@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
-
Axis needs a bid of at least 10 in a no NO game. KGF is very easy for the Allies.
I see many people claiming this same thing:
No National Objectives, Axis should lose to a KGF
With National Objectives, Axis are too hard to stop.I am not new in this suggestion, but I think perhaps reducing the NOs value to $4 or even $3 might do the trick to ‘MIDDLE’ this issue.
Perhaps even bidding {down} the NO value for the axis. Lower NO value wins the bid.
-
Axis needs a bid of at least 10 in a no NO game. KGF is very easy for the Allies.
I see many people claiming this same thing:
No National Objectives, Axis should lose to a KGF
With National Objectives, Axis are too hard to stop.I am not new in this suggestion, but I think perhaps reducing the NOs value to $4 or even $3 might do the trick to ‘MIDDLE’ this issue.
Perhaps even bidding {down} the NO value for the axis. Lower NO value wins the bid.
I’d vote that neither of these are true.
People continue to judge based upon limited play and/or limited competition. Give it some more time and better competition before you start asserting you need +10 bids…
-
I think the statement “Axis are at a disadvantage if the game is played without NOs” is pretty self-evident. In any game between decent players Axis will always get more cash from NOs. The set-up w/o NOs screams easy KGF–NOs are there to fix the problem.
-
The set-up w/o NOs screams easy KGF–NOs are there to fix the problem.
This is true, and even more true in 1942 scenario (I think this one is the most balanced)
-
This is true, and even more true in 1942 scenario (I think this one is the most balanced)
Agree on all three propositions of your statement Func. I’ve only just started 1942 but it seems promising - it’s certainly fun and interesting.
@Axis Roll. I think the solution of reducing NOs value would improve balance, providing the assumption is correct that axis have an edge. But I’m not all that keen on a solution which reduces the value of NOs - I think their addition was one of the best things about AA50. Having extra cash for all makes decisions more interesting (Germany has realistic options to just buying infantry, the US has to think more carefully about what to buy and where to send it…). Reducing NOs would encourage US to ignore the Pacific (which already is tempting enough). Others have suggested elsewhere tweaks to make allied NOs (particularly UK’s) easier to obtain, or Japan’s harder to get (e.g. when occupying russian territory). If deciding to go the path of fixing balance through NOs, I’d support these proposals rather than reduce the value of NOs.
-
Then why doesn’t someone go make a mod, its easy as all get out in TripleA. But it still wouldn’t be AA50.
I have to second the NO value reduction idea, I think reducing them all to 4, or to 8 in russia’s 2nd NO case, or maybe even as low as 3, would be promising. Bid is still my preferred method tough.
-
Cash bid is definitely my preferred option - it’s just you don’t know who needs it until G1 Egypt attack has been rolled…
But it still wouldn’t be AA50.
True, though I guess you could say the same about any changes - cash bids inclusive :wink: Do what feels good I reckon - whether that be China mods, low luck, bidding or whatever happens to tickle your fancy. There’s certainly someone around who’ll give you a game :-)
Until the game becomes predictable (if it does), I’ll enjoy playing straight up AA50, balanced or not.
-
The poll is still lead by bids. We have a tech tourney coming up and I think we should also try to persuade people to start with an “optional rule tourney”. We can then compare these three tourneys, pick some typical games with regards to strategy and dice and then perhaps we could get to the gist of things. Telamon, tech and optionals are the only “official” changes that might get to the question of balance… Bids don’t bother me really, I’ve played a lot with those in AAR, but I still think they make the game more predictable, especially unit bids. Of course people will be bidding inf in Egypt and it will boil down to if one or two inf is the correct bid. YAWN :-P
-
Foir myself, i simply put the otp rules and i add chinese infantry, 1 per terrritory.
It gives a litle boost to allies
-
As I said before, any changes from OOB rules or LHTR.2.0 is not strictly “chemically” pure A&A, be it AAR or D-Day or AA50.
But there is a big difference in principal, to change rules, although it can be small rule changes, and to give one side a cash bid or unit bid before the game starts.
So while rules changes are house rules, but still A&A with some custom house rule(s), my take on bids is that the one and only change I will make to a game using bids is the balance. Or else I would make the game different, but the balance would not be the motive for changing a game to custom mod, or some sort of a variant of AAR/AA50. I do not consider minimalistic changes with the single purpose of balancing the game so that both players have an equal chance to win, based on the game setup.
I don’t agree with people claiming that bids = house rules, this is the same as claiming A&A cant be played w/o house rules….Without a single change almost no one would want to play any A&A game, although I have hardly played any other games than classic, revised, AA50. AAE and AAP are not fully done in TripleA yet, so I’m not sure of the unbalance of other A&A games than classic, revised and AA50.
As for the balance of AA50 +NOs, we’re not sure yet, b/c we don’t agree like we do with classic and revised, but even if there’s not totally agreement on which amount the bids should be, allies are favored in both classic and revised, to such an extent that a bid is needed. Both classic and revised are unplayable w/o bids.
AA50 balance discussions is assuming NOs on, and this is were we disagree, there are some who thinks that allies are favored or that is perfectly balanced.There is a concensus though, that w/o NOs, allies are favored in both setups, so this means that classic, revised, and AA50 41&42 w/o NOs are all biased to one side w/o bids.
The conclusion to all this, is that while most of us thinks A&A games are both fun and entertaining, many A&A flavors are unplayable w/o bids. This means that if we don’t make any small change to the OOB/LHTR or other official rules, many A&A games are simply unplayable.Bids for balancing, should be considered a lesser evil, with a minimalistic approach, for the single purpose of getteing closer to chess balance, also knowing that this is not 100% doable atm, but it should be a goal to have a very balanced game so that both sides win, as in chess.
Any other discussion on KGF/KJF or US pac strat or theater activity etc, are not related to the balance issues. Then we’re making an AA50 custom mod.Imo it’s either unit bids or cash bids which is most minimalistic. Maybe I should start poll to find out what changes are less influencal to the core of the game?
-
Subotai, I agree in what you say with regards to major rule changes, China becoming a new power etc. But what do you think of bidding to lower NOs? What about the optional rules?
-
Imo units bids and cash are most minimalistic, and therefore should be the preferred option to balance the game.
As for two the official optional rules, Dardanelles closing and SBR interceptors, I haven’t tried those so I don’t know how much it affects the game balance.
Most of us play with NOs, (which is also an optional rule) and this is most fun, so I think that nerfing the NOs is unacceptable within my minimalistic philosophy of game balancing. Reducing NOs are house rules department imo.What is important to remember, that 2 optional rules was included when the game was released, and two rules were added afterwards, probably b/c of balancing issues. I might be conservative on this, but as long as it comes from Larry Harris, it’s ok, and especially when rules are optional.
Tech and NOs was not added for balancing, but for fun, and Dardanelles + SBR interceptors was added for balancing, so we should consider these optional rules differently.
As for interceptors, I welcome it, b/c it will probably reduce randomness. I don’t think it will influence the balance, but the Dardanelles closing probably will favor allies, I think this item is not a good concept for balancing, or changing the game, even if it comes from L.H. b/c then all other straits should be closed according to the real WW2, but as with all other official rules, I can accept these rules if they makes the game more exciting and entertaining.I just think at all other discussions on game which influences the game more than the smallest possible change, and then only related to game balance, should be discussed in the context of custom mods and house rules.
As I’m quite interested in the philosophical aspects of things, balance issues vs custom rules/house rules, skill vs luck etc.
Often I get the impression that many of you really don’t like AA50 that much, but maybe you see AA50 as a platform to build on, with the purpose to make your own games…? -
The poll is still lead by bids. We have a tech tourney coming up and I think we should also try to persuade people to start with an “optional rule tourney”. We can then compare these three tourneys, pick some typical games with regards to strategy and dice and then perhaps we could get to the gist of things. Telamon, tech and optionals are the only “official” changes that might get to the question of balance… Bids don’t bother me really, I’ve played a lot with those in AAR, but I still think they make the game more predictable, especially unit bids. Of course people will be bidding inf in Egypt and it will boil down to if one or two inf is the correct bid. YAWN :-P
Exactly the problem with bidding for units - the G1 Egypt attack is already iffy enough if one puts 1 more infantry there, then one basically closes off the option of a G1 attack there, and closing off options is not a good thing. If one must add something to the Allied side, then just put 1 or 2 more infantry in Yunan, not Egypt.
-
Agreed, Bardoly. We should bid chinese infantery instead of allied units (or cash)
-
I tend to agree–China is the most logical place for bid units. Making China the default place would liven up the game IMO…making land based KJF strats more logical.
China’s weakness is the most unbalanced aspect of AA:41… a China bid fixes the problem.
-
The problem with China is, Japan can always ignore it. It isn’t vital strategically (can still go north, south, or invade the US), the units can’t move out of China, they can’t buy/place attacking units, it doesn’t relieve the pressure on North America if Japan goes polar express, and it is still quicker for Japan to go thru India and Cauc. India and/or Aus still could fall on J2 and two of Wake/Mid/Hi still could go by J3.
You could probably end up giving China 3,4,5+ inf and it won’t help with balance (assuming you think the Axis have the Adv.). At best it might keep Japan at 60 instead or say 65, or might take 1-2 extra turns to punch through. Big deal, since Germany is the primary threat to Russia.
In order for China to matter they’d need to be a threat to Japan and with current rules they aren’t and it probably wouldn’t matter how many inf you add. Now if they argument is for a playable China (or full power status like Italy) that is a different argument and a different thread.
-
I don’t like the concept of “closed bid systems”.
I like open bids, i.e. you can place any unit where you want, but preferably one unit pr.TT, and only on the TTs which you already own, except maybe in Libya, b/c Germany has already 2 infs in Libya.If someone wants to restrict the bids, other than 1 unit pr.TT and on TT’s which are already owned by the start of the game, then they want to change the game, not the balance.
If I want to change the game I would not start with the bid system.
-
The problem with China is, Japan can always ignore it. It isn’t vital strategically (can still go north, south, or invade the US), the units can’t move out of China, they can’t buy/place attacking units, it doesn’t relieve the pressure on North America if Japan goes polar express, and it is still quicker for Japan to go thru India and Cauc. India and/or Aus still could fall on J2 and two of Wake/Mid/Hi still could go by J3.
You could probably end up giving China 3,4,5+ inf and it won’t help with balance (assuming you think the Axis have the Adv.). At best it might keep Japan at 60 instead or say 65, or might take 1-2 extra turns to punch through. Big deal, since Germany is the primary threat to Russia.
In order for China to matter they’d need to be a threat to Japan and with current rules they aren’t and it probably wouldn’t matter how many inf you add. Now if they argument is for a playable China (or full power status like Italy) that is a different argument and a different thread.
Well, enough infantry on China will make a difference. I agree that even 5 inf on China is not as strategically significant as 1 unit each to Egypt and Karelia…but I’m thinking the bid could be as high as 6 extra Chinese. Once you get to 5-6 it won’t be so easy for Japan to steamroll China.
-
Hear, hear! I like idea of China unit bids. It would have several ripple effects I think:
*Russians wouldn’t need to send units to China, and can rather send these to India. Maybe even an India IC could be viable in some games: going heavy into India might just be worth it if China will hold its own and Japan would run out of units.
*Japan’s economic advantage would decrease, for example building transports rather than an IC first turn might be necessary to get units into China and to assault India at the same time, delaying the JTDTM even if Japan plans to bypass/contain China.
*Strategically, putting early pressure on Japs by USA could be more effective since Japan would be more tied up with land units builds and be less likely to have IPCs left to buy air and sea units.This can also be used in any combination with optionals and tech, as I realize these two are not in flavour of everyone. Free Allied bids would almost certainly end up in KAR or EGY, making Germany weaker and probably making KGF a more attractive strategy.
DM, don’t really agree ignoring China would work. If the fighter survives, the Chinese could get troublesome since 6-8 inf attacking with a fighter is a handful and Japan doesn’t want to lose their home NO. I think Japan will in any case be forced to attack China full force, at least initially in order to push them from border territories threatening MAN and KIA.
One problem though is if we arrive at an Allied advantage, for example in '42 or '41 without NOs. Bid Italian units perhaps? Being from Sweden where we practise social welfare I propose we could call this giving the weakest citizen a social benefit… :wink:
-
@Subotai:
I don’t like the concept of “closed bid systems”.
I like open bids, i.e. you can place any unit where you want, but preferably one unit pr.TT, and only on the TTs which you already own, except maybe in Libya, b/c Germany has already 2 infs in Libya.If someone wants to restrict the bids, other than 1 unit pr.TT and on TT’s which are already owned by the start of the game, then they want to change the game, not the balance.
If I want to change the game I would not start with the bid system.
Why are you commenting in this thread?
You don’t like a bid system to change the game, "nerfing the NOs is unacceptable ", you haven’t tried the optional rules but from your post it appears you wouldn’t like them either….
perhaps you can offer your insight (I missed it earlier in the previous 6 pages of this thread)?
Suggested Topics
