@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
-
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)?
-
If any bid is necessary I would bid for American ships off of western USA. A bid elsewhere will favor a KGIF.
I really think it is important have the USA fight in the pacific. I’m not saying 100% builds in pacific, but why can’t USA fight in both theatres like in our history books? If you force the Americans to fight in the pacific you get a more interesting game. But right now, as the rules and setup stands, as Allies I am going KGIF every time. That means I play defensively in Pacific theatre as USA. But that is not what happen in history. America was very aggresive in the pacific. Why can’t this game simulate that? Change NOs for USA to all be in Pacific and even possibly put another DD or Cruiser in WUSA. More incentive to fight there and less KGIF strategies.
-
Why are you commenting in this thread?
To participate in an exchange of ideas of several different possibilities on how to balance AA50
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….
I have said many times, that when discussing balance, imo, the best premise is to change the game as little as possible. I have tried the first two of the optional rules, but not the Dardanelles closing and SBR interceptors. Actually I think both Dardanelles closing and interceptors can be fun, but it’s unlikely that these options will achieve a balance as good as cash bids and unit bids.
It’s not much more different when I’m commenting on some game changes which is house rules. Many like to use house rules, but the premise for this thread is balance, and not house rules modifications.
Many players think it’s an unacceptable change to use LL instead of ADS, not for balance, but for fun.
I think not. I don’t mind house rules or discussing house rules, except I don’t use house rules myself, probably same reasons why many players don’t like LL, or tech etc.
Why not call it house rules when it is house rules, cash and unit bids are not considered house rules by most players, b/c bids are a necessary evil. What I’d wish is if someone came up with a bid system which changes the game as little as possible, even less than unit bids and cash bids, which still can bring the same balance as cash/unit bids can. Or perhaps someone can offer some insight of how/why cash/units or other bid systems changes the game less than other solutions. I have several opinions on how the game should be changed to the better, but when I’m discussing balance, the only change which should be considered is that both sides should have equal chance of winning.perhaps you can offer your insight (I missed it earlier in the previous 6 pages of this thread)?
I hope Larry Harris can offer some insight, I posted a question on his website.
I don’t consider bids “changing the game”, only make it playable by balancing both sides.
By changing any rules, or adding anything other than the absolute minimum needed for balancing, then we moved from game balance to house rules and custom modifications. These issues are not the same. If someone make their own mods, I can download these mods and play them in TripleA.
I don’t see any problem with me pointing out that we should discuss house rules and custom mods in separate threads, the name of this thread is “how to achieve balance”, not “how to change the game mechanism from KGF to KJF”, or “how to make an AA50-power-China-mod”…
-
@Flying:
If any bid is necessary I would bid for American ships off of western USA. A bid elsewhere will favor a KGIF.
I really think it is important have the USA fight in the pacific. I’m not saying 100% builds in pacific, but why can’t USA fight in both theatres like in our history books? If you force the Americans to fight in the pacific you get a more interesting game. But right now, as the rules and setup stands, as Allies I am going KGIF every time. That means I play defensively in Pacific theatre as USA. But that is not what happen in history. America was very aggresive in the pacific. Why can’t this game simulate that? Change NOs for USA to all be in Pacific and even possibly put another DD or Cruiser in WUSA. More incentive to fight there and less KGIF strategies.
In the real WW2, US spent approx. 85% of resources against Germany.
A game where KJF is more powerful than KGIF is less historical correct then the current AAR and AA50 setups, which favors KGF as most effective. -
@Subotai:
@Flying:
If any bid is necessary I would bid for American ships off of western USA. A bid elsewhere will favor a KGIF.
I really think it is important have the USA fight in the pacific. I’m not saying 100% builds in pacific, but why can’t USA fight in both theatres like in our history books? If you force the Americans to fight in the pacific you get a more interesting game. But right now, as the rules and setup stands, as Allies I am going KGIF every time. That means I play defensively in Pacific theatre as USA. But that is not what happen in history. America was very aggresive in the pacific. Why can’t this game simulate that? Change NOs for USA to all be in Pacific and even possibly put another DD or Cruiser in WUSA. More incentive to fight there and less KGIF strategies.
In the real WW2, US spent approx. 85% of resources against Germany.
A game where KJF is more powerful than KGIF is less historical correct then the current AAR and AA50 setups, which favors KGF as most effective.Okay, but in a KGF, America usually spends 0% in the Pacific, not 15-20% (I think the # was closer to 80/20 than 85/15, but you may be right.) Some players want to force the US to NOT spend 100% for KGF and 0% in the Pacific which is also NOT HISTORICAL.
-
A ignore Japan game is more ahistorical than a balanced game. A KGF leads to a Japan not only greater than Germany, but greater than USA :-o, and even worst, a Japan than can (and should) invade mainland America
For the ignore China strats, as someone said, China is very valuable for japs. It has:
- Territories for a value of 13 IPCs (including Kwantung)
- One NO to lost (maybe two, remember Kwantung) -> 5-10 IPCs more
- A good spot for a IC (Manchuria)
Any “ignore” someone strats should be prevented, because the ignored one could not ignore you. Another thing that we should do, balance or not, and for prevent the igonre China, is ignore that Acme style frontier that chineses have -> let chineses exit from China. Acme frontier leads to many gamebugs like bombers merrily sitting in FIC inf front of chinese units, italians happily menacing chinese rear from Khazakstan and such :|
-
@Subotai:
@Flying:
If any bid is necessary I would bid for American ships off of western USA. A bid elsewhere will favor a KGIF.
I really think it is important have the USA fight in the pacific. I’m not saying 100% builds in pacific, but why can’t USA fight in both theatres like in our history books? If you force the Americans to fight in the pacific you get a more interesting game. But right now, as the rules and setup stands, as Allies I am going KGIF every time. That means I play defensively in Pacific theatre as USA. But that is not what happen in history. America was very aggresive in the pacific. Why can’t this game simulate that? Change NOs for USA to all be in Pacific and even possibly put another DD or Cruiser in WUSA. More incentive to fight there and less KGIF strategies.
In the real WW2, US spent approx. 85% of resources against Germany.
A game where KJF is more powerful than KGIF is less historical correct then the current AAR and AA50 setups, which favors KGF as most effective.I didn’t say anything about a KJF strategy. All I would like to see is a game where it is beneficial for America to fight in both theatres. This would be a more historical game and way more fun. Instead we have a game of 100% builds towards a KGF strategy. I don’t think there is much of a balance problem, still a toss up on who wins the war. But if I am Japan I can send much of my fleet to the Med and the allies are not sinking the combined fleet of Italy and Japan for many rounds. IMO this is the best counter for a KGF strategy. Italy can do alot of damage to Africa and the middle east , not to mention caucus. If you Use Japan to attack Alaska to take pressure off of a KGF you are wasting your time. You have to go big for that and if you do you lose Asia and the war. Sure you can counter the KGF but there is not enough action in the pacific which IMO is undesirable.
-
@Flying:
If you Use Japan to attack Alaska to take pressure off of a KGF you are wasting your time. You have to go big for that and if you do you lose Asia and the war
Who can steal Asia to Japan if they attack Alaska?
-China? The one killed round 1 due to bugged setup and rules?
-USA? The one who went to a KGF?- UK? They cannot hold India much time. As much, they could halt japan in Persia, but that’s not a real problem since axis will have economic advantage. Japan has resources to attack both India and Alaska
- Soviets? Now Japan has greater buffer zones in japanese-puppet China and Siberia than in Revised and soviets have a much stonger euro-axis than last time. It will give allies too few and distract valuable soviet units from german front
No, Japan will not lose Asia in case of Polar Express. They could even take part of Africa
-
What is the objective of Polar Express, besides threatening an NO?
I can see hitting North America on a limited scale if there’s an opportunity to take an NO away from the USA. But this seems unlikely provided USA has at least one infantry on Western USA.
The cost (diverting resources needed to take down Moscow quickly) seems too high for too little reward.
Suggested Topics
