Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

I don’t like LL and I don’t have hours of free time available for a TripleA game.  I’d play a game on the forums though.

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

@Funcioneta:

Allies need 3-5 more inf in Yunnan. It would be balanced. But not 3-5 more inf in Egypt or East Poland, that would be unbalanced

I think I will win more often than not with a 3 inf bid for allies in Yunnan.

As allies or as axis?

As axis. I agree that a 3 inf bid for UK or Russia, or a combination is probably too strong.

@Subotai:

I wonder if the reason why no one has accepted my offers and wanted to play me is b/c they won’t use TripleA realtime, or the LL setting, or is it that most players agree with the axis bias in 41 + NOs?

I would agree with Bardoly, it is more to do with time.

I’d gladly play a couple of 41-with NO-LL games PBF, but I’m just not sure I can commit a couple of hours to a real-time game.

@Subotai:

So what we’re left with, of those battles that will likely hurt axis rnd2 more than the change of TUV value, is the Egy attack, the Philly attack and the sz 53 attack if the BB lives, sz 35 if failed. That is 75% + 93% + 94% + 95%.

The result is 89% for those 4 battles.

just wanna correct youre odds (assuming the odds pr battle is correct) you only have a 62.28% chance all 4 will be succesfull, remember comming to odds you cant just sum them together and divide by 4, you have to multiply the different odds to find the real odds all the attacks sucess at the same time.

I havent read further then the quote above but will comment a bit now, and might add another post after reading the rest.

Basically the whole LL vs ADS is huge in aa50, with the number off attacks going on there will ALLWAYS be 1-4 attacks going sour total (depending on how conservative youre approach G1 and J1 is), with LL you can eliminate this. The gamedesigners knew this when they made the game, hence you have no “perfect” round1 as the allies. (odds for all the J1 and G1 attacks to succeed combined is somewhere in the range of 5% - 40% with ADS depending on how conservative the J1 G1 is, 40% is extreme conservative).

Now my idea from an allied stance is to reevaluate at theyre turns just like tcnance said. The allies have to hit where round1 attacks screwed up, and capitalize on that, makeing the game a much more dynamic game then any other AA version we ever saw. IF you choose to use LL under these circumstances you are in fact playing a whole different game becouse you are removing that opening  that the odds will almost every game make sure you get for the allies.

So as there might be warrant for an allied bid under LL those same conditions do not apply under ADS. The obviouse reason people find an axis advantage is that the axis in this version is so much easier to play under the “old” doctrine from AAR. But allied play is so much more dynamic and forces the allied player to be able to reevaluate so much more and adapt in a whole different way. Thats mainly why we seen these boards go from very pro Axis, then when ppl started adapting as allied over to pro allied. But now we see people starts to understand how to counter a “thinking” allied player a bit and atm i think this game is very closed to balanced.

But as the sample size of games go up (we still have a very low sample size compared to other games) we will se the “true” strenght of the sides, but as this game is so very much more dynamic then any other AA games its way way to early to start talking about that we have the fact of the balance figured out. My guess is that the consensus will swing back and forth a few more times before it will be an established fact that -41 with NOs is a very balanced game.

(i tried to point out why mixing LL into the equation is just bshit due to the odds, i cant be arsed to type out all the odds for you, but do the maths youreself and you see how unlikely it is that all youre attacks G1 and J1 will succeed even if you go very conservative, and you then realise that the LL factor is so huge that it totally changes the game as you remove what should be and allied opening round1 from the game.)

@ Pin, what if I reduce the number of attacks rnd1 G+J to 11?

Also maybe your theories are correct by theory, but I don’t think this will affect the game in reality.

thing is i just read this thread a few days ago and tought it was based on so much stupidity math wise i couldnt be arsed to be the “odds” police and was thinking i would let someone else raise theyre voice, but now the thread had gone 8  pages without anyone pointing out the obviouse.

Let me do an example.

If you do 11 attacks with every attack haveing 95% success ratio individual round 1. You only have 56.88% chance of all attacks beeing succesfull with ADS. But with LL you will have 100% chance of success.

Now its far from all attacks round 1 you have 95% chance on, and most players do more then 11 attacks round 1, wich ofcourse the gamedesigners knew when they constructed it this way. (they could have placed units whole different way to minimize the amounts of attacks round1).

Now this factor that one or more of youre attacks SHOULD fail is important for the whole game balance, making sure that the allies will have an opening in the Axis wall. Now though if you swap to LL then the allies wont have that hole and you are basically playing a whole different game. LL affects so much more then the strafing, you are virtually rebuilding the game mechanics.

Assuming we are playing with ADS you have to go with the numbers of attacks that maximise youre profit but minimize the downside when the inevitabile happens and you loose one of those key battles. Ofc you can go full bore round 1 as axis and almost deciding the game right there and then if you are monster lucky, but that will happen in so few games, but in LL that will happen a lot more making the game under LL conditions unbalanced.

What we in my F2F group have started doing is giving each side 1 token to decide one battle should be rerolled entirly, this to remove extremely skewed dices round one, and removing those 1/15 games where an all out attack over everyzone deciding the game round 1 with super luck. Also possibility for reroll of an battle where for example germany goes at it with 99% and looses.
Jury is still out on that reroll token though, but changing to LL will never happen for my group, and thats why i have no interest in playing you with LL, the game is a whole different game.

1 more thing, i think most players whining over dices and using LL is due to the nature of not understanding how odds are calculated. Basically its not in the game mechanics for you to win every round 1 battle even if you go conservative at it, its designed around ADS and mastering the consequenses of the dices are a part of the game, aswell as utilizing it.

I want to test this out in reality, and so I will start to play ADS again…    :cry:

The problem is that the dice gods really hates me, I have not been to the dice church, I have not prayed to the dice gods, I have not made sacrifice to the dice gods. I’m a sinner with no regrets, and the dice gods know. Dice gods are totally supreme!

Now I changed my options from no Egy attack rnd1 and only 11 attacks G+J rnd1.

Now the offer is NOs, no tech, no bids, dice  :cry:

I’m still axis though  :|

well its like poker, you just have to realise that the odds will make you loose some of the battles even though youre huge favorite in each of them seperatly but take the consequense of that by adapting to that reality youreself. Best piece of adivce i guess is to be so conservative round1 that no matter wich attack that fails it wont be a disaster for the rest of the game, remember with 11 attacks all on 95% youre still just a slight favourite to win them all, meanining in 11/20 games you win them all. Its internalising the odds that will prevent you from going nuts about the dices, but a predetermined way to reroll a battle that goes insanely skewed could be implemented to make sure the best player wins everytime, but you cant take it to the extreme and introduce LL into this as thats a whole different game.

It would be a lot of work to make it happen, but for me the perfect setup would be something along the lines of:

calc all battles before rolling, individual and combined. Then agree on whats the upper and lower limit of “failed” attacks. Then roll the battles, after the rolling is done you determine if the combined result was too much skewed. You then weigh the different battles that went totally off and roll on that weighting wich battle should be rerolled, possibility for more then 1 battle to be rerolled if the skew was extremely horrible.

But again thats just utopia, noone would ever bother using so much time on each battleround. So either just go with the dice gods and try to protect you the best possible way to tackle the dice gods or use a token for each side to reroll.

At the moment i think somewhere around 14-17 is the optimal combined attacks, but its way to early and i might change my mind again like ive done many times since this game came out.

If you really wanna test youre axis skills i would suggest you pbf with tcnance, his allied game is really tight as far as my experience is, ive played a lot to little to play a very good axis player to prove that this is a balanced game (only played ~50 AA50 games so far). And i think you shouldnt handicap youreself by doing 11 attacks only under normal conditions, just play it out and im pretty confident a topnotch allied player will give you really the run for youre money.

The limitations was if the game had LL setting. With regular dice I will have no restraints.

And I am still a LL player (strategist) at heart. The change from LL to dice games is because I want to find out if axis have advantage also with ADS. I will change back to LL when I find the answer to my questions. The truth shall set me free.

Could still be hard to find someone to play TripleA real time live though.

If anyone is up for allies w/o bids, and you have a few hours to spend, then pm me for 41, NOs, no tech, no bids, regular dice.

I’m axis.

Subotai,

I accepted your challenge because I mistakenly thought that we were going to play by email. That is my fault because I came to this discussion late and I didn’t read enough of your posts to know that you only play live games.

But, then again, you did accept my condition that we post our maps in the boardgames area so that everyone involved in this discussion could watch the game and comment while we played. We can’t post our turn by turn maps if we play a realtime game. The reason I made that request was because I saw no point in involving a whole bunch of people in this discussion and then going offsite to play a game that nobody can see us play.

As per my PM, I will do my best to make enough time this weekend to play one or more full games.

However, I think that if you want more people to accept your challenge, then you should consider playing here by forum or email. In the interest of fairness, you came here to make your challenge so you should play here, too.

The saved game at the end can be posted and anyone can look at a turn by turn history with TripleA.

I played 2 dice games today, and already it seems to be a little more difficult than LL.

The first one I won in rnd3. Everything went smooth, just like LL. Egy went fine.

The second game is not finished yet, Egy was disaster :-(

I think I must play 10-15 games before I can judge dice games vs LL. Even if it feels more difficult b/c of the dice swings, I think with average dice axis will have an advantage, although perhaps slightly less than in LL, but this can be just delusions of my mind, having played almost no ADS games for a long time, it feels different, I can feel the risk, and I don’t like it…

@ U-505, yes, I should inform that I only play real time and only TripleA. I use this forums to discuss strats and other issues. There are also lot of players who read and post in the forums who only play in local playgroup f2f.

I understand that most people don’t have time for several hours to play a game, it’s more convenient to make some moves and post in the forum, or by savegame.
I can probably find players in the unstable lobby who will play as allies w/o bids in a ADS game and no tech. So if I don’t play against players on this forum I will get a feeling for axis bias and game balance as when playing LL.

@Pin:

1 more thing, i think most players whining over dices and using LL is due to the nature of not understanding how odds are calculated. Basically its not in the game mechanics for you to win every round 1 battle even if you go conservative at it, its designed around ADS and mastering the consequenses of the dices are a part of the game, aswell as utilizing it.

well said, dead on correct

@bugoo:

The saved game at the end can be posted and anyone can look at a turn by turn history with TripleA.

Is the game saved after each turn during a realtime game? And wouldn’t it be time consuming to be posting the map and such while the game is going on.

@Subotai:

I played 2 dice games today, and already it seems to be a little more difficult than LL.

The first one I won in rnd3. Everything went smooth, just like LL. Egy went fine.

The second game is not finished yet, Egy was disaster :-(

I think I must play 10-15 games before I can judge dice games vs LL. Even if it feels more difficult b/c of the dice swings, I think with average dice axis will have an advantage, although perhaps slightly less than in LL, but this can be just delusions of my mind, having played almost no ADS games for a long time, it feels different, I can feel the risk, and I don’t like it…

@ U-505, yes, I should inform that I only play real time and only TripleA. I use this forums to discuss strats and other issues. There are also lot of players who read and post in the forums who only play in local playgroup f2f.

I understand that most people don’t have time for several hours to play a game, it’s more convenient to make some moves and post in the forum, or by savegame.
I can probably find players in the unstable lobby who will play as allies w/o bids in a ADS game and no tech. So if I don’t play against players on this forum I will get a feeling for axis bias and game balance as when playing LL.

The big problem with ADS vs. Low Luck is that in ADS there is a pretty high chance because of the large number of must-win battles the Axis have to perform that one of them will fail and Low Luck changes almost all of them to guaranteed wins. And I think that is why ADS doesn’t need a bid but LL probably does.

Case in point. I have played about 5 games as the Axis and already I have lost Bst(3 inf, 1 art, 1 fig, 1 CA vs. 3 inf) twice and Philippines(2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm v. 2 inf) once. In Low Luck, those battles would never have been lost.

And as for Egypt, the roughly 40% chance that the UK retains control even when Germany brings the bomber is hard to swallow. I consider a cleared result with just the German bomber surviving as a favorable result for the Allies because it’s not the taking of Egypt that is the problem, it’s the German armor blitzing through Africa unapposed for the next 2 turns that really hurts the UK economy. If those armor don’t survive, it takes Italy forever to get units down through the Sudan and by then the Australian units can be landing to plug the gap.

no with the saved file is a history while in game where you can review every turn and every move made by everyone in a list.  Imagine a PBF game without the dice rolling in the posts and that is what the history will show you, move for move with the map.  It is a really neat way to review your games and see what went well, wrong, etc.  Sorry if i’m not describing it well.

It doesn’t take long to dl tripleA, doesn’t even need installed just unzipped.  Give it a try!

@Subotai:

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

@Funcioneta:

Allies need 3-5 more inf in Yunnan. It would be balanced. But not 3-5 more inf in Egypt or East Poland, that would be unbalanced

I think I will win more often than not with a 3 inf bid for allies in Yunnan.

As allies or as axis?

As axis. I agree that a 3 inf bid for UK or Russia, or a combination is probably too strong.

Yep, for that reason I think it’s better bid chinese units. I think 4 is the minimal, but probably we need more

without NO’s?
wel, agreed, Japan is a pain in the ass
but germany and italy get nothing!
nothing!
if US lands in france, and UK at baltic staes, karelia, poland, northwest europe, the germans can’t beat them back
then they get at max 10 inf each turn
the same for italy
berlin falls much sooner than moscow

with NO’s
it’s 50-50 i think
(perhaps with a small advantage for axis, also depends on KJF or KGF)

The discussion is if allies or axis have advantage with NOs. There should not be any disagreement that allies are favored w/o NOs in both setups.

So far, I probably played 10-15 games in ADS, and its definately more difficult to win as axis with regular dice than LL.

That’s logical: the side who has the starting advantage is favored by standard results, and the one who has the disadvantage only wins due bad planning by the other side or due wacky dices

Also, I assume LL players don’t play with tech, and playing without tech favors slightly allies in early game because you have not rogue paras or LRA italian (or jap) can oppeners -> Moscow and Stalingrad easier to defend. Also, Germany cannot build 12 guys a round or 4 guys in Egypt and Japan cannot build 5 guys in India, 4 in Alaska or 3 in China wastelands  :-D Germany has also some nice to do with her IPCs when she earns 50 a round  :wink: