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
-
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.
-
I’d echo what some others have said…. if peeps think KGF is the go-to strategy in this game then I’d be happy to play Axis and challenge them (maybe sometime I’ll find you on TripleA). However, the bid to Egypt and Karelia evens it out alot–perhaps completely. However I would say that without a bid Axis have the advantage and it only gets bigger if the Allies go KGF.
All that said maybe KGF will be the strategy since Japan starts with so much–if Japan plays defense effectively they can hold off the USA for a long time. Pacific offensives, while tempting due to NOs and the superiority of air power, are actually more complicated then Revised since USA can’t build on Borneo or East Indies.
Re. game mods, I’d prefer modifications that make the game more historical–ie. I’d prefer if Japan had a starting factory in Indochina and United Kingdom had one in India and Aussie. I’d prefer a stronger Chinese. I’d prefer a stronger Germany (more Luftwaffe, more Baltic fleet). In general I think it’s too darn easy for the Japs to break out and too hard for the Germans to defeat the Russians.
But hell to make me happy they would need to design a truly historical game that never really ends lol.
-
The point right now about building in the Pacific is not to grab IPC-rich island but to:
A) Protect your Pacific NO
B) Meet the Japanese before they get to invade the North American continent with impunity (it’s actually quite hard to defend against a US counterattack from the West coast since CVs can strike at Sea of Japan OR your Alaskan invasion fleet)
C) Keep Jap air and naval units off Africa and mainland Asia, facing you.Only if Japs fail to do C) you might be able to sneak in and grab say Borneo. I agree it would be nice to have a more game-deciding Pacific theater but short of a redesign of the entire game playing for 12 VCs seem to be the best way. Pacific has no capitals to capture (realistically), that’s what this game is about and you need a VC win to fight for if the Pacific should be as important as Europe.
Bugoo, DarthMaximus and Soul beat you to it and have just started games as Axis against them! Your next in line when I’m obliterated by them… :wink:
-
Your next in line when I’m obliterated by them… :wink:
I object! :-D
My issue with the Axis is their round 1 attacks. I think far too much depends on winning every battle and when you have a combined 14-18 battles some of those are going to go bad or you’ll get sub par results and that in turn gives the Allies the Adv b/c they can see the weak links and respond accordingly.
Now if all the Axis battles are won with expected results the Allies certainly have their work cut out for them.
-
Well, the bad stuff with axis round 1 attacks is that only a few can go totally bad, and even losing one of them will not hurt axis too much because of their huge default advantage. Axis losing some attacks here and there simply means allies have a small opening, but axis should have to lose most of them to give a balanced game. Egypt is not critical to axis, nor z2 nor even Yunnan or z12. But each one of these successing for axis is a bigsetback for allies and hurts them much since they cannot recover from them as axis can.
In resume, axis has much less to lose in that combats than allies
-
With unit bids for allies in ADS, the risk for axis increases substantially.
I think allies have 50% or more with a $6 unit bid, (NOs, ADS, no tech).
I would like to try this, but I doubt there will be any takers.
Suggested Topics
