Revised vs 2nd ed

try challenging people at revised and don’t wait for them to challenge you.

I recently was challenged by an opponent for revised so it does happen.

As for differences, the game has been stretched out a bit.  It allows for some unfortunate rolls to occur on the first turn but does not throw the game away (unless some really unwise combat decisions are made).  There is a bit more buffer for Germany to survive in the name of new Atlantic sea zones.  Allied logistics in the Atlantic now make a real difference and if not played right, can give the Germans an extra turn or more to build.

Russia is the same way.  The extended depth allows for a bit more flexibility in defense.  Funky first turn builds are not fatal, short of a Battleship out of Caucasus.  The road for Japan to Russia has been extended by 1 turn as well.  The depth of space forces the Japanese to use logistics both on the mainland and off.

Increased IPC values on the Pacific Islands give the Allies a Pacific opportunity to harass the Japanese a bit.

There is definately more going on in the game in comparison to the original.

This game is Imperium Approved.

I think the imbalance of the current bids for both games are speaking for itself, too!

A&A had a standard bid of 24 IPC’s for the Axis, I presume…
24 IPC’s?!? that’s 8 infantries… damn, that’s a lot!!!
A&AR has a bid of 6 IPC’s and not every player even bids 6!

talk about the way the new game is balanced :-)

@Axel:

I think the imbalance of the current bids for both games are speaking for itself, too!

A&A had a standard bid of 24 IPC’s for the Axis, I presume…
24 IPC’s?!? that’s 8 infantries… damn, that’s a lot!!!
A&AR has a bid of 6 IPC’s and not every player even bids 6!

talk about the way the new game is balanced :-)

I still dont think a bid is needed at all in revised.

Well, I have done some experimental low value bids in Classic, and gotten my butt kicked royally every time.

And in Revised, I have won w/o a bid at all, against pretty fair opponents.

A small bid in Revised, REALLY forces the Allies to step up.  Without any bid, the Allies can make more mistakes and still win.  With a small bid, they have to play closer to perfect to win, or at least tit-for-tat on mistakes with the Axis…

@triforce:

I still dont think a bid is needed at all in revised.

With no bid, a well played Allies executing a KGF should beat an equally well played Axis more than half the time.  CAN the Axis win?  Of course.  Can they win quite often?  Probably.  Can they win as often as the Allies?  I think not.

I would argue that well played axis is almost unbeatable in revised but I’ll agree to disagree on this one.

Against two perfectly balanced opponents…

The Allies whould win 60%-65% of the games (on average) without a bid.

@ncscswitch:

Against two perfectly balanced opponents…

The Allies whould win 60%-65% of the games (on average) without a bid.

interesting…

@Octopus:

@ncscswitch:

Against two perfectly balanced opponents…

The Allies whould win 60%-65% of the games (on average) without a bid.

interesting…

If you REALLY, REALLY want to know?
then you should set up the game and play yourself a game of Axis and Allies Revised with NO LUCK!
I think some people here can play for 2 perfectly balanced opponents on their own…
so, if you want to know?
play a game of NO luck
:-P

by the way: I’m NOT interested to play “no” or “low” luck, I’m just saying you should see the IPC-bid is needed or not.  8-)

I think no and low luck are stupid.  Luck is a part of the game and war for that matter so deal with it.

I have had the Low Luck argument more times than you can imagine.

And yes, I am a STRONG proponent of ADS (Actual Dice Server) instead of LL

I guess my question is why no or low luck.  What crybaby came up with that?

In short, to prevent “good” players from losing to mediocre players because of dice.

Originally, it was a strat testing method… then it got turned in to game play as a protection against “bad dice” and to insure that games ALWAYS went along pre-planned pathways instead of being more fluid (as you get with LL).

LL is not fool proof in protecting against bad dice (just check my G1 move in my LL Classic game with Avin for proof… the Ukraine battle).  But it DOES force the game into pretty predicatable patterns… allowing the person with the most over-developed skill at using a simulator to be superior… because they have pre-tested all the likely battles.  ADS creates NEW battles and new variables, and sim players don;t like that.

Go look at some of the discussions by one of our banned board members, Agent Smith/Sexual Harassment Panda/SHP and see what I mean…

@triforce:

I guess my question is why no or low luck. What crybaby came up with that?

LOL. Can I quote you on that?  :lol:

@Sankt:

@triforce:

I guess my question is why no or low luck. What crybaby came up with that?

LOL. Can I quote you on that?  :lol:

you just did…

Like ncscswitch stated: no and low luck were a strat testing method originally…

what I’m suggesting: if you want to know what a bid should be for the Axis or the Allies?
then you should playtest - also known as strat testing - with no luck :-P

and since this would be a game of CA&AR (stands for Chess Axis & Allies Revised  8-)) you could play it on you own…
and at the end of some games: you’ll know what bid should be placed, if any…

have fun!
(you’ll need it :evil:)

@triforce:

I would argue that well played axis is almost unbeatable in revised but I’ll agree to disagree on this one.

I’m a little curious what you base your position on?  As I mentioned on another thread about what the “standard” bid amount should be, I base mine on the statistics of the TripleA War Club Ladder:
http://tripleawarclub.org/ladder/playedgames.php?startplayed=0&finishplayed=20

In brief, the Ladder features a bid of 9 for the Axis.  The bid can be used to purchase additional units or banked as the Axis player desires within a couple of restrictions.  No more than one unit can be added per territory/SZ, and units can only be placed on territories controlled by that country, or in SZs with other ships of that country.

Matches are played in two game sets, with each player playing once as the Axis and once as the Allies.  So the best players can not gravitate to playing one side or the other, like can happen in the tournament on these boards in the Games forum right now.  The winner of each game is determined by the player to reach 9 Victory Cities at the end of the USA turn, or by concession.

There are 175 players active right now, from all over the world.  This assures a wide variety of skill levels and strategies.

1140 games have been completed to date, which is a fairly large sample size.

Of those games, the Axis is winning 51% of the time.  This is almost 50/50, which implies a bid of 9 for the Axis is probably VERY close to perfectly balancing the sides.  Perhaps the Axis has a slight edge with a bid of 9, but the extra 1% might be statistically insignificant.  Maybe if the bid were lowered to 8, the Allies winning percentage would jump to 55%, which would mean 9 is more balanced.  In any case, the stats strongly indicate that a bid of 8 or 9 is the most balanced.

One interesting thing to note is that of the top 10 players by rating, 8 of them have a better winning percentage as the Allies.  This might imply that at the highest levels of play, the Axis is overmatched a bit even with a 9 bid.

One caveat; players can play either by Low Luck or Regular Dice, and the statistics for the two are not separated.  So if Low Luck favors one side, the statistics might be skewed.  But the majority of players seem to play Regular Dice, so I doubt the Low Luck stats are too big an influence.