Alpha 3.9 Favors Axis

[Karl7]

One last thing about this….

The Axis advantage could be negated by some really small adjustments such as:

1. Airbase in Gibraltar/Malta;
2. 8 Russian inf scattered around Siberia, central Asia;
3. Return to the USA 30+ no instead of the peace-meal nos; or,
4. more US units at start.

I am one of those who thinks balance shouldn’t be the objective anyway.  The allies should always be favored, at least economically. The Axis should start out militarily superior but economically inferior and have to move quickly to secure their positions.  In the current version the two sides are almost balanced economically once Japan moves into the DEI, which is insane in my view.

[Cow]

Karl7, just play with a 9 bid.

If I were to suggest LH make some changes, it would be to add a russian bomber on russia.

[Karl7]

hm, not sure what a bomber would do for USSR.  But bid 9 would help for allies.

If I had time I would declare open challenge with me Axis vs any allies player… alas time constraints (not to mention I probably too many games going anyway… :wink:)

[Cow]

I believe you. :D

[Gargantua]

Improve your allied play, and PLAY MORE GAMES, before you jump to this kind of conclusion.

I can garuntee neither of you has played more than 25 games as the allies.  Yet you are pontificating that it is imbalanced.

With so many options, and so many IPC’s already available, the allies can do alot of different things in response to the Axis.  You just need to figure out what works best for you.

And you can start by asking, HOW do the axis win MOST of the time? and Where?

[Cow]

Gargantua, I think it is as balanced as AA50 and Revised. 9 bid is fine.

[Cow]

Revised, the minimum bid I would take for germany was an infantry in ukraine, though I preferred minimum artillery for libya.

AA50, I guess it’d be an infantry in egypt… lowest I recall, but I really did not feel like playing axis that day.

I played V4 a few times without bid… prefer revised rules.

Classic I prefer original classic rules, but I do attack karelia round 1 (guys stranded in norway so may as well take a stab at karelia)… I think 10 was the lowest I went. Man been awhile since I played classic.
~
I have taken allies at 0 against newer opponents and won. Same for AA50 when it first came out. Revised rules same thing when it first came out.

The bid system takes time to flesh out. I believe in 1 unit per territory, also 1-9 is relatively small enough that you could play with or without it.

For all A&A games I prefer to play with a bid or against an opponent who takes a bid. It changes the game up.

[Cow]

Gargantua

Thing is, for global, if there were ever to be a tournament for it, the first round would have to be played in low luck (germany loses to france 1 in every 100 games).

Also this is not the product of my gameplay or Karl7’s or anyone’s for that matter. It is the result of the sample data from all finished games on the forum. It makes sense to gives allies a bid when axis win 57% of the time.

small bid would only drop axis win ratio to 52%, which is a bit better, at least that is what bids traditionally have done.

TripleA ladder for aa50 changed dramatically when AA50 was released to the +13 for Low Luck games… that happened because the axis win loss ratio was about 60% for dice games and 70% for low luck. Then the 9 bid took hold for a year, the axis win ratio was 55%, so it went to 13 for allies and the axis win ratio was 51%… (they play 1 unit per territory).

For dice games bids always varied but there was an upward trend for dice game bids over the years, couple years ago if you started the bid at 13 people would call you crazy and bid lower at 7… now a days they would go 12 and you go 11 and maybe you give it to them at 10. Game is even at 8-11 IMO.

HOWEVER that is using 1 unit per territory rules. 2 artillery in eastern ukraine, results in roughly the same attack power as having a tank somewhere and an artillery in eastern ukraine (as far as hitting ukraine and east poland was concerned)… also dropping 3 inf in egypt is kind of lame, because then germany cannot gamble for egypt… 1 unit per territory gives germany 50/50 on egypt, which is fair for those players who feel like taking a risk. also encourages armor buys over artillery as far as russia is concerned. So that explains the higher bid on triple A, has nothing to do with inferior allies play, just different bid rules.
~

For global, I would prefer 1 unit per territory bids, because 2 units in amur is cheap sauce for slamming korea. or stacking 2 inf on france hoping for some dice… that might be cheap sauce or result in a wasted bid.
~
I remember suggesting 11 bids for AA50 low luck games when it first came out, no one insulted me, they just gave it try and played as the allies with it.

Like if someone joins my game and starts checking the allies boxes and wants to just play… I just give them a 9 bid spread out to the countries they want it for and I take axis.

I actually test these bids out.

I started seeing what 6 would do, I am at 9… not sure how I like the 3 added inf in africa… it is a bit cheesy… but I have not played enough people who did that.

9 seems fine so far, but I only played 3 people who got a 9 bid. I lost twice out of three games to it… but I made a big mistake with japan in both of those games… yeah I slammed into the USA fleet at 70% odds to win and I got crushed. I missed with all my tacticals and bombers… hell yeah that was glorious… and I misbought for one of them (should have bought 10 inf for japan to defend it, but I didn’t notice midway 6 fighters and a bomber… so yeah I lost, but I got to get some sleep at least.

I don’t have enough sample data to suggest a 9 bid at this moment.

I might suggest 6 for your games and seeing how the allies fare with a little extra firepower. It is enough to make a difference.

[Veqryn]

I understand why people use bids,

but if a game is unbalanced, then I prefer the game to be fixed

here is why:

Bids always end up being turned into a land unit which gets placed in some critical position on the board, throwing off the originally intended balance and strategies.
Then, the game starts turning into something that is basically mechanical: each sides has their “best” strategy to win.

A much better way, is for the original maker (larry) to come back in 3 months and say, “hey look, the best way for the axis to win is for all axis nations to go 100% against russia and ignore all other possible strategies.  So, I’m going to make that strategy less powerful, and make other alternative strategies for the axis more attractive.”

If we end up, in 3 or 6 months of continuous playing, to find that the best strategy for allies is KJF or KGF, then we should figure out ways to make both strategies equally attractive.

The changes required to do this are small incremental changes, like shifting 1 infantry back a territory, or moving the placement of a single boat, or changing the starting PUs up or down by 1-4.

Bids won’t do that, because bids always end up being a couple land units in a very critical spot, which only reinforces the previously found “best and only” strategy for that side.

I’m not going to weigh in on which side Global favors, because I haven’t played enough.  I only wish to say that I hope Larry comes back and revisits Global in 3 months, and makes some very very small changes.  I do not want to see any more big changes, because big changes cause everyone to have to start all over again with the whole giant project of balancing.

It took NWO (New World Order) 3 years of playing to get to a fully balanced state, and even now there are occasionally bids of 1-3 for one side or the other.  But the main feature of those 3 years of balancing was all the fine tuning to make sure that each nation and each side of the conflict had different strategies they could pursue, and that there were many different hot-spots on the map, each with a finely tuned balance.  That is what makes New World Order the most popular game on TripleA.  And I hope that global can reach that level of balance and variety.

[Shakespeare]

This discussion so cracks me up!

After all this time and waste of time and ideas and waste of ideas,

the game is still imbalanced!!!

We still play OOB rules with a few tweeks on one page

that indeed balance the game.

WHAT A WASTE OF INK AND TIME

[Karl7]

I don’t mind imbalance if it fits some sort of rational dynamic that promotes interesting play.  The older versions followed the dynamic that the Axis started out militarily stronger but economically weak for most the game.  The Axis player had to be ruthless and cunning and use its resources sparingly.

Alpha 3.9 starts with the Axis militarily stronger and then economically stronger by turn 6 or 7 – game over.  It seems to me if you are going to allow the Axis to easily gain economic superiority then get rid of the victory city system.

Sure, maybe I’m a mediocre player, but this is what I see so far.

[Shakespeare]

Don’t get me wrong, the imbalance is part of the game in the 1st place.

The OOB rules are not broken, perhaps a few adjustments,

but not the wholescale panic that I saw here to revise the rules to ensure “balance!”

Or in the parlance of the public schools today “fairness.”

I enjoyed playing the Axis as basically OOB.

That reflects WW II, more so than all the panic sticken iterations of Alphas.

It is too bad that Larry Harris bought in to all this nonsense!

[Cow]

I think it is pretty balanced. 1-9 bid only helps allies out in one spot on the board.

I guess giving russia a bomber would be the ZERO bid needed way to do it. Russia getting a 4th air unit to do attacks with reliably is nice.

It’s kind of sad in aa50 1942 russia had 3 air units and germany 7 or something… but now germany has 12 and russia still only has 3.

Add a bomber to russia, game will be fine. or bid 1-9 for allies.
~

I prefer a game slightly favoring 1 side. bidding makes it easier to pick sides.

[Cow]

the game is fine. I mean people knew axis wins in AA50 1941 more than allies… but no one cried imbalance. they just gave allies a few infantry and called it a day.

I did not realize people hate the bid system to even the tide. If such is the case, just add a bomber in russia whenever you play, prevents strategic placement of units.

[Kreuzfeld]

one could maybe let the UK assimilate french terretories on the euromap, just like they can do with the indian.

that might give a slow advantage for the allies, alto abit slow

[Cow]

nah. but i do like my new uk play. convoy disrupt 97 is so cheese.

[Kreuzfeld]

tanks are for losers, mechs are for winners

[Cow]

all units have their purpose. :X lez not argue about this.

[Karl7]

I am not a big fan of the bid, but I don’t hate it.  But I don’t think a bid corrects the Axis advantage, unless you are talking 20+.  The only bid I’ve seen that makes any serious difference is allied ships in the med to aid Toronto raid… that can help by keeping the Axis out of the Middle east…

[Guest]

Karl, I’m not sure the axis have the overall advantage, but they certainly do in the first half dozen rounds or so that we are all most familiar with.  If one side or the other seems to be winning too often even with players who are equally skilled, how about correcting that by giving Germany or Russia one of the techs as a national advantage (even in a no tech game).  My picks would be to give Germany advanced mech if allies are winning too often, or give USSR advanced artillery if the axis win too often.  It would be a house rule thing.