Problem with UK /China and US/ANZAC is that US is way bigger than UK and ANZAC is bigger than China.
What bid balances the game
-
bid rules and assumptions
1. bids can be used to purchase and place units pregame.
2. bids can be divided up between allies or used all for one ally.
3. any unspent ipc can be added to any powers starting ipcs.
4. land units purchased with the bid can only be placed in a territory that the power controls. for example you can not place a uk infantry in yunnan.
5. naval units purchased with the bid can only be placed in sea zones that already have at least one unit of the same power. for example you can not place a uk destroyer in sz36.
6. bid units CAN be stacked in the same territory or sea zone.
7. no other changes have been made to the game. for example nothing has been done to address the balance of a round 1 declaration of war to a round 2 declaration of war.
8. chinese placement rules are in effect. for example china can place artillery because burma road is open but can not build tanks
-
i made this poll not only for my own interest but for kaufschtick, as i think it is important that people know the rules of the bid they are voting on.
one thing to remember is that not all player have played the same amount of games or are as skilled as each other so take the results with a pinch of salt.
-
7. no other changes have been made to the game. for example nothing has been done to address the balance of a round 1 declaration of war to a round 2 declaration of war.
before finding out what is the right bid it is more important to find a way to balance a round1 dow to a round2 dow. it the dows were balanced then the bids would be very small. i had started a thread to try to get ideas on how to balance the round of dows but did not get sufficient response.
but for this poll please assume no changes have been made
-
i think a bid around 16ipc balances the game.
the following are units and places i think are good for placing the bid
usa destroyer in sz36. gets usa into the game much quicker. j can not just send a sub to kill the transport anymore, because usa can scramble two air units from hawaii aswell as the newly placed destroyer. j will leave the usa transport alive or have to commit enough to win a battle against 3 units thus resulting in a trading and chipping away of js navy right away.
usa infantry in philippines. just 2 infantry placed in phil will cause j to forego phil saving usa a fig and bomber. if j does attack phil j1 then they have to bring all three loaded transports(and take several land units as casualties), which means j has to use kiangsi units to attack kwangtung reducing the j2 attack on burma road.
chinese artillery and infantry in kweichow. this will help china1 counter attack in yunnan and in hunan. if both battles are won on china1 j will hold the burma road for a whole round can can start producing artillery china2.
chinese infantry in yunnan. if entire bid is used in yunnan to create an infantry stack china can hold the burma road.
uk mechanized infantry in burma. assuming china1 had counter attacked yunnan, uk can send mech inf to hunan and french-indo-china along with 5 air units to kill precious j ground forces.(i think this is the strongest bid)
uk aagun in burma. can move it into yunnan so j has to deal with aagun starting from j2.
uk transport in sz39. can be used to take money islands.
anzac inf in new guinea. take dutch new guinea on anzac1 to get 5ipc national objective bonus.
-
@Yoper:
Your initial wording in the poll is bit unclear.
I take it that you are saying that to get the Japanese, one must give up a certain number of IPCs to the other player to be spent on the Allies.
Some might read your poll as saying “What amount of IPCs is to be given to Japan as part of the bid?”.
Clarification of this statement may be needed.
What bid for Japan balances the game?
A better statement might be:
What bid should the Allies receive to balance the game?
thanks yoper. i have edited with your suggestions
-
i made this poll not only for my own interest but for kaufschtick, as i think it is important that people know the rules of the bid they are voting on.
one thing to remember is that not all player have played the same amount of games or are as skilled as each other so take the results with a pinch of salt.
Thanks awnil, I appreciate the help.
Has anybody been over to the Larry Harris website? Is there any kind of “official” suggestion as to a fix for this game?
I love A&A, so don’t get me wrong with my next statement, but it kinda puts me off to shell out $90 for a game that has misprints on the set up info, large gaps in the rules, and that apparently hasn’t been playtested very well.
It seems to me that the folks responsible for that in the first place ought to make an effort to address the problem. Otherwise, there is really no point in having a forum here like A&A.Org, because it won’t be too long before we’re all playing by our own house rules and none of us will be playing the same game.
Kinda like we bought a box with little army men in it, and we all have to come up with our own rules.
It’s not much of a game if that’s the case. We played the original AAP & AAE to the same conclusion way back when. Those went to the “not playing these anymore shelf” (I took mine to my FLAGS and traded them in for store credit), and this one’s only saving grace is that it will be needed for A&AG…unless a reasonable fix is brought up.
-
AAP is very well balanced and only needs the Saburo Sakai remedy of which i forgot the specifics, but it is the most balanced of all AA games.
AAE is a mess completely. It probably is what caused the 6 IPC tank to appear as the German player just bought tanks and nothing could be done. IN that game you need many rules to make it balanced.
AAp40 did not consider any historical setup and instead tried to impose a new set of victory conditions that could make it compatible with a global game concept as a plug and play. With no need for ‘special rules’ That game needs new victory conditions akin to AAP and a historical setup. Balance would come from raising or lowering the US wartime income IMO.
So i advocate the solution is an entirely new setup ( definatly less pieces) and Historical, with the balance hinging on how much US wartime income will balance. Japanese VC would be for X points with every 10 IPC a turn generating 1 Point and no NO’s National Objectives are a cheesy way of rewarding historical play patterns and awarding cash if you ‘perform’ like Japan did in the war.
I maintain you start with Historical and let players do their own thing naturally, by making the IPC distribution accurate which in turn players will have a cause for action.
-
I think that China should receive a free aagun at Szechwan and after that, you can start bidding. It’s incredible that the aa gun is not in the setup with so huge amount of jap planes
-
-
oh i…oh … haha… i did not know…i did not see that…?..what!? oh wrong poll!..i must have …um…picked the new one opps!
Why……do…you…put…elipses…between …every…few…words???
-
oh i…oh … haha… i did not know…i did not see that…?..what!? oh wrong poll!..i must have …um…picked the new one opps!
Why……do…you…put…elipses…between …every…few…words???
Dude, William cminke is William Shatner!!! Awesome!!! 8-)
-
oh i…oh … haha… i did not know…i did not see that…?..what!? oh wrong poll!..i must have …um…picked the new one opps!
Why……do…you…put…elipses…between …every…few…words???
Dude, William cminke is William Shatner!!! Awesome!!! 8-)
wht does that mean??
Well, Shatner is a Canadian too and he often puts long or awkward pauses between words in his lines. He exaggerates this sometimes in his Priceline commercials now. :wink:
-
42.9% have voted that the game is balanced or Japan should receive the bid.
sigh
@Imperious:
AAp40 did not consider any historical setup and instead tried to impose a new set of victory conditions that could make it compatible with a global game concept as a plug and play. With no need for ‘special rules’ That game needs new victory conditions akin to AAP and a historical setup. Balance would come from raising or lowering the US wartime income IMO.
So i advocate the solution is an entirely new setup ( definatly less pieces) and Historical, with the balance hinging on how much US wartime income will balance. Japanese VC would be for X points with every 10 IPC a turn generating 1 Point and no NO’s National Objectives are a cheesy way of rewarding historical play patterns and awarding cash if you ‘perform’ like Japan did in the war.
Where do we go to start “chanting” for this to happen? The Harris website?
-
@Yoper:
I think that some aren’t fully versed as to the theory of the bid.
And some just won’t accept the bid concept as necessary.
Or they can’t accept the idea that the game could actually be produced without it being balanced!
It is what it is.
Yeah, I think you’re right. I t did take quite some time for us to come to the conclussion that there was a problem with the game. And you have to get in quite a few games as well, before you can see the pattern develope.
-
@Yoper:
I think that some aren’t fully versed as to the theory of the bid.
And some just won’t accept the bid concept as necessary.
Or they can’t accept the idea that the game could actually be produced without it being balanced!
It is what it is.
Yeah, I think you’re right. I t did take quite some time for us to come to the conclussion that there was a problem with the game. And you have to get in quite a few games as well, before you can see the pattern develope.
Perhaps you should edit the poll so that people can change their votes so that it can change as people do more testing.
-
I stick to what I said before … the bid is likely $24 or more.
The game is perfectly balanced … if the Japanese player doesn’t screw up!
-
I stick to what I said before … the bid is likely $24 or more.
The game is perfectly balanced … if the Japanese player doesn’t screw up!
24ipc sounds high to me.
are you playing only one bid unit per territory?
what units and where are you placing your 24ipc bid?if you place bid of 4inf and 3art in yunnan, j can not attack it j1. china and uk can stack yunnan with more units stopping a j2 attack of yunnan, this move should win the allies the game.
-
Yunnan gets smoked turn 2 if putting the money there. If I want it bad enough, I can get the bombers on it. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 fht, 1 tac, 4 bmb will crush it. Letting the BB go in sz37 won’t help much either.
I can’t get a stack to survive there early in the game.
-
Yunnan gets smoked turn 2 if putting the money there. If I want it bad enough, I can get the bombers on it. 3 inf, 1 art, 1 fht, 1 tac, 4 bmb will crush it. Letting the BB go in sz37 won’t help much either.
I can’t get a stack to survive there early in the game.
if you wait until turn 2 yunnan has 17inf, 3art, 5fig, 1tac defending it. you could forgo attacking uk bb and attack yunnan but then you take it with 4 units left over so you lose 2planes or 3 planes if you want to hold the territory and let the uk have transports and a bb. if you place the entire 24ipc in yunnan the allies will win.
Suggested Topics
