National Objectives vs Balance

@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.

I think it would be possible to play without NOs and without a bid if you convert Italy and all it’s holdings and units to Germany.

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.

Yes.  I agree.  At least 100 games of A&A:50 need to be played before we start settling on whether or not this game is balance and if so, which side it favors.  And when this happens, you’re right, bidding or some other change should be incurred to the game.

Based on my observation of about 50 games, I will say that the Axis (with NOs) “appear” to have the advantage in 1941.

Nah, with over 100 games now, and I stopped counting a while ago, I can say that currently it looks really balanced with National Objectives in 1941.

In 1942 I have only played half a dozen games, but it seems to be that the allies are royally screwed in 1942…most people only play 1942 once or twice (however long it takes to have a turn at allies) and then go back to 1941.

Maybe the allies need a bid in 1942, or maybe we don’t know a good strategy for the allies other than surrender if the German player will pop for pizza, beer and condoms?(For most of you, I think pizza and beer only.)

Nah, with over 100 games now, and I stopped counting a while ago, I can say that currently it looks really balanced with National Objectives in 1941.

Generally, one person logging a hundred games of A&A is not a good statistical sample.  Generally speaking. 
I much prefer actual tournament data, with summarized field reports.

In 1942 I have only played half a dozen games, but it seems to be that the allies are royally screwed in 1942…most people only play 1942 once or twice (however long it takes to have a turn at allies) and then go back to 1941.

True.  Though actually, as the Allies I prefer playing 1942.  The Allies may be royally screwed, but at least they start the game with decent hardware (see: Russia and USA Pacific).

Axis?  No contest.  1941.  I love taking over territories and placing my own Control Markers.  None of this, “I start the game with half the territories already conquered”

Maybe the allies need a bid in 1942, or maybe we don’t know a good strategy for the allies other than surrender if the German player will pop for pizza, beer and condoms?(For most of you, I think pizza and beer only.)

Ha!

/Cmdr Jennifer

Would be interesting to hear from you on how you find '41 w. NOs to be balanced. Does this mean that USA and UK focus on the invasion of Italy ASAP and then onto France? And support of Russia in Karelia and Moscow with fighters? I’ve tried the IC in India thing with UK but not sure if it worked out. An IC in South Africa really saves you a lot of IPCs in Africa and gives you a reasonable income as UK. Overall it seems that the race to Berlin or Moscow is the name of the game, again.

I haven’t yet played '41 without NOs but with NOs I find it tedious, a bit like an “as if” scenario with Japan having the same industrial might as Germany or USA. I think I’ll find the '42 scenario more attractive in the long run, and probably without NOs. Here’s why:

1. Turn order. Means you can’t attack and make a hole in the Russian front with the Italians to exploit with the Germans. You can also kill off DD blocks in the North Sea as the Axis with Japan & Italy and be able to deploy subs out of the Baltic sea.
2. Set-up. Royal Navy and the Chinese Army is at least adequate and not non-existent as in '41 scenario, and of course US pacific navy as well.
3. Japanese strategy: with one instead of five transports you actually have to pick one target first and focus on that rather than be able to take ALL targets at your disposal. Etc: India, Australia, Alaska?

I also LOVE the optional rules over at Larry Harris Game Design forum, and has just started playing with them! The only other house rule we use is HBMBs attack at ‘5’ (still SBR at 2d6 which is not as horrible when you have interceptor rules).

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/pdf/Anniversary_FAQ.pdf

@Craig:

If it is shown to be a problem one way or the other, then action should be taken to fix things.  Let’s just take the time to properly log the necessary amount of games to legitimately show such a problem exists.

OK, those are questions I have to ask:

• First, I’ll reserve my thoughts on China status and setup and for the sake of this question, I’ll assume the game is 100% balanced
• Second: is a fact that you can kill China with Japan, round 1, in 1941 scenario, reducing them to a lone and last infantery. It doesn’t reduce Japan’s power of taking Dutch East Indies, Philippines or making Pearl Harbour, all at J1

Now the questions:

1941: what is the reasoning to say the game is balanced when you can kill an enemy power (China) in round 1, before even that power gets her first move? What is Japan losing if they kill China round 1 (being the advantages of doing it clear)? Really needs axis this to win?

And now for 1942: you cannot kill China J1, but you can still kill their lone and last offensive unit, the fighter, without losing focus in other areas, J1; it’s so easy that is a no brainer move. What is the reasoning for this? Really needs axis this badly to win? What is Japan losing if they kill the fighter J1?(because the advantages of doing it are pretty obvious)

I too would like that question answered.

I think what Craig Yope is saying between the lines is that the NOs ended up being more pro-Axis then they were from the beginning. Applied to the China situation this would mean that Japan would lose momentum if it attacked say Yunnan since then India would be less threatened and an IC could be put into operation there with long-term drawbacks. Now with NOs as they stand this doesn’t really matter since the Japanese economy gets so strong it will dominate India anyway sooner or later but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case without NOs or with less Axis-biased NOs.