National Objectives vs Balance

Agreed. NO’s favour the Axis. Which is why I think 1941 is unbalanced with NO’s: Axis have too great an advantage with NO’s (killer Jap, strong Germ, Ita taking all of Britains efforts the first 4 rounds by claiming Egy and getting 10 extra by NO’s).

Yes.

I Think some people missed my point…
I am NOT against Nos, I find they are a great rule in essence. My point is that Nos are an optional rule, but they skew the play balance. Now either they inbalance an otherwise balanced game or they balance an otherwise inbalanced one, taht remains to be determined. however for them to keep play balance about the same they would have to be modified slightly. For example, Japans second No could require to capture all 6 territories instead of 4. Its just that I dont find that its fair to think that they dont advantage a side…

I got your point at least. ;)
I think 1941 is balanced out of box without National Objectives.  With NOs the Axis clearly have the advantage, though it’s not insurmountable.

In 1942… well I haven’t played 1942 enough yet.  But I think 1942 is NOT balanced out of box (the Allies have the advantage) and NOs are need to balance the game for the Axis.

Anyone agree/disagree?

@TG:

Anyone agree/disagree?

disagree. in '41, I think without NOs, the allies have the favor, with them, axis does. Its not balanced either way. With NOs, Allies are forced to slow down Japan in some fashion. You cant have an unchecked japan earning 70 IPCs a turn!! But without them, You need not worry too much about japan, as it will take some time for them to threaten Moscow. You can focus solely in the Atlantic and med. Italy will die pretty quickly without NOs.

The funny part is the site has one thread whining that the allies are too strong in 1941 and the axis cannot win and we have this thread saying that the allies cannot win in 1941 because the axis is too strong.

My dear, I believe that is a good indicator that things are pretty well balanced and you might need to try some new tactics if you are routinely losing.

@Cmdr:

The funny part is the site has one thread whining that the allies are too strong in 1941 and the axis cannot win and we have this thread saying that the allies cannot win in 1941 because the axis is too strong.

Maybe both threads should be merged so that we can all sit back and enjoy the discussion  :roll:

Well put Cmdr Jennifer!
The NO’s show how far behind the Allies really were at that point in the war with them controlling France, Eastern Europe, Norway, and parts of NE China.  Also, Japan’s first two NO’s should be easy to get off the bat becuase they were well prepared while the Allies were caught with their pants down, and they show how well the Germans pulled off kicking Poland, France, and Britain in the backside over the first two years.

These “easy” Axis NO’s motivate the Allies to get their rears in gear instead of spending 12 turns building hordes of bombers and transports and trading a few territories here and there just to keep the game dragging on.

disagree. in '41, I think without NOs, the allies have the favor, with them, axis does. Its not balanced either way. With NOs, Allies are forced to slow down Japan in some fashion. You cant have an unchecked japan earning 70 IPCs a turn!! But without them, You need not worry too much about japan, as it will take some time for them to threaten Moscow. You can focus solely in the Atlantic and med. Italy will die pretty quickly without NOs.

Fair assessment.  The times I did play 1941 without NOs, I did find the Germans/Italians to be lacking in the men and material department.  Japan still does find, but it’s very difficult for the Italians to ramp up before the Allies make committed landings in Africa.

I find that the better player seems to win most of the time, regardless of what side they are playing.  Therefore, it’s my opinion that the game is pretty well balanced.

You might want to rig a system where the inferior player is given 3 IPC to spend on unit upgrades, starting IPC or new units to even out the players ability, but the sides themselves seem to be in pretty good balance. (Obviously with different sides having different starting units, different positions, able to move before each other, etc, it’s darn near impossible to get a perfect balance between the two sides.)

@Cmdr:

I find that the better player seems to win most of the time, regardless of what side they are playing.  Therefore, it’s my opinion that the game is pretty well balanced.

You might want to rig a system where the inferior player is given 3 IPC to spend on unit upgrades, starting IPC or new units to even out the players ability, but the sides themselves seem to be in pretty good balance. (Obviously with different sides having different starting units, different positions, able to move before each other, etc, it’s darn near impossible to get a perfect balance between the two sides.)

We have used a system where each player adds 12 IPC worth of hardware anywhere on the map to begin turn 1, to simulate intelligence failure.  The Axis and Allies did not have perfect knowledge of what and where, though Allies had a clear intelligence edge, they still ran into surprises.  This adds an element of the unknown, at the  begining of each game.  The perfect setup is not known, only close approximations and 12 IPC is enough to throw a surpise on any front…

Has there EVER been a discussion on some forum (this one or any other one) that explains, no DEFINES “balance” in A&A?

I ask because unlike a game of chess, HOW do you TRULY DETERMINE IF A&A IS balanced?  :?

Chess IS a perfectly balanced game; I don’t think anyone would argue that…would they?

Here are THE key components that MAKE chess perfectly balanced:

***2 player game

***2 equal “armies” (1 black army, 1 white army with each army consisting of one king, one queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights and eight pawns. 16peices in each army)

***Played on a square board of eight rows and eight columns of squares. The colors of the sixty-four squares alternate and are referred to as “light squares” and “dark squares”. The chessboard is placed with a light square at the right hand end of the rank nearest to each player, with each queen on its own color.

***Pieces are moved to either an unoccupied square, or one occupied by an opponent’s piece, capturing it and removing it from play.

***All pieces capture opponent’s pieces by moving to the square that the opponent’s piece occupies.

Now THAT is a balanced game!

A&A is anything but balanced…when compared to chess.  :-P

So, when ever I read discussions on game balance for A&A; I can’t help but to pull my hair out!   :| Because what…if anything…is balanced in A&A?  How is balance in A&A defined?  What are THE KEY THINGS that make A&A a balanced game?

Even if we look at simple examples of combat between two of the same units we see that even in the combat system there is very little balance.

Only when we match the following example do we find balance in the combat system.
1 tank against 1 tank; the attacker hits on a 3 and the defender hits on a 3 and each tank rolls one die and each has a 50% of scoring a hit.

1 bomber attacking 1 fighter; the bomber attacks on a 4 and the fighter defends on a 4 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 67% chance of scoring a hit.

1 artillery attacking 1 artillery; 1 attacks with a 2 and 1 defends with a 2 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 33% chance of scoring a hit.

1 fighter attacking 1 tank; the fig attacks with a 3 the tank defends with a 3 and each rolls 1 die and each has a 50% of scoring a hit.

I’m sure there are some other example like this but…my point is…WHAT else is balanced about A&A?

With little exception do any powers start with the same incomes, I don’t think any power starts with the same number of territories or the same number of tanks, fighters, bombers, battleships, etc, etc, etc…

So…HOW is balanced defined in A&A.  I’m sure everyone has IDEAS of how to balance it…but with all of the 50,000,000,000,000 potential factors that COULD/WOULD/SHOULD contribute to game balance…HOW IS BALANCED DEFINDED IN A&A?

Without a clear definition…and if everyone has their own idea of what balance is…how can balance even be discussed?  How can ANY A&A game ever be truly determined to be balanced or not???

I’ve tried to come up with the Key factors that DEFINE balance and the only reasonably close (and yet still very abstract) explanation that I can imagine that truly DEFINES game balance in A&A is this;

Balance (in A&A) is the perceived notion that all Powers (& Sides) have an equal potential to achieve victory through the diligent use and execution of the games Ends, Means and Ways within the legal bounds of the games rules.

Which, if that truly is what defines balance in A&A…than all 3 of the global games of A&A (A&A classic, A&A revised and A&A 50th) are all balanced.   :roll:

chess white goes first> advantage… thats why in pro -tournaments a draw with black is a good result.

So, when ever I read discussions on game balance for A&A; I can’t help but to pull my hair out!  undecided Because what…if anything…is balanced in A&A?  How is balance in A&A defined?  What are THE KEY THINGS that make A&A a balanced game?

Builder_Chris, whether it was your intent or not, it seems like your post couldn’t separate the forest from the trees.

The answers to your questions are rather simple and concise:

1.  Balance in A&A is defined as two or more players of equal skill level having an equal chance of winning A&A as Axis or Allies.

2.  The KEY to what balances EVERY A&A game is operational tempo (Axis) balancing industrial might (Allies).

No single game is “balanced,” as the outcome of every roll is unpredictable, though after rigorous playtesting, patterns start to emerge.

atarihuana
chess white goes first> advantage… that’s why in pro -tournaments a draw with black is a good result.

How did I know someone would say something like that?  I almost put that…point…in my earlier post.  :|

In chess (not that I am a great chess player or A&A player for that matter)  :-o some could/would argue that going first IS an advantage…and others would argue going first is NOT an advantage.  BUT (I don’t know all the “details” to support this…I’m not a HUGE chess fan) but it IS EQUALLY POSSIBLE to win a game of chess no matter if you are the white army or the black army.  Going 2nd is not a 100% proven, guaranteed unarguable disadvantage. (or is it?)

TG Moses VI
Builder_Chris, whether it was your intent or not, it seems like your post couldn’t separate the forest from the trees.

That WAS my intent.  :wink:

In A&A some would argue that “such and such” is an advantage…and some would argue that that same “such and such” is NOT an advantage.  The only fact is that it IS equally POSSIBLE to win a game of A&A no matter if you are the Axis or the Allies. (Right?)

TG Moses VI
No single game is “balanced,” as the outcome of every roll is unpredictable, though after rigorous play testing, patterns start to emerge.

Exactly my point also; BUT are these patterns (of advantage or disadvantage) that have emerged from play testing; are they truly unarguably, guaranteed, provable, measurable advantages/disadvantages? Or are they PERCIEVED advantages/disadvantages?

Each Power/Side in the game has its different…challenges…to overcome in the game.  I won’t argue with that at all.  But this game (thanks in large part to the dice and in part because it is BASED on history) has way too many immeasurable factors; HOW can anyone truly determine if A&A is unbalanced game unless we reduce the playing field to identical starting factors?

EVREYTHING that IS A&A would need to be reduced to the CORE…basics…much like those of chess to be able to have a “balanced” game.

***The board would need to have an even/equal number of spaces (both of sea and land)and the spaces would need to be arranged so that Continents are the same size, seas are the same size and the positioning of the continents and seas are equally located in relation to each other on the board.

***Both sides would need to start with the same equal amount of game board spaces in their control (Axis gets half the land and sea and Allies get half the land and the sea)

***The teams would need to be the same size (1-v-1, 2-v-2, 3-v-3, etc.).

***Each player would need to start with the same amount of each type of available units (i.e. 8 infantry, 2 tanks, 2 fighters, 2 bombers, 2 carriers, 2 subs, etc, etc, etc…)

The mechanics of the pieces are already EQUAL; just because the Germans have  different molds for their pieces than the other Powers do for all of their pieces does not give anyone an advantage or disadvantage (they may look different BUT they ALL work the same).

***IPC values of territories would need to be adjausted to be exactly equal also.

You could reduce the factor of the dice by playing LL (Low Luck) or to make it even more fair you could make it so that each type of unit attacks and defends with the same number (i.e. infantry 1/1, fighters 3/3, bombers 4/4, etc, etc, etc…) OR you could even reduce that to chess like battles, the attacker ALWAYS wins.

A&A is not, has not ever (thankfully) been designed to be THAT TYPE of game.  If we truly want true “balance” …play chess…or Stratego.

The primary thing to keep in mind (IMO) is that A&A is this; A Historical Strategy Board Game.

Historical –
1. of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research. 
2. based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg. 
3. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian’s study of the historical Jesus. 
4. narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past.
5. noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics.

Strategy 
1. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson’s strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer. 
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

Board Game 
1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another.
2. any game played on a board.

Simply because of what A&A has been DESIGNED to be; (A Historical (no matter how loosely some may argue that it is) Strategy Board Game, A&A is bound to be “unbalanced” in some way shape or form.

How bad one BELEIVES that balance is skewed in favor of one Power or Side is (IMO) PURELY a matter of opinion rather than any measurable FACT or any “broken” mechanics of the games design.

So rather than attempting to balance A&A by rewriting/redesigning the game(s) and trying to figure out how to make them something other than what they have been designed to be by rewriting rules that each of us have/could come up with to “correct” the imbalance of the game, why are we not rather ACCEPT…admitting…agreeing…that A&A IS unbalanced (like life…like history) and admit that that is partly why we play it.  I know that is a big part of why I play A&A; I like the challenge of trying to rewrite history…as imbalanced as that may have been.

And one last thing…even if there was a way to determine/prove that A&A is an unbalanced game; would any of us argue that it is a game that is NOT worth playing BECAUSE of that imbalance?  I don’t think so.

So, I personally have come to believe the “almighty Bid” is the perfect way to “correct” the “imbalance” of any A&A game.

If you really do think the game is unbalanced use a bid.  It’s a great simple way to offset any PERCIEVED advantages/disadvantages (CHALLANGES) that a Power/Side and even an individual player might have.

I have a friend that believes I am TOTALLY nuts for giving him an 8 or 9 IPC bid at the start of a game of AAR if he is the Axis and we are playing a 12 city victory condition.  He thinks I’m also equally in sane if I give him an 8 or 9 IPC bid at the start of a game of AAR if he is the Allies and we are playing an 8 city victory condition. I don’t believe I am because I perceive/believe that in a Long game the Allies have the advantage and in a short game the Axis have the advantage.

…after rigorous play testing, patterns start to emerge. (showing advantages/disadvantages)

Agreed.

The KEY to what balances EVERY A&A game is operational tempo (Axis) balancing industrial might (Allies).

Also agreed.

Which leads me to my final point; to discuss balance in AAC and AAR is good fun debate…BECAUSE…they have endured such rigorous play testing.  But to discuss the balance of AAA is premature to say the least.  As Craig Y Yope said on this same subject on Harris Game Designs forum, “give it time (before we/you decide if AAA is unbalanced)”.

Over time patterns WILL emerge (perceived and/or “proven”).  And when that happens, I would advise using a bid over any rule changes.

:mrgreen: peace

@Domsterlord:

Jennifer,

I am not saying the game is imbalanced. It might or might not be. What I am saying is that Nos CLEARLY favor the axis.

Now they might encourage different allied play which is great but that is beyond the point.

My point is that if you ask me to play allies and you ask me Nos or not? I am always going to say no, unless I feel I want to give you and advantage. And That Should not be…

You are correct.  The NO’s favor the Axis, the board favors the Allies the game is balanced.

As soon as the board favors the Axis or the NOs favor the Allies the game is nearing it’s end.

Yes, the NOs balance the game in my opinion.

Without them, you’d almost have to give the Axis a significant bid that deployed in certain rounds. (Like +18 IPC on rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15 and 20) to account for not having the National Objectives.  That would be split evenly among all three axis powers, btw.

@Cmdr:

Yes, the NOs balance the game in my opinion.

Without them, you’d almost have to give the Axis a significant bid that deployed in certain rounds. (Like +18 IPC on rounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15 and 20) to account for not having the National Objectives.  That would be split evenly among all three axis powers, btw.

I’m curious, have you played AA50 w/o NOs and tech to really see the differences???  I have, but only once.  It does changed the strategy a bit, and yes I do believe the bid goes to the Axis for sure.

I did, three times.  Germany got royally stomped all three times.

Japan didn’t even have a prayer of getting anything of any reasonable strength to Russia before Berlin fell to the Russians. (Likewise, England and America didn’t have a chance to bring any real units to Europe before Berlin fell to Russia.)

It was akin to playing the allies vs the TripleA AI, but when the TripleAI was drunk.  If you know what I mean.

@Cmdr:

I did, three times.  Germany got royally stomped all three times.

Japan didn’t even have a prayer of getting anything of any reasonable strength to Russia before Berlin fell to the Russians. (Likewise, England and America didn’t have a chance to bring any real units to Europe before Berlin fell to Russia.)

It was akin to playing the allies vs the TripleA AI, but when the TripleAI was drunk.  If you know what I mean.

I seen the same thing, gotta agree with you on this one!  You have to play with NOs in AA50, especially for Italy’s sake- they can’t survive, neither Axis in Europe without them.