in 1941 scenario. USA must face the japaneses, and it’s far better fighting them in Pacific ocean, with 48 IPCs, than in America, with 40 IPCs
-
I’m sorry but i still have yet to see a polar express that worked. Japan can be ignored. My shuck begins in LA, because of that at best around turn 4 or 5, when G is already about to be on the ropes, i have to redirect units to fighting Japan, but that is planned for anyway as the US in no longer needed to finish off Germany. Also, a skilled Japan player can ignore almost any and all US pacific action using just her starting fleet for enough turns to get the massive economic advantage with standard openings.
Lastly, the main contribution of the US in my typical KGF is bombers, figs, and armor into africa while threatening Rome and a double drop on france. The beauty of this is against a polar express the planes can come home for a round, if no polar express the armor helps hold Persia. My standard US1 buy is 2 bomb, 3 arm. US2 2-3 trannies, destroyers if needed, more bombers, figs and/or armor. I only transport enough inf to load the trannies once and leave 'em in algeria, all other inf i stack and leave in LA they are just too slow. But with the US dealing with Italy/Africa and threatening Rome along with the nice SBRs, UK/Russia push germany back very quickly and very easily.
The problem is with the way the NOs are setup it is better to pound on one power and deny them there NOs and get yours, as without all that pressure you cannot keep the axis from achieving an economic advantage. If i loose my 2nd pacific NO but gain france in exchange, it was worth it.
Look at this this way, even if Japan gets to 70 IPCs, if Russia is bringing in 40+ (both NOs), UK 30+ (i love france or even a russian balkan invasion), and US 50+ (france, again), and G is down to 1 NO minus finland/norway, and Italy down to 9 ipc, allies have economic advantage, and location advantage. Europe is worth more than the pacific and closer than the pacific. It is easier to defend trannies in the atlantic than the pacific. You actually have units that live past turn 2 in Europe. There are more places to attack in Europe. Etc, Etc, Etc. By the time polar express becomes possible logistically, it is too late my units are already in place.
The UK can get 8 land units into Europe on turn 2, the US can land in africa turn 2 in force if desired. What can the UK / US get into the pacific that quickly? A few boats that can’t even defeat Japan’s navy, or an IC for Japan to take.
It is what it is, there is no simple ‘tweak this area and the game is fixed’. Hence, I believe bids are the best way to do it, as with a bid I can decide what is needed, and where it is needed, in my opinion, to fix it, and so can you, each and every game. Maybe even cash only bids.
-
I feel in another month the bid for allies on TripleA will be as low as 3, even in LL.
Why not tomorrow?? :-D :-) 8-) :lol: :-P :evil: :mrgreen:
I’ll be axis as usual :-D
-
Well, having started this thread I shouldn’t be afraid to jump in. I’ll play Axis against you, Bugoo, or anyone still claiming Allies are a par with Axis in a '41, NOs, no tech game.
I just thought of a completely other idea for balance: playing to 12 VCs. I know most people like to play until the “natural” victory occurs, which for Axis tends to be Moscow and for Allies Rome or a French IC. But the problem is that this almost always leads to JTDTM games (this basic pattern doesn’t change even if we now spend some in the Pacific as USA and a pure KGF isn’t viable). A 12 VC game would be able to force the Allies to go Pacific offensively, not to defeat Japan outright but to hinder a victory for the Axis, and it should be ideally balanced for playing without NOs. Is it a good or horrible idea? :?
PS. Remember Victory determination is only after the US turn, so even if the Allies start with 12 VCs the Japanese would need to fail to capture BOTH Manila and Hong-kong for a turn 1 Allied victory to occur… DS.
-
I think axis have a slight advantage also in ADS, but I guess LL favors the attacker, and axis have 14-15 attacks rnd1, so there’s a difference, in that with LL it can’t go completely wrong for axis rnd1, but in some ADS games it will.
I strongly favor global victory conditions, so anything less than 15 VCs is not my cup of tea. This is for all the global A&A games, classic, revised, AA42 and AA50.
As for the record, neither I or my opponents pays any attention to the VCs, we look at the map, the TUV, the production numbers, and then we concede when we think we can’t win.
This is usually well before any player can hope to grab 13 VCs, even if we technically play until 15 VCs, it doesn’t really matter.Less VCs needed for winning the game could favor allies, idk, I didn’t try it, but with less VCs than 13 it will not be a struggle for global dominance, and so it would not be AA50.
As for TripleA live games, with less than a 6 ipc unit bid and LL, Germany will attack either Egy or Kalia. And with only a Russian inf, I think the axis will usually win this one, unless the allied player is generally a better player, or if the axis player does a big mistake, or several smaller mistakes.
I have lost with a $9 bid as allies, and lost to a $6 allied bid, as axis, in LL.
I’m starting getting conservative with axis rnd1 moves, buys etc.
At least when playing ADS, (hopefully no bids for allies in ADS), or LL against a $6 bid or higher. In the first games, we didn’t know what to do with Russia, and with LL no bids, we could just fool around with axis, a predetermined win.
Lately, players start to learn playing allies more efficiently, so the happy days are over. This doesn’t mean that allies are favored in 41 +NOs, no tech and LL, or that it’s balanced with this setting, only that it takes more games to learn the allies, the axis learning curve is not as demanding. -
Well, having started this thread I shouldn’t be afraid to jump in. I’ll play Axis against you, Bugoo, or anyone still claiming Allies are a par with Axis in a '41, NOs, no tech game.
I’ll play. League Game?
Go Allies! :-D
-
Hey now I didn’t say I was positive they were on par, only that a bid is the best way and that time will tell mate. But just for fun I will play a LL game with ya over TripleA. I’m usually on during the weekends.
-
I did think of one other change that would help the allies out. Cruisers with AA gun ability. That would be nice, and they did have alot of AA guns during the war. But honestly, does anyone use cruisers in this game? I build more battleships than cruisers typically, they just seem so worthless for the cost.
Suggested Topics
