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.
May 2009 Balance Poll
-
Hey kids.
I saw Flying Tiger put out a fine poll, but I wanted to include the magnitude of imbalance (bid) with the poll.
We’ll see how things have changed. Here are the results from April:
Allies need a $10+ bid to win 50% of their games 4 (9.1%)
Allies need a $5+ bid to win 50% of their games 9 (20.5%)
Even - With no bid or a small bid it is 50% either way 27 (61.4%)
Axis need a $5+ bid to win 50% of their games 3 (6.8%)
Axis need a $10+ bid to win 50% of their games 1 (2.3%) -
A + $10 bid for allies is too much, and any bid for axis is unneeded.
-
I should add that the balance issue in AA50 is different from revised, not only in the LL vs ADS matters, but the first rnd in AA50 is totally different from revised, and revised is what we have to compare with. And playing AA50 with both settings really helps understanding this issue.
With 16-18 axis attacks rnd1 and very few allies attack, compare this to revised rnd1….
There’s so much that can happen that is controlled by dice, the first rnd in AA50 is crucial in another context than revised. A consequence of the differences in AA50 from revised is that much more is settled from the first rnd moves/attacks. A unit bid in AA50 is much stronger than in revised, simply b/c of the different setup and game design.
Any bid with more than 3 units is way off any game balance question. Any axis bid of more than one unit will result in 100% axis victories, for decent players, regardless of dice, unless we have a dice cheat :evil:Imo allies can do good with 1-2 units, but the dice is more important in AA50, so the amount of bid needed will only be known after the first rnd…!
-
Subo: That makes a lot of sense to me. The variability of the more complicated opening will generate a lot of noise.
It also means AA50 will have a greater difference between LL and normal play.
-
$6-9 Unit bid, or $15-21 cash bid. for allies
-
A key difference in bidding that I have seen is the limit of 1 unit per territory.
That enables a larger bid $ value.You did not mention that in your post, so I think you’re poll implies I could place 3 units in egypt if I won the allies with a $9 bid.
-
we have an agreed balance shift instead of a bid in my group
1 extra UK infantry in Egypt
2 extra Chinese infantry in the areas behind the front
move flying tigers back 1 space so it cant be attacked 1st turn
UK NO requires 4 of canda, egypt etcthat’s our balance tweaks
1 extra uk infantry in New Zealand.
That’s because we are New Zealanders and didn’t like our home country being undefended :) Has yet to come into play though until the game is basically decided.
-
we have an agreed balance shift instead of a bid in my group
1 extra UK infantry in Egypt
2 extra Chinese infantry in the areas behind the front
move flying tigers back 1 space so it cant be attacked 1st turn
UK NO requires 4 of canda, egypt etcthat’s our balance tweaks
1 extra uk infantry in New Zealand.
That’s because we are New Zealanders and didn’t like our home country being undefended :) Has yet to come into play though until the game is basically decided.
Seems pretty good
-
we have an agreed balance shift instead of a bid in my group
1 extra UK infantry in Egypt
2 extra Chinese infantry in the areas behind the front
move flying tigers back 1 space so it cant be attacked 1st turn
UK NO requires 4 of canda, egypt etcthat’s our balance tweaks
1 extra uk infantry in New Zealand.
That’s because we are New Zealanders and didn’t like our home country being undefended :) Has yet to come into play though until the game is basically decided.
Those three UK tweaks can be quite large. Holding Egypt G1 is huge, possibly enabling a tank and a ftr to escape even if Germany did attack G1. Adding more NO income enables more UK options, and the 1 extra inf in New Zealand makes an Australia IC more possible (in conjunction with the UK ftr from Egypt that gets to aid the defenses on UK3). US can support that UK with 2 ftrs a turn quite easily while building a fleet in sz56 as the ftrs built on the existing US carrier can make it 4 spaces to Australia.
-
we have an agreed balance shift instead of a bid in my group
1 extra UK infantry in Egypt
2 extra Chinese infantry in the areas behind the front
move flying tigers back 1 space so it cant be attacked 1st turn
UK NO requires 4 of canda, egypt etcthat’s our balance tweaks
1 extra uk infantry in New Zealand.
That’s because we are New Zealanders and didn’t like our home country being undefended :) Has yet to come into play though until the game is basically decided.
Seems pretty good
Decent tweaks.
If adding units to the allies to balance the game I would like to see American ships added in the pacific only. Not in Hawaii though, pearl harbor needs to go as planned. A cruiser in wusa would be good start.
-
I saw no need for bid so far in all my games.
In fact, I had a way easier time to win with the allies than with the axis.
The one time I lost as allies was my own fault for continuing playing in early hours of morning while tired.
-
@Corbeau:
I saw no need for bid so far in all my games.
In fact, I had a way easier time to win with the allies than with the axis.
If I can ask, NOs? Tech?
What did the allies do to win so easily?
-
i’ve never used bids in a game, what are they?
-
axis_roll,
NO : yes
Tech : noThe first turn of the axis are pretty much scripted to a point. With the allies, it’s easy to plan ahead based upon that fact.
Allies won thoses games by denying Italy NOs and focussing upon weakening Poland/Baltic States to the north (UK) and Romania/Ukraine to the south(USA). This enables for a really agressive Russia which achieve all her NOs.
Think about it, Karelia and Caucasus are the main targets for axis in a standard game before Moscow. By cutting german lines trough thoses 4 territory mentioned above, it prevents reinforcements and even eventually prevent any advance. It enables Russia to keep her NO’s while Germany loses her own NO. More importantly, Allies by doing this are concentrating most of their forces in the same region.
Once the axis offensive is stalled, Allies economy allows them to come on top. Eventually something has to give up, France, Italy or the whole eastern front. By the time Japan arrives, IF it ever arrives, Russia is making 50 ipcs.
I call that policy: The Pincer Attack. :-P
-
@Corbeau:
axis_roll,
NO : yes
Tech : noThe first turn of the axis are pretty much scripted to a point. With the allies, it’s easy to plan ahead based upon that fact.
Allies won thoses games by denying Italy NOs and focussing upon weakening Poland/Baltic States to the north (UK) and Romania/Ukraine to the south(USA). This enables for a really agressive Russia which achieve all her NOs.
Think about it, Karelia and Caucasus are the main targets for axis in a standard game before Moscow. By cutting german lines trough thoses 4 territory mentioned above, it prevents reinforcements and even eventually prevent any advance. It enables Russia to keep her NO’s while Germany loses her own NO. More importantly, Allies by doing this are concentrating most of their forces in the same region.
Once the axis offensive is stalled, Allies economy allows them to come on top. Eventually something has to give up, France, Italy or the whole eastern front. By the time Japan arrives, IF it ever arrives, Russia is making 50 ipcs.
I call that policy: The Pincer Attack. :-P
Sounds like the scripted Axis moves are no good. :-) :wink:
And apologies for hijacking this thread…
Can you describe the scripted German (Japanese) moves?I started another thread for that discussion:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14469.0
we now return you to the normal May 2009 Balance Poll discussion
-
I have revised my opinion a bit on balance….I think the Allied bid is now about 6. One unit each to Egypt and Karelia dramatically changes the game dynamics–if the Germans can’t take Egpyt and can’t take Karelia, then there are all kinds of ways the Allies can go on the offensive early.
Without a bid, the advantage is solidly Axis.
-
I think it’s pretty darn even.
A) You over extend and get smacked in round 1 resulting in an Allied win.
B) You don’t extend enough and get smacked resulting in an Allied win.
C) You over extend and get lucky in round 1, resulting in an Axis win.
D) You extend just enough for you to win against your opponent (each opponent is different) resulting in an Axis win.
2 chances for, 2 chances against. 50/50.
Seriously, of all incarnations, this one seems the most balanced. If anything, I might consider giving both sides and equal bid with the restriction that new units cannot be placed in attack range of enemy units. (Germany could put ships in SZ 5; Italy could put units in Balkans; America could put units in E. USA, etc.) Just to spice up the game a bit.
-
It’s kinda hard for me to tell with my group (the skill level varies too much), but 1 or 2 UK infantry somewhere in Africa (players choice) seems to make things even.
-
It’s not even in the long run, but a good allied player will manage to win some games at least, if not more than 50%, against a good axis player.
The difference from AAR is that you can hardly win any $0 bid games with axis against decent allied players, while in AA50 +NOs, it’s fully possible for allies to win, and it’s not uncommon either, I have actually managed to lose (with axis) dice games using NOs.
I also think that when we started fresh with AAR, we won some zero bid games with axis, until we learned how to play.
Just the Egy attack, it will fail in 1 of 5 games, and this hurts, b/c if we knew that the dicerolls would not be close to average, we would not do the attack, but in 4 of 5 games it will be a good move to attack Egy G1. -
we have an agreed balance shift instead of a bid in my group
1 extra UK infantry in Egypt
2 extra Chinese infantry in the areas behind the front
move flying tigers back 1 space so it cant be attacked 1st turn
UK NO requires 4 of canda, egypt etcthat’s our balance tweaks
1 extra uk infantry in New Zealand.
That’s because we are New Zealanders and didn’t like our home country being undefended :) Has yet to come into play though until the game is basically decided.
Those three UK tweaks can be quite large. Holding Egypt G1 is huge, possibly enabling a tank and a ftr to escape even if Germany did attack G1. Adding more NO income enables more UK options, and the 1 extra inf in New Zealand makes an Australia IC more possible (in conjunction with the UK ftr from Egypt that gets to aid the defenses on UK3). US can support that UK with 2 ftrs a turn quite easily while building a fleet in sz56 as the ftrs built on the existing US carrier can make it 4 spaces to Australia.
Bare in mind we have a gentlemans agreement not to move the NZ infantry out of NZ either
We found that the germans/italians could easily take egypt, everytime, thats why we added in the extra infantry.
The germans were moving a tank/infantry from france and the bomber to support. That would either win, or almost wipe the UK out. Italy would easily win the next exchange.
Now the UK has a 50/50 chance of holding (at least y our play experience)
China was getting wiped out on turn 1 as well, they needed a buff.
Its minor tweaks, but enough to find us seeing the game very balanced for us.
Suggested Topics
