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

@Cmdr:

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

If the allies have as good chance of winning as the axis, why would you need a 5 ipc bid?

@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.

@Mazer:

It’s not just the number of hits, it’s risk management for strafes and allocation of offensive power (particularly airpower).

1. LL dice favors/allows precise strafing.  Does one side benefit from strafing more than the other side?  In AA4 the Axis gains a major strafing advantage in the managment of WEU/EEU.  Often if you attempt a strafe out of Berlin but accidentally take the territory then Berlin falls.  This means the Axis can gain one or two rounds by inflicting a maximum strafe without dropping Berlin.  I suspect this accounts for bids being slightly lower in LL than I would expect them to be with normal dice.

I guess you’re argumenting from a principle point of view, with examples of Moscow and Berlin. Its obviously much more profitable to take capitals than strafing.
When strafing Poland or Kalia perhaps, and some other TT’s if Germany have only tanks in a specific TT, then allies can strafe one battle rnd and retreat and gain a few + tuvs.

The allies gain as much from strafing France as axis does. And this discussion is when playing NOs. So I would rather own France the whole game with either axis or allies to make more money than strafing. Also allies have as much advantage when TT trading France and/or Northwestern Europe or other similar TT’s as Germany have. Its just as easy for allies to attack France with 2 infs and lot of air or naval bombardment to take it with one inf, as it is for Germany to attack with 2-4 ftrs 2 inf or 2 ftrs 1 bmr 2 infs, against 1 or 2 enemy infs. This exactly the same for both sides.

The Allies theoretically should have a similar advantage coming out of Moscow, but functionally the stacks are different and LL favors the Axis in regards to large strafes.

If I’m allies i would like to keep my capitals  :roll:
I could say the exact opposite, that LL favors allies in regards to large strafes.

The side that favors strafing is the side that do not place 20 tanks at the front, or easy available for enemy attacks, when the enemy has 10 infs + a large stack which will kill more tuvs than you lose because infs are cheaper than tanks.

2. LL gives precision attacks allowing near-complete knowledge of force needed to take a territory.  For instance, both players know how much airpower to send in small battles to swap land.  This would theoretically be a wash, but since Germany has more airpower than Russia the Axis gain a slight advantage here as well.  You know if you send 1inf 2ftr at 1inf then you take the land 67% of the time and never lose a plane.

I would do this also in ADS. In the long run it will be the same, what you’re really saying is that Germany has more air power than Russia and that an attack with 1 inf 2 ftrs vs 1 inf is favorable. This is totally unrelated to LL vs ADS.

There are a few other risk dynamics that are negated by LL, but I’d say in general a LL bid will differ from a normal bid by several IPCs to reflect the leverage gained by more complete knowledge of the dice.  Note in AA5 I’m not saying yet which side benefits more from LL, I’m merely pointing out that LL should have a slightly different bid than normal rules.

Those risks that are negated by low luck can very well be negated in ADS by using more ground units when attacking with air units, or using less air units.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that LL favors one side more then the other in AA50. There is no fact which supports this claim. It is a fact that in AAR LL or ADS has nothing to do with game balance or grand strategies.

The reason why I think that LL or ADS do not influence balance in AA50 is because we do not judge balance for one game, we judge balance for hundreds, maybe thousands of different games. With dice rolls which is not favorable for either side, the statistics for total amount of a number of games will even out over time.

Edit:

Things happen when I read too fast, and english is not my first language either. Now I see that Mazer Rackham meant strafing OUT of a capital, not allies strafing Berlin :-)
My arguments still holds though, with regards to LL vs ADS. If Germany are surrounded, they are as weak as a weak Russia surrounded by either Germany or Japan. And again I will inform anyone who has not played any LL games. Strafing does not favor any side or nation. In fact, I have hardly seen any strafing of large stacks in AA50 yet. In my games, both me and my opponents either take a TT with minimal amount of units, or we stack it and plan to hold it as long as possible.
I also played some AAR games before AA50, most of them was LL. I also watched many games played by skilled players, I can hardly remember that strafing was an issue at all. It happened several times, but it is/was never part of the core gaming mechanics of AAR, more than it is in ADS games.
The strafing aspect is probably something ADS players are obsessed with, for some reason I don’t know…

@tcnance:

i think if we total the results in the league page at the end of the year we will know more about who has the advantage. right now im winning more often as the allies and losing as the axis.

Why wait until the end of the year if we know it already?

You could try a game against me, 41, NOs, LL, NT. No bids, I’m axis.

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

If the allies have as good chance of winning as the axis, why would you need a 5 ipc bid?

probably a typo

@Subotai:

It is a fact that in AAR LL or ADS has nothing to do with game balance or grand strategies.

I do not think EVERYONE who plays A&A would agree with this statement, so therefor, it can not be a fact.
Mainly because LL can change battle to battle strategies which WILL affect grand strategies.

Please let’s not side track this thread with LL discussions, it’s a good thread.

@DarthMaximus:

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

For my part its about 14-15 attacks G+J rnd1 with LL, which imo is close to optimal amount of attacks. Its only the Egy attack which is substansially more different then the other attacks, as this is a 75% in ADS and 95% in LL. Also the risk is higher in Egy in ADS than LL. Among other attacks that can go wrong are the sz 35 and sz 56 attacks. They are 95% in ADS. The sz 53 attack with DD + 2 ftrs is 90% for win, but for win/draw its 94% in ADS.

In Egy it’s 73% to 75%for win, and 6% draw, almost all counts says defender wins 19% - 20%, so Egy attack can be bad for axis if it fails. Which in the long run it will, 2 out of 10 games.

Another important battle rnd1 is the sz 50 attack. The battlecalc in TripleA says 100% in ADS so it must be wrong.

The Frood calc says 99,8% I’m simulating with Revised DD + BB vs Revised sub, b/c the Frood calc is not yet updated for AA50.

The Philly attack (3 inf+1 art vs 2 inf) is 93% for attacker in ADS. This is an important attack, it will not help axis with a draw as in the sz 53 attack. In LL the Philly attack is 99,6% for attacker wins.

The last very important attack for Japan rnd1 is the Kwantung attack. 1 inf + 1 arm + 1 ftr vs 1 inf.
Frood says attacker wins 99,7% in ADS.

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. I’m counting the battles which will hurt more than the TUV change, or else the allies should have as much bad luck as the axis, so it will even out. In reality the Egy attack fails 20% so it would be more accurate to look at Egy attack as a single battle not counting with other battles. And most battles for Japan rnd1 is way over 90% for all those important attacks. Another number would look like 75% for German success rnd1, and 94% for Japan success rnd1.

If the case was 20 battles of 90% or 95% and all those battles was as important as the Egy attack if win or lose, or the Philly attack which is 5 ipc + for each side, + it would seriously slow Japan down if US goes after Japan in the Pacific, then I would agree more with your claim that the number of attacks will affect LL or ADS more than in Revised.
But this isn’t the case.
With even more number crunching I would say it’s only the Egy attack and the Philly attack which could get me nervous in a ADS game rnd1. All other battles are mostly TUV changes, or generally attacking/defending as with all warfare in A&A.

@axis_roll:

I do not think EVERYONE who plays A&A would agree with this statement, so therefor, it can not be a fact.
Mainly because LL can change battle to battle strategies which WILL affect grand strategies.

---

Please let’s not side track this thread with LL discussions, it’s a good thread.

The LL discussion was brought up b/c someone claimed that this will favor the axis in AA50.

I disagree in this matter, I also think all the arguments based on LL is irrelevant for game balance and other important aspects of AA50, but I do think that LL is different from ADS.

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?

@bongaroo:

@Funcioneta:

We should start letting the poor old chineses go out China. That rule is total crap and mother of game bugs :-P

How many games have you played where it would make a difference if China could have moved out against Japan?

All. You could save at least that last inf China pops round 1  :-P

But seriously, if China, for any reason, has say 3-4 guys at end of round 1, you can have a big buch of infs stacked in Chinghai, a stack that can run to Soviet Union to fight another day

Other times, chinamen stack are next to some valuable bombers or a lone fig in FIC and they cannot attack for some freak reason. And my most hated is when italian units sneak to Kazhak and you cannot protect your rear  :-P

@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’m going to guess that it’s because it’s so difficult to set aside enough time to play realtime as opposed to PBF.  If you were willing to PBF, I’m sure that you would get more players willing to play you.  Also, I think that the majority of players want to play normal die rolls instead of LL, so you’re cutting down on the number of available players that way as well.  Actually in my experience, the Allies have been winning a little more than the Axis have in AA50, so I think the jury’s still out on the bias issue.

@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?

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.