Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube

@AcesWild5049

I can’t think of a real strategy that involved building a new IC. I would build some sometimes, but that’s because I’m weird and have off the beaten path strategies. But real strategies don’t involve IC’s.

I don’t know what strict neutral rules means. Does this mean no one can ever take one? Again, this doesn’t affect the advantage that the Allies have.

If it’s RR, the balance between Ukraine and Caucasus doesn’t really matter, right?

Let me qualify that. Real allied strategies don’t involve IC’s. Japan can play with IC’s in mind. Which, again, means that your no new IC’s only hurts the Axis.

omg, seriously, let me tell you, from my own experience, that a 2 IC build for the british is suicide against a good Axis player. Period.

Okay, first, you have to remove the naval occupation issue. After that, then we could play.

I won’t place any IC’s either. But I’d hate to limit the Axis to that rule since it’s rough. Yes, I know that the transports are more flexible. I’m not sure that’s the base issue.

Okay, so I get Allies and it’s say the best 4 out of 7?

And, to confirm, you are certain you don’t want a bid?

So, for the others out there, I didn’t understand this, but apparently the proposition is to place an extra inf into Ukr and subtract an in out of Cauc. So, that is in effect a 6 bid when you think about it. I was thinking that this was straight up even, but that’s not what is being said.

That’s a much more interesting proposition.

And, just to be clear, it’s kind of like a 6 bid but without being able to place it anywhere you want.

A bid of 9 covers that, 1 inf EE, 2 inf Libya. This isn’t being considered here because it is not “historical” but it does balance the game quite nicely.

Whoa, this discussion is still going?

I understand your frustration since I’ve agreed with you from the beginning. In fairness to AcesWild, it looks like he has mostly accepted the same understanding of the game’s balance that we’ve been saying all along over the course of these past, what, two years? He’s been willing to change his perspective which is more than many people do. So I commend him for that. And even for his painstaking journey of internalising and understanding the balance for himself rather than just taking our word for it.

But what remains is the fact that he is still opposed to a bid. And I guess that’s just a matter of what you are looking for in a game: I’d rather have a game that is more equitable regardless of historical accuracy, whereas some people might prefer a fixed game that is still as balanced as possible. I prefer the bid because it allows disagreements of balance to automatically be resolved by whoever is willing to bid the least. Whereas I think AcesWild is going to have a tough journey selling his recommended fixes to anything more than a handful of people he knows just because he doesn’t have the reach of people who will pay attention to him, but for those people, maybe it salvages a great game.

@AcesWild5049 said in Axis and Allies Classic 10 part series on YouTube:

to anyone who reads this, the game didn’t happen because we couldn’t agree on how best to balance our game. nobody backed out.

Actually, not true at all. I just said that if this is all you are giving Axis that I would gladly play Allies. I can copy my chat with you if needed.

There is just no way I’m playing Axis with nothing extra in Africa, since that’s the only way Axis can win against competent competition.

Especially if it’s still 2nd edition rules and not 3rd edition (which had 2 hit bb’s and so forth).