Well Wrath, if you are correct, it would be easy to prove. Challenge any of the top players on the ladder to a no-bid game of whatever preferences and play your Allied strategy against them. If you are right, you should win 50%.
But keep in mind the only games that would matter would be against expert opponents–playing some noob on TripleA and beating him with no bid proves exactly nothing. Experience>bids by a large margin. An experienced Axis player can easily defeat the 2 UK factory strategy–all you have to do is hold Japan and hold a few Japanese mainland bases until Germany can rescue you.
There is an easy way to play using TripleA in the forums here, so if you were right you could challenge me or any other experienced player and demonstrate your contentions, and everyone reading this could observe the progress of the game. So you’ve been formally challenged–bring it or shut it.
The game is not balanced in dice–people have always played dice here (and at AAMC, where tech is also standard) and the bid just keeps going up, and no one agrees it is balanced at 0. In tournament games (ie between some of the strongest experts in the world) on this site the bid is now going as high as 13, which is just as high as the standard low luck/no tech bid on TripleA.
About 2 years ago, the majority of the users on this board shared your opinion (based no doubt on their face-to-face games) but after appropriate experience they changed their minds, as you will if you continue to play online.
Playing the optimal strategy again after I’ve been playing it for years vs better opponents then most on tripple A is boring and probably someone will start to copy it. The latter I find very repulsive since I think you guys should look beyond your linear clown play, and base it on “ooh I need a bid to balance the game” and actually try to research other avenues, avenues I’m claiming is there THAT BALANCES the game.
This quote reeks of ignorance. First off, the best players on TripleA have played a wide wide variety of strats over the years. Yamamoto was initially a KJF specialist who came after Japan every time and became the most advanced USA Pacific player at that time. But nevertheless he eventually changed up his tactics in ladder games because he couldn’t beat the elite players that way. Yet for a long time USA Pacific was the most common USA strategy on TripleA, and it only changed (fairly recently) when Axis strats improved to the point where USA Pacific was no longer viable.
It may be true that ll/nt 41 play on TripleA has become overly technical and therefore is starting to get stale, but the same could be said for expert level play in Revised or any ruleset (or any chess-like game, for that matter). It’s great that you desire to shake up the game but you come off as ignorant and arrogant when you assert the game is actually balanced without making an effort to prove it.
People who cry about bids and want only “balanced” maps don’t understand competitive A&A. The bid is a large part of what keeps the game interesting and diverse, because different bids lead to entirely different game outcomes. When people create new Allied strategies in 41, a new bid strategy is typically part of the process.
I agree with you on dice being a deeper and more complex game than low luck. But the virtue of playing with low luck is that it is a fair contest where people =don’t blame losses on the dice. If I lose a game in low luck it doesn’t bother me because I’ll have learned something from the loss. But in dice people tend to blame losses on dice and sometimes don’t learn the right lessons.
