@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 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. -
Canada and Australia helped alot during WWII. I’m surprised that Canada doesn’t even have an IC (not that it would be of any use :S)
Not sure about India, I don’t know India’s history. If UK starts with an IC in India, then Japan can’t go crazy.
And yes, India IC can’t stand against a competent Japanese player. But the longer he takes to take it, the better it is for the Allies!Me and my friends are going to play a no NOs game next time to see how things are. One thing is sure, if there are no NOs, Germany won’t have to spread himself. Neither will have Japan. But at the same time, they lose a lot of IPC from bonuses. I think it will be interesting
Right now, we know that the key of success for the Allies are a strong UK navy. If UK can keep a strong navy during the game, then he can threaten France and the reste of Europe.
-
@Subotai:
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.I’m more worried for the non-tech stuff than for the bid itself (I assume you play allies). Anyway, I cannot play more than 1 game at the same time until at least June :|
-
Right but the problem with saying ‘allies have to hope a few attacks go bad’ is that the game is decided on turn 1 axis combats, not a good thing.
Bids are still the best, only debate left in my mind is cash only or units. To actually fix the game would require alot of work and be best as a mod.
And the big thing that will determine if KGF will work, is if you can get russia her 2nd NO before japan gets there in force (turn 3-5) which can be done. Another thing is US armor trucking threw africa to rally in persia helps big time, as does dropping a pacific fleet as US once you start to trade france, or if J went polar express its even better as you can waste her IPCs directly. 8-)
-
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
I disagree. I think the Axis have a lot to lose. I think leaving the UK ftr in Egy is a big shift for the Allies and the UK, as would be the BB b/c that likely means the UK already has 2 trns and a third if you bring over the Aussia trn.
Also depending on the G1 BST attack if the Russians get 1-2 hits then Kar might be stackable and Ger will have a real tough time ever getting the 3rd NO. Japan failing at Pearl is a huge setback as well, since the US can essentially have an equal fleet at the end of rd 1. Too many defensive hits in Sz 12 (or lost G planes) may mean Alg is an option in Rd 1 for the Allies, that means no two NO’s for Ita without putting their fleet in immediate danger in Rd 2. Japan losing to the UK DD at India makes Egy counterable or provides the UK with their 4 trn or might make a SAfr IC more viable. The Allies can have a lot of options depending on the results it is just a matter of playing them out and getting a better feel for what works and what doesn’t. The game is only about 6 months old and Allied strat ALWAYS trail axis b/c they require much more coordination and realiance upon each other for back up. We already are seeing some of it in the Tourney and League. The Allies lead in the Tourney and the League, will it hold up? I don’t know, but it is definitely promising considering it is still early and the Allies are winning more than the Axis. People are still trying to figure the best balance for the US and I still have a couple all out KJF strats I want to try even though just a few games ago I thought it would be impossible. I now think there might be some definite openings. KGF remains strong IMO (with the refinement of minimal support to hold or deter a J move HI - but that still means an 8 unit shuck is very playable). I’m also starting to like subs a little more (even for the Atlantic but haven’t really tested that much). -
@Subotai:
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.I’m more worried for the non-tech stuff than for the bid itself (I assume you play allies). Anyway, I cannot play more than 1 game at the same time until at least June :|
I also made that statement rhetorically, but I wouldn’t say it if I was not willing to play games with that setting.
As I haven’t played that many games with allies, I would probably do more mistakes than with axis.
Atm I would not play allies w/o bids, even in ADS, but this is also b/c I’m more insecure with allies in AA50 than I am with axis.
I would feel slightly better in ADS, but with a bid of $9 or more (for allies) I think I’ll win most ADS games.
There’s no reason to believe that the bid needed for balancing AA50 is higher than revised, I think it’s about the same amount, or even less than revised.I doubt that there are any players in the TripleA unstable lobby who would play against me if I get a $6 unit bid (or higher) for allies in ADS. And all games I play, be it revised or AA50, it’s always TripleA live games.
-
Darthmaximus just said that Allied are leading in the tournament. Maybe wait for all the results before arguing about this?
Robert
-
Darthmaximus just said that Allied are leading in the tournament. Maybe wait for all the results before arguing about this?
I agree.
The game is still new, allied play options are much greater (and more difficult) in this version of A&A, and it will be a while before the concensus agrees who needs help and how much they need.
What makes balancing AA50 more difficult is that the economic advantage can swing the Axis way mid-game (especially due to the Japanese Monster). This means a longer game can benefit the Axis, something that was usually the opposite in older versions: The old axiom: “The longer the game, the better the chances of the allies winning” is now out the window, IMHO.
If you agree that dynamic is changed, then you can see how delicate the balancing becomes… too much for one side and you’ve created a game that is unwinnable.
-
Darthmaximus just said that Allied are leading in the tournament. Maybe wait for all the results before arguing about this?
Robert
Then it wouldn’t be any fun, it’s also fun to argue, and although we cannot conclude with the same certainty as with revised, there are some results that have been showing already.
Until now, there is no reason to believe that the balance is worse off than revised. This could change in the future, but it’s unlikely.
As for which side to a give a bid, opinions on this matter can also change, but I would be very surprised if axis get a $3 unit bid or more. -
I agree with axis_roll, with all the various Axis attacks (while seen as a potential dis adv by me) you also get a WIDE variety of setups and playouts, which I think is contributing to all the who has the adv and balancing stuff. We are all just seeing lots of different scenerios simply because the results of round 1 are harder to duplicate than previous versions.
For Example in Revised, Russia Attacks Wrus and Ukr/Belo probably 90% of the time and the results are fairly predictible in that you can easily plan ahead for a G counter and then UK etc.
But in Revised the G1 attacks leave open lots of alternatives that make it hard to plan, does Russia attack Fin, stack Kar, pull out of Kar, stack Belo, counter Bst, counter Epl, counter Ukr, etc.?
And b/c it is harder to know exactly what you’ll face it makes it more difficult to come up with the counters that may have worked in past games. While the attacks are predictible the results are not thus we see the wide variety of Allies need X ipcs all the way to Axis need Y ipcs.
Suggested Topics
