Thanks for the update. Enjoy your travels :)
2011 Tournament discussion (AA50-41)
-
-
RD (allies +12) over Zhukov, 14 rounds.
-
I tabulated the results of all games to see how many times Axis wins.
I excluded a few games that involved very inexperienced players, or two players that were totally mis-matched.I have Axis winning 12
Allies winning 6Axis is winning the one game currently being played, so if Yoshi wins, it will be 13-6.
League play for 2012 so far is Axis 15, Allies 5
Why are you all bidding so low for Allies? Why did I bid 8 for Allies vs. Yoshi?The statistics show you are likely to lose with Allies with a bid under 12 against a worthy opponent. The game has been out for over 3 years now. 2011 tournament and 2012 league results total 27 Axis wins to 11 Allied wins. I think we’re getting into the realm of “statistically significant”. I think it’s time to recognize we’re not going to “figure out the Allies”. It’s been 3 years. Time to admit 1941 is unbalanced in favor of the Axis. Probably about as severely as Revised was slanted towards the Allies. :-)
-
we should slowly move to 1942
-
Heck, why not all of us change at once?
It was my preferred version until I finally switched to 1941 in 2011 so I could participate in the league and tournament… A&A always started in 1942 until 2008… Hasn’t the novelty worn off yet? :lol
-
42 would have a higher average bid than 41. The stats for 42 were always much more unbalanced then the stats for 41. It’s still a very good game, assuming the bid is appropriate.
Both versions of aa50 favor Axis with NOs. The fact that it’s ‘unbalanced’ makes it a better game then if it was ‘balanced’. Bids add some spice and variety.
-
I think everybody agrees that axis has an advantage ; we would not bid otherwise :)
And remember, at the beginning here, people were bidding to get the allies !
If I remember well, average bid in revised was around 7-9 (but I almost did not play this scenario online, so I might be wrong). I’m not sure this was so much unbalanced.
The 41 version begins with a lot of battle - thus dices - on round 1. That makes the bid less relevent again on a particular game, since that can be totally wiped out by bad dices. But I believe something between 6 and 12 should be a good conclusion in the future (as I’m trying to predict, the interval is bigger :) ). Which would be an average / high bid according to where the conclusion leads, but still not an unbelievable gap imho.
-
in 1942 we dont have problems with the monster japan as we have in 1941
we should take a look at 1942
at list to put it side by side with 1941
-
in 1942 we dont have problems with the monster japan as we have in 1941
we should take a look at 1942
Yes! Tired of the fantasy scenario! Down with monster Japans and pathetically weak Chinas! Func would be proud.
-
Is there a 1942 Battlemap Mod or Triple A module out there? I haven’t given a sniff to this game, as I have preferred 1941. I’m not going to give it up just like that, but I would like to take a look at it.
Is there also a forum on these boards somewhere for 1942?
-
@The:
Is there a 1942 Battlemap Mod or Triple A module out there? I haven’t given a sniff to this game, as I have preferred 1941. I’m not going to give it up just like that, but I would like to take a look at it.
Is there also a forum on these boards somewhere for 1942?
Yes TDJ, there is a '42 version on battlemap. When you click on start a new map, you will see '41 listed as the 7th map down the list. '42 is right below it.
-
AA50 discussion thread has a sub thread for '41 and one for '42.
How can you “prefer” 1941 when you don’t know anything about 1942?
-
The 1942 map looks like the Earth decide to get obese and Russia massively increased in size at the top, Africa looks like a drunk painting by Picasso and southeast Asia…well, to me, 1942 is just a fancier version of Revised with the 1941 rules put in place.
-
@The:
The 1942 map looks like the Earth decide to get obese and Russia massively increased in size at the top, Africa looks like a drunk painting by Picasso and southeast Asia…well, to me, 1942 is just a fancier version of Revised with the 1941 rules put in place.
Dude, we are NOT talking about Spring 1942.
Don’t you know that AA50 comes with a 1942 scenario?? :lol:
-
@The:
well, to me, 1942 is just a fancier version of Revised with the 1941 rules put in place.
Exactly. It’s fun.
-
Heck, why not all of us change at once?
Not that easy. :-D
When we started the league and tourney for anniversary, we were (and still are) open to both. It is just people like the 41 version. I don’t know why. We ran a league for both since '09, but it has gotten to the point where we just combined the AA50-42 results in with the '41 b/c no one really plays '42. Even looking at the discussion forums. The 41 child board has 5 times as many topics and almost 10 times as many posts.
–---------------
In my opinion I think people like the challange of actually playing the Allies for a change. A first in A&A. I know I do. Since Classic the Allies have always had the Adv. You shuck to Eu, nail the Axis with a KGF and get a win. I think people also tend to gravitate to playing the side with the bigger challange, which is why it takes a while for bidding to catch up to what is needed. Everyone thinks “well I can win with only…”, then eventaully you move up to a point you are comfortable at.
For example, when I joined the board and played Classic, I was always like I don’t need a bid. Then I played more people, we talked about strats and now (well back then when it was still popular), you’d have to bid 22-23 for the Axis just to be remotely competitive. LL bids were 24-27.
For AA50, I think bids have been a little low, but they’ll catch up. But again, people might slightly under bid b/c it might be more fun to play the bidding side.
Also the anniversary board has been slow in terms of strat talk too (since G40 came out). We should probably try and get that going to. Infact I think I’ll put up a topic on Slowing Japan.
-
Also the anniversary board has been slow in terms of strat talk too (since G40 came out). We should probably try and get that going to. Infact I think I’ll put up a topic on Slowing Japan.
Sure has. Part of the reason is I’ve been busy playing games. (I used to start a lot of threads and comment on a lot of stuff)
Best way to slow Japan is to PLAY THE !1942! SCENARIO, PEOPLE! :-)
1941 is not as popular as it looks. For instance, I only play it because I have to, to get in on the action. How many others are doing the same thing? I have always viewed it as a novelty, fantasy scenario. I do NOT like seeing Japan at 80 IPC’s every game and USA at 40-50. That’s just stupid. Larry thinks so, too, because in 1940 he gave USA that 30 IPC bonus in OOB rules so they would be earning 80-90 automatically. (Hopelessly unbalancing the game in favor of the Allies yet again)
I know the Allies were hugely favored in Classic (even though I was a 16 y/o kid playing it against myself) and heavily favored in Revised. I’m sure people got tired of the Allies winning. Well how many years and how many Axis wins will it take you all to be happy? I don’t like how Russia starts out with NO offense in 1941, how China has FOUR infantry and starts C1 with TWO and a bunch of territory for Japan to claim like the Oklahoma land grab. (Just ask Func) And do you guys realize that the first two rounds of 1941 is often like just getting you to where the 1942 scenario starts? Don’t you get tired of grabbing all those islands on J1?
-
The 41 version begins with a lot of battle - thus dices - on round 1.
-
Also the anniversary board has been slow in terms of strat talk too (since G40 came out).� We should probably try and get that going to.� Infact I think I’ll put up a topic on Slowing Japan.
Sure has. Part of the reason is I’ve been busy playing games. (I used to start a lot of threads and comment on a lot of stuff)
Best way to slow Japan is to PLAY THE !1942! SCENARIO, PEOPLE! :-)
1941 is not as popular as it looks. For instance, I only play it because I have to, to get in on the action. How many others are doing the same thing? I have always viewed it as a novelty, fantasy scenario. I do NOT like seeing Japan at 80 IPC’s every game and USA at 40-50. That’s just stupid. Larry thinks so, too, because in 1940 he gave USA that 30 IPC bonus in OOB rules so they would be earning 80-90 automatically. (Hopelessly unbalancing the game in favor of the Allies yet again)
I know the Allies were hugely favored in Classic (even though I was a 16 y/o kid playing it against myself) and heavily favored in Revised. I’m sure people got tired of the Allies winning. Well how many years and how many Axis wins will it take you all to be happy? I don’t like how Russia starts out with NO offense in 1941, how China has FOUR infantry and starts C1 with TWO and a bunch of territory for Japan to claim like the Oklahoma land grab. (Just ask Func) And do you guys realize that the first two rounds of 1941 is often like just getting you to where the 1942 scenario starts? Don’t you get tired of grabbing all those islands on J1?
A lot of what you say is true. I do think the IPC have gotten some what out of hand.
I wonder if a better solution would be (instead of China as a minor power) you split the US into two players Altantic and Pacific. Pacific US would get china of course. That way you probably wouldn’t have to scale the ipcs so high to make either side competitive.One issue also is the inclusion of NOs. It s very hard to balance a game like this where you are trying to balance it for the “base” game with no NOs but then also if you want to include them. They probably should have been considered NOs as the “base” game and balanced play strictly for that. That way if a future imbalance occurs you can scale them back.
On that issue, I think Japan’s 3rd NO is too easy (in most games) to get. Maybe it should have been hold two of the 3 (or all three).I could probably go on with potential changes to 41 or even 42.
-
One issue also is the inclusion of NOs. It s very hard to balance a game like this where you are trying to balance it for the “base” game with no NOs but then also if you want to include them. They probably should have been considered NOs as the “base” game and balanced play strictly for that.
Definitely!
 That way if a future imbalance occurs you can scale them back.
I used to play with NO’s being 2 or 3 IPC’s each. If you had 1, you got 3. If you had 2, you got 5…
On that issue, I think Japan’s 3rd NO is too easy (in most games) to get. Maybe it should have been hold two of the 3 (or all three).
Great idea, especially for 1941.
I could probably go on with potential changes to 41 or even 42.
I know, right? We who have played dozens and dozens of times could make the game much better. But the problem is most people won’t adhere to our changes. I used to house rule stuff, like that you couldn’t build IC’s on islands (another thing Larry fixed when going to Global), but then I got used to a different game than everyone else! I used to close the Dardanelles. But then I wasn’t as competitive against everyone else who didn’t! So unfortunately I had to learn to adapt to the crusty OOB setup and rules, because then I can play the standard game against anyone, and get better at it…. :|
Suggested Topics
