@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 part 2-> bids
-
A game with tech, since it is random, and some are gamebreaking, is inherently unbalanced. One tech roll of HB by USA on Round 1 and the allies are pretty much guaranteed a win, everything else being equal.
Amen brother.
Even though these OOB tech rules are better, they are still rather random.If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.
NO tech
NO objectives
NO bidsSee how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.
I think this is very solid, logical thinking. However, I think A&A players want to clang those bells and blow those whistles, as they are more ‘fun’
-
I voted “Unit bid, China inf only” because of those listed, it was the best option.
I think then you could get a bid that was useful. something of some significance.
one or two info for the allies just ain’t gonna cut it.How many Chinese inf would it take (and I think they should NOT be limited to one per territory)
-
A game with tech, since it is random, and some are gamebreaking, is inherently unbalanced. One tech roll of HB by USA on Round 1 and the allies are pretty much guaranteed a win, everything else being equal.
Amen brother.
Even though these OOB tech rules are better, they are still rather random.If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.
NO tech
NO objectives
NO bidsSee how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.
I think this is very solid, logical thinking. However, I think A&A players want to clang those bells and blow those whistles, as they are more ‘fun’
At least for Gencon tournaments, this problem is “solved”. Greg’s rule is that unless players agree, there is no tech and no objectives. The game also starts in 1942, which doesnt give Japan that 5 transport advantage.
I agree that A&A gamers want “fun”. The problem, though, is people cry that the game is not “balanced”. In some cases, this is bcause they did not win. In others, it was because of unbalnced tech.
But without eliminating as many “random” factors as you can to get a baseline, you will never get a real balance.
Or, put another way, a bid system that is factoring “tech” and unequal “NO” is not going to be balanced anyways. The randomness of such tech eliminates the possibility of an actual true balance.
As for only “china-inf” bids, what if the axis needed a bid? I realize people think Axis is advantaged in 1941 though….
-
I agree that Techs should not be included when we are talking about balancing the game.
But I do want to balance out the National Objectives since they are not Random like techs are, and because I think they add the to game significantly.
Therefore, I voted to bid down the NOs (Axis NOs should be worth 2-4, not 5).
-
I’m still not sure that the '41 setup with NO’s is unbalanced, but if it is, and it is in favor of the Axis, then my first choice would be to bid Chinese infantry.
My second choice would be to lower the 5 IPC NO’s to 4 and the 10 IPC NO to 8.
-
If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.
NO tech
NO objectives
NO bidsSee how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.
Squirecam, I think people don’t play without NOs because it’s a cakewalk for the Allies. I mean, you have that weak Japan build and strong UK & Russian builds round 1 but then ALSO the fact that Axis won’t be catching up economically later in the game. NOs also promotes Pacific action, so it corrects many of the problems of AAR. Why should people want to play an inferior set of rules?
Great to see we have a debate catching up already! :wink:
-
If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.
NO tech
NO objectives
NO bidsSee how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.
Squirecam, I think people don’t play without NOs because it’s a cakewalk for the Allies. I mean, you have that weak Japan build and strong UK & Russian builds round 1 but then ALSO the fact that Axis won’t be catching up economically later in the game. NOs also promotes Pacific action, so it corrects many of the problems of AAR. Why should people want to play an inferior set of rules?
Great to see we have a debate catching up already! :wink:
Why cant the axis catch up the way they have always done? Take pacific IPC and africa IPC to reduce UK and USA income? I also dont understand how a game without NO is suddenly “inferior”???
-
I find it ironic that you want to balance the game, yet consider tech effects (like super subs) in your calculations.
Techs make a totally different game, with more strategy and tactics (since you have to take into account effects of tech), a richer gameplay. Since I doubt I’ll play without tech much games, I must include them
A game with tech, since it is random, and some are gamebreaking, is inherently unbalanced. One tech roll of HB by USA on Round 1 and the allies are pretty much guaranteed a win, everything else being equal.
So? What if germans or japs get HBs first round too? Or radar or improved industry? Or paras? Or improved shipyard? Or war bounds? Find a way of countering HBs: there are many. Find a way of countering gamekiller chinese rules and setup, resulting in China killed J1. There is none
I prefer a 1/36 chance of getting HBs with someone (that has possible counters) than a 90% chance of game killed J1 (that has no counter)
If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.
NO tech
NO objectives
NO bidsWe desagree about basic version. I want a more complex game with more strats and tactics available, so my default combo is tech+NOs. You sacrifice complexity for security. It’s a legitimate choice. But if I want a no-tech no-NOs game, I prefer Revised
And for the record, I think that, even without NOs, axis could have a slight advantage
-
How many Chinese inf would it take (and I think they should NOT be limited to one per territory)
If limited to one per territory, it will be not enough, even if you allow them in empty territories. You need that fig badly with the chineses, and 1 inf to Yunnan is not enough to save
With fully freedom to place infs, 4 would be the minimal (you need have reasonable chances of surviving even if someone gambles with 3 inf+2 fig). I guess any number between 5-7 will be good, since you need number anyway because you must fight japs alone in Asia after the starting UK units are dead or escape
4 infs should go to Yunnan. You could want add more there or add 1 or 2 to nin for possible counter attacks in sui
-
As for only “china-inf” bids, what if the axis needed a bid?
Restrict allied bids to China. Let total freedom of units to axis in case of a negative bid. Solved
-
Why cant the axis catch up the way they have always done? Take pacific IPC and africa IPC to reduce UK and USA income? I also dont understand how a game without NO is suddenly “inferior”
'41 scenario starts before any of the old games and due to that the Axis are at a disadvantage. Germany gets stopped quite quickly and runs out of infantry. Without NOs they will probably not be able to mount any serious offensive vs. the Soviets if you play the russkies well. Of course you can bid to get extra units as Germany but the problem is better taken care with NOs where Germany actually gets IPCs enough to both hold off UK invasions and go to the offensive against Russia. The game usually turns around if US forces arrive strong enough to start to tip the balance (alternatively if USA attacks Japan so strongly that the Soviets can focus all resources vs. Germany). That’s my experience anyways, but maybe you have some other secret strategy that work in different ways?
The only problem with NOs is that they are somewhat too good for Japan especially and that’s why we have the balance discussion. NOs as a whole really improves the game and almost nobody plays without them.
-
You cannot have negative bids with both sides getting the option for units. You specifically have to bid for one side, which is why the League is designed the way it is. If you bid negative you have to subtract something from the side you were bidding for. Essentially you are saying “I can win with this side with X less units”.
There reason you can’t bid units for either side is there is no lower limit or penalty for absurdly low bids.
For Example, you and I agree to play and I happen to see (from posts or previous games) that you think the Axis have the Adv and you typically bid -12 for 4 inf to China while I would normally bid 3 for a Ger inf to Lib. Well this time, I’m going to bid -900 for 300 inf and the game is ruined b/c I have the lower bid. So next game you bid -1000, while I bid -2000. So to counteract this you now say players will bid for the Allies, but negative bids for the Axis would have a similar result.
You cannot allow bidding of units for both sides via nagative bid, assuming it is a blind bid. Part of the bidding aspect is confidence in your own play. Your not necessarily bidding for balance, you are bidding for what you think you need to win. Thus if you go negative you are saying “I can win with this side with less units.”
-
Why cant the axis catch up the way they have always done? Take pacific IPC and africa IPC to reduce UK and USA income? I also dont understand how a game without NO is suddenly “inferior”
'41 scenario starts before any of the old games and due to that the Axis are at a disadvantage. Germany gets stopped quite quickly and runs out of infantry. Without NOs they will probably not be able to mount any serious offensive vs. the Soviets if you play the russkies well. Of course you can bid to get extra units as Germany but the problem is better taken care with NOs where Germany actually gets IPCs enough to both hold off UK invasions and go to the offensive against Russia. The game usually turns around if US forces arrive strong enough to start to tip the balance (alternatively if USA attacks Japan so strongly that the Soviets can focus all resources vs. Germany). That’s my experience anyways, but maybe you have some other secret strategy that work in different ways?
The only problem with NOs is that they are somewhat too good for Japan especially and that’s why we have the balance discussion. NOs as a whole really improves the game and almost nobody plays without them.
The point is about “Balance.” People want a balanced game, yet they want to play with NO that (in their opinion) greatly increases the axis chance of winning. So they have to neuter the NO. But what if the neuter of the NO is too little or too much. And what about a random tech…
Tech may give a gamer more options. It does NOT mean it is better strategically or tactically. Its just another option. An unbalanced one, given US HB round 1, all other things equal.
And NO dont really “improve” the game as much as you think. Let me give an example.
Lenningrad is strategically important for Russia and Germany. It protects the 5 Finland/Norway IPC, it has a factory, and is a great staging area for an atack on Russia, or a good base for allies to shot for to aid Russia. You should want Lenningrad ANYWAY. The fact you get bonus IPC for it is really irrelevant.
But going back to my initial point, if you play WITH tech, you really cannot balance the game. Unless you remove every unbalanced tech, starting with HB. And even then, the techs must be equally valuable, or the random nature of rolling is what will end up deciding the game. Whoever gets the more unbalanced tech that they can exploit fully first will win.
I dont call that “better” than a standard game.
-
There reason you can’t bid units for either side is there is no lower limit or penalty for absurdly low bids.
There is. If we bid for axis :lol: :
A guy bids -12. B -11. First guy win the bid (he bidded lower), so gets axis. The other guy receives 11 IPCs to use for allied units
Next game: A guy bids -12. B -13. B win the bid (he bidded lower), so gets axis. The other guy receives 12 IPCs to use for allied units
A lower negative bid will play axis against a more stronger allies. The penalty if you bid ridiculously low is that -> playing against superior allied forces. I see no contradiction :|
-
Well this time, I’m going to bid -900 for 300 inf and the game is ruined b/c I have the lower bid.
Mmmm… in this case, you recieve axis and I get 300 shiny allied infs. You lose the game because bidding so low. Why i should bid -2000 next time? To have a sure lost? I would continue bidding -12. If you bid -2000 … I get 400 shiny tanks and win again. If you bid -11, I get axis, you receive 11 ipcs to allied units and we have a balanced game
Remember, -900 is lower than -12. Maybe you get confused :-)
-
The only problem with NOs is that they are somewhat too good for Japan especially and that’s why we have the balance discussion. NOs as a whole really improves the game and almost nobody plays without them.
Agreed here
-
And for the record, I think that, even without NOs, axis could have a slight advantage
You are wrong again, w/o NOs, allies are favored in both 41 and 42.
-
There is no reason to have any confusions when bidding for sides.
Usually both players think that side x are favored with OOB rules, or +NOs. Then they start bidding downwards, and if we think axis are favored in 41 +NOs, then we bid for allies. I can start at $20 or $10, or the other player start bidding, it doesn’t matter. Same goes if we think allies are favored.If the peculiar situation arises, and the two players disagree which side are favored, there’s still no need for confusion and messing up bid systems.
If I think allies are favored in Revised, but some other player think axis are favored, then I offer my opponent to play axis w/o bids, and since my opponent thinks axis are favored, he will definately want to play axis w/o a bid, for a certain victory, and I feel the same, except that I believe I will win easily with allies.
In AA50, I still think axis are slightly favored in 41 +NOs, so if I play against someone who thinks allies are favored, then there’s no need for a bid, plain and simple. How can this be misintepreted?
-
You’re using a diffenent bidding system. The system you are discribing isn’t the standard blind bid.
I’m not sure how your system would handle -13 vs. 12 then. Obviously the -13 would get the Axis and the 12 would get 4 inf for the Allies?
Then what is the difference between -12 (your example with the Allies getting 12 more ipc) and my example of actually bidding 12 for the Allies? Suppose both players bid positive, Player A bids 3, Player B bids 6. Now Player A gets the Axis BUT player B gets 6 ipc to spend?
All you’ve done is reverse the porocess to people now bidding absurdly high. You bid -12, I’ll bid 1000. You get the Axis and I get 1000 ipc.
See this is my point you cannot have the option for either side to get units. A decision has to be made where you have to specifically bid for one side and one side only.
Ignore negative bids or discourage them completely, it just creates problems and they simply aren’t needed.
If bidding for one side is so lopsided it will show in the results and you can make adjustments after whatever period of time you want.
To use the League as an Example, we played about 200 games in the Revised Leagues in each of the past two seasons, so if we get near that in the AA50 league and we end up with the Axis winning 60% or more that will tell us one of two things:
- The players in general are bidding too high for the Axis
or (if every game was played with a Zero bid)
2) I need to adjust the rules and next year players will bid for the Allies.The problem with the second option is, not every game has a bid of zero and we’ve allowed tech.
As it looks now the overall game doesn’t appear that unbalanced with the OOB setup. We can complain about needed an inf here or there right now but I’ve seen no evidence that one side is racking up 70-90% win ratios. And we can complain about China or lack of fighting in certain theatres but those complaints don’t equal not have a fair shot to win the game at the start.
Now my personal opinion is the Allies have the slight adv, but even if I’m wrong I enjoy the fact that for the first time in years it is fun and challanging to play the Allies. Through Classic and Revised I always like playing the Axis b/c it was the bigger challange, it is nice to have the burden on the Allies for change and trying to have them step up to see if they can be as good as the were in previous versions.
Edit:
A couple posts were snuck in. This was in response to Func.
-
As for the vote, I voted for unlimited placement.
Typically it is the lowest bid in terms of amount and least likely to have major changes with the initial OOB setup. This assumes competitive play.
If you’re playing just for fun or to increase action in certain areas or the world, then players are free to use whatever system they deem necessary. :-D
But it would probably be much harder to get those adjustments “standardized”.
Suggested Topics
