Alternate bidding scheme

[nerquen]

@nerquen:

So if Moscow manages to protect east from Japan it shall still be able to make about 23 IPC = 18+ 5 (Iraq). If it even managed to collect 5 IPC from lend&lease NO then it would be 28 IPC which is perfect match to the historical drop of GDP (28/37 ~ 274/359). So I would say Russia’s economy is reasonably accurately modeled in the game.

Hmm, does Germany really need so much NO money for Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow? This somehow goes totally against scorched earth policy employed by Russians. Germans did not increase their war production much by conquering scorched USSR’s territories. So instead of making Russians richer, making Germans less rich might be a better option to improve the game in European theater. Less money for Germany might also bring KGF allied strategy back into the game. Hmm, not sure what a design purpose of +5 for Russians cities was, but if it was supposed to create a history like long battles for Lenigrad and Stalingrad it just failed to do so. There is no way that Russia can spread its army so wide, German mechanized units and Luftwafe can easily force Red army to turtle in Moscow.

The original rules had German NO slightly differently. +5 for keeping Western front safe and +5 for capturing at least one of  Leningrad or Stalingrad (but not 10 if both are captured). I guess 1st edition had KGF as such a dominant strategy that designers tried to discourage it in the 2nd edition. So Germany got additional NO of +5 for Moscow and they made opening of western front less attractive for allies (moved NO from keeping W front safe to double the NO for Stalingrad and Leningrad). But all those changes together with VC condition change just overshoot it and suddenly KGF is not plausible, and rules force allies into KJF in competitive play. Reverting some of those changes might bring the KGF strategy back into the game.

[Witt]

The German Russian NOs are messed up.
Stalingrad was worth as much to Stalin as Hitler, yet only the Germans gain money for owning it and the other cities too.
Give the NO to both or neither side.  I am inclined to remove the NO fro Leningrad, as it is too easy to attain anyway.
I am hoping to start a game soon, with that removed and an at War bonus to Russia and The US.

[gamerman01]

From what you’re describing, Wittman, I think you may be overcompensating.  Unless you want the Allies to have the advantage…

I don’t think the idea behind NO’s is that they are hard to get.  I think Leningrad is a very appropriate NO for Germany.

[Witt]

Hi Gamerman. thanks for your input. I am not as good a player as you and others here and am finding it more and more hard to win as the Allies. I would like to redress the balance and make it more historically accurate. I am enjoying this game less and less and am sad. I want to find something that tilts it back the other way. I want Russia to hold its own, without UK Fts and Mech in its backyard.  And yes, I would like to see the Allies prevail, as they did.
I said I am happy for Germany to have the Leningrad NO, as long as Russia also gets it and the others.
Variance suggested 3 per VP city. That would be a start.

[gamerman01]

It’s a pretty good map (the game board) to work with -

I am house-ruling the heck out of this game too, so am certainly not pointing any fingers.

I also think it can be a fun game while being much more accurate in the ways I want it to be accurate  :-D
Hoping to work on and finish my project this summer, maybe after my 5 current games are winding down

I am also pretty dis-enchanted with the 2nd edition version of the game - lot of good things done with the game by the developers - lot of good things still begging to be done.

[calvinhobbesliker]

Do you guys think the 2nd edition is more or less balanced than the various Alpha versions?

[gamerman01]

Hard to remember, Calvin, but if I recall correctly, OOB and Alpha2 were weighted in the Allies’ favor?

2nd edition is actually pretty close to balanced I think

Bids are around 15 to the Allies, and in 221 league games this year, Axis win percent is .511

Considering there is about 3,600 TUV on the board at game start, I think bids of 12-20 are pretty small, so is pretty well balanced considering the developers changed so many rules from Alpha2 to Alpha3 (Alpha3 is nearly identical to 2nd edition, although an infantry was removed from Egypt)

So if you put the infantry back on Egypt that they took away, that’s another 3 you could take off bids.

If you put a sub in 98, an infantry on Egypt, and bid from there, I think you could have bids much closer to 0 and standardize the game start more.  (Other “standard placements” than my suggested ones could certainly be used)

But again, my major point is that the developers took an infantry off Egypt, and that went in the wrong direction in my opinion (taking a key infantry away from the Allies)

[nerquen]

@Gamerman01:

2nd edition is actually pretty close to balanced I think

Bids are around 15 to the Allies, and in 221 league games this year, Axis win percent is .511

Somehow my impression is different, I personally don’t have an idea how to win with allies. I tried to search in the league games of top players and all the allied victories I saw were more less due to either the bad luck or a mistake of Axis player rather than a solid strategy of Allies. Gamerman, could you please point me to a game (or two) of top players (tier 1 or E) where Allies won and there was not much bad luck nor an important mistake on the Axis side? Thanks in advance. I looked on the Axis vs Allies record in the games of tier 1 and tier E players couple weeks ago and it was 33:18 in Axis favor. I did not try to replay all those 18 allied victories, but all I replayed were strongly influenced either by bad luck or a mistake on the Axis side.

[gamerman01]

Sure

I am aware that top players take Axis and win.  But I thought we were talking about the average now - average players.  Fact is, Allies are winning their share of games.  Also a fact that I am currently of the persuasion that in a hot game against a top opponent I want the Axis.  (Don’t tell Ghost, who I’ll probably be playing for the league championship)

I’ll check league records, including last year, again, to try and find examples for you.

For starters, there’s my current game against bmnielsen - I believe I am in command with the Allies, vs. the bomber strat, and have not really been lucky, I don’t believe.  In fact, his early airstrike on my 91 fleet went very well for him, though I shot down a couple bombers after that to help make up.

Looking at my own records, I also killed JuanSpain (who has a good record this year somehow) in six rounds with the Allies, game ended 10/6/14. 
Also defeated Boldfresh with Allies, game ending 7/1/14.  According to my notes, the game was definitely decided by round 13 if not earlier, though he played it out through 20, as Bold is wont to do.
Before that, I defeated Hobo for the league championship using the Allies, 9 rounds.  Game ended 3/25/14. 
Defeated Alexgreat in the 2nd playoff game last year using the Allies, 6 rounds, game ending 2/20/14. 
Defeated Wheatbeer in 4 rounds, game ending 7/18/13.  Wheatbeer was a very successful Axis specialist at the time. 
Also defeated Wheatbeer in 9 rounds, game ending 7/6/13.
Defeated Infrastructure 6/22/13, 18 rounds (was decided long before that, when Russians started pushing back around round 8)
Defeated Snakeeyes Spring 2013 7 rounds.

Perhaps if you looked at these games you will conclude that I was lucky in some, or there was a significant skill difference.  But I have had little trouble winning with Allies
In fact, I went 18-3 with them in 2013 (and yes, 7-0 with Axis) although many games were against weaker players.
I would argue that 1 or 2 of the losses were due to dice, though.

Anyway, I’m not actually arguing with this anecdotal evidence that the Allies are on par with the Axis.  I’m just giving evidence that the Allies can’t be THAT disadvantaged when I’ve had this much success with them, including the last two games of last years’ league playoffs!

[gamerman01]

We’re only halfway through this league year, so you should probably look at last year too.

Ghostglider and Boldfresh have had a lot of success with the Allies.  Pretty much all of their wins are against upper competition.

Ghost has 2 very quality Allied wins this year.  2-2 with Axis, though.
Seems you just have to know what you’re doing with the Allies.

[calvinhobbesliker]

How did you beat someone as the Allies in 4 rounds?

[gamerman01]

My 2nd game against Wheat I won on G1, Calvin.  His France blew up in his face and he gave up.

I’ll see if I can find the 4 round game.  Basically, if the Axis player sees he can’t win, he quits.

[gamerman01]

See for yourself.  Failed Sealion.  Russia already has Scandy and is in Europe.

[ItIsILeClerc]

Yes, Gamer, impressive record you have as allies :-D.

I’m with Nerq in this, although I am not out of allied ideas yet, but may I ask the question a bit differently then?
For two players with equal skill, no bid (need to have a neutral reference point) and perfectly neutral dice. All combats run 100% like predicted by the BC. Do you think the allies have an equal chance?

[gamerman01]

If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then

Wait.  It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.

If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance.  And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.

Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag.  I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@Gamerman01:

If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then

Wait. ��� It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.

If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance. ��� And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.

Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag.���  I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.

Thanks for the smart answer Gamer. And no worries about any bragging ;-).

[Black_Elk]

I’m not sure anyone would dispute that Allies have won their fair share of games with a preplacement bid. But OOB there is surely a concensus that the board is Axis advantage in 2nd ed right? As Gamer points out bidding is standard in league play and even among competive players the bid it pretty high by A&A standards (into the double digits.) If Allies are taking a pair of subs, or even 3 subs for UK to squash Italy, or use other preplacement units knock off a large chunk of Axis TUV right out the gate, then it’s not unreasonable for Allies to chalk up some wins. Question is, how much do you need on starting income or with a recuring income bonus to match this?

I think the ideal would be a bid alternative, rather than an income boost that augments an existing preplacement bid. Players might grumble about the loss of UK subs, but it just seems easier to go all one way, rather than doing some kind of hybdrid, with extra starting units and extra income. I say nix preplacement and take it back to the OOB unit set up, but this would likely need the income boost to be pretty large to compensate for the Italian TUV that UK isn’t destroying in the first round, and the fact that Italy could once again have an impact on the endgame. This later point is significant. Consider that even if you give USA a recuring income bonus, Italy will likely receive a sizeable recuring boost as well, since it will be harder for UK to lock them out of the med and raid them out of existence. Also, as others have noted, an income bid on the periphery (USA) is rather less effective than one at the center (Russia), so I’d think you’d want to go pretty high with it for USA. A cap at 6 ipcs seems a bit low to me for example.

I think others in this thread have already noted that stuff, just wanted to join in the chorus. I like the idea, but I know it will take time to arrive at a concensus. Balancing on the razors edge and all.

:-D

[gamerman01]

OK, Elk, but what do you think about at least adding back the UK infantry in Egypt that was taken away from Alpha3 to 2nd edition?  You indicate you don’t care for double digit bids…

[Black_Elk]

I guess of all the razors, that one is the sharpest right?
:-D

If its a hard set up change, might be advisable, given that Italy has a way back into the early game now. 1 infantry would probably be better than the extra artillery you sometimes see on the open bid. At least it doesn’t double the forward attack power of another unit. And USA has no way to get to Egypt, so their income boost, no matter how high we make it, still can’t save Allies from an early drive on Cairo. There is a precedent in the earlier set up pre sec ed, so I’d at least keep it as an option. I think a lot of players have gotten pretty used to that strong UK opener in the med, the extra dude might help alleviate some of the anxiety that Churchill will undoubtedly feel, facing down an Italian player who isn’t a total non-factor anymore haha

[gamerman01]

About 100,000 Italians gave up and went home before ever even making an invasion on Egypt.  There were about 10 Italians surrendering for every British man in Egypt.  Saw a documentary on it in the past 6 months.

(Spoken by someone who almost always loses Egypt early, whether taking Axis or Allies - sick of it  :-D)