He all,
I really believe that many people are strongly influenced by their own experiences and often prematurely derive game imbalances from that.
I cannot say in chess “panov-attack against caro-kann is imbalanced because I always lose against it”.
Unfortunately data bases in A&A are small so Gamerman posted the only objective data we have from the league archive, at least a couple of 100 games, not much but not nothing.
This data states that Axis “seem” to have a slight advantage (in the whole population), so “seem” means that with >500 games this is probably true with a probability of >90%, it could also be variance but quite unlikely with that sample size.
That’s it if you ask me. A&A is too complex to find out which side is stronger if both players played perfectly because no one soon will ever play even close to perfectly. I dare to say that the absolutely skill level (compared to chess) in A&A makes the best player in the world the one-eyed man in the country of blinds. I dare to predict that in a world in which humans would play A&A to the extend they play chess in reality in the past 100 years the dominant strategies could be entirely different from what we do today and consider it as standard. And maybe in this world even the Allies would have a heavy advantage. Maybe just nobody (except very few players) do simply know how to play the Allies? Maybe yes, maybe no, we simply don’t know for sure.
To me the current data is sufficient not to discuss any rule changes or additional NOs - at least not for balancing (one could do such stuff to create a new game e.g.)
From here bids are a self regulating system and imo work perfectly. And we meanwhile see that in very competitive games bids are usually 12-16 in the recent games –> There is a decent change that 12-16 might make the game even.
And then lets wait for next year. Maybe we even discuss in the other direction and suddenly Allies are too strong in case people like gamerman, hobo, AWN inspire other players to win with the Allies more:)
Cheers,
Tobias