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

I’ve seen the Battleship at Hawaii (SZ53) survive against 2 fighters and a destroyer on J1.  I’ve seen the Battleship in SZ2 survive the G1 attack of 2 subs and a fighter.  I’ve seen G1 Egypt turn into a disaster where both the British tank and fighter survive.

Even if it’s true that the number of axis attacks rnd1 affects balance in LL, I think this is not a major factor for the game balance. But there’s a possibility that the (ADS) bid needed in 41 +NO will be somewhat lower than with LL, if we compare AAR LL bids vs ADS bids, which is the same.

Lets do this gedankenexperiment, let’s assume ADS for first rnd battles. What battles will you not do in ADS which you would do in LL? For Germany I usually take all 3 TT’s on the eastern front which gives me the 2nd German NO. Sometimes I do the Kalia attack G1, but Egy seems better. So if I don’t do the Egy attack G1, or the attack on the UK BB, or the Kalia attack G1 then the battles would be like LL, less risky, more overkill.

For Japan there are many battles which are standard moves rnd1, especially in LL.

I usually attack Yunnan, Philippines, Kwantung, and 2 out of 3: Fukien, Hupeh and Suiyuan. Then the sea battles. Sz 53, sz 50, sz 35 and sz 56. So lets say I reduce the risk, skipping sz 56 helps a lot. Would this change the balance of the game? I think not.

If we assume LL, but I don’t do the battles which could go terribly wrong rnd1. What’s the difference? Would you challenge me for a 41 +NO, LL, NT and no bids if I do not do the most risky battles rnd1?

I think not. The axis bias is not dependent on Egy, or Kalia, sz 2, or the combination of sz 53 and sz 56.
And the bias is not dependent on no battles goes wrong rnd1 either. It helps alot I admit, but this is not the core issue of game balance in 41 +NO.

It’s as easy for axis to get the NOs in ADS as it is in LL. This assumes equal luck on both sides. The number of rnd1 attacks is not dependent on this. Even if axis don’t do any risky attacks rnd1, and reduce the total number of attacks, the axis bias is obvious. I’m not sure how big it is yet, it could be even less than in AAR, but the game is not balanced once you start analyzing AA50 in depth.

And what about all the players who use regular dice who also claims that axis are favored? You can’t just dismiss all the evidence which is available for the 41 scenario.

Unless someone can disprove what is pretty obvious, we can conclude as a fact that axis have the advantage in 41 with NOs.

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

I’d have to say Russia would need a 30 IPC bid to stay in the game (2 Fighters, 2 Armor).  England and America can adapt, but Russia does not have time to adapt.

Then I take 29 ipc, I use the bid for whatever I want, you take axis and the game is no tech, LL, 41 +NOs?

Send pm so we can arrange a TripleA game Jennifer  :-P

No, it’s 30 IPC split as 2 Fighters and 2 Armor in Moscow, as I said.  That’s the balance point so that Russia has a prayer to be as influential in 1941 as normal using LL rules.

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

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.)

Ok, then the game is 41, regular dice, no tech, no bid, NOs, I’m axis, you are allies, send pm, we make an appointment, and you learn me how to play allies  :wink:

Sure, start a thread and we can use Abattlemap as a mapping utility (or we can just post a unit locations list for each other.)  Germany goes first, so when you are ready, I’ll show you how the allies can play to take out the Axis.  No bid, no technologies, but national objectives turned on to make it fair, with actual dice.

@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.

Then it will be me as axis, 5 bid to allies, game is 41 scenario, NOs, no tech, low luck.

We can do a second game with 5 bid to the allies.  Split it 1 IPC to Russia; 4 IPC to America - Low Luck.

Also, you are attempting to take a game with a completely different map, extremely less income for one side or the other and significantly stronger Russia and comparing it to Anniversary.

I don’t think that is a valid comparison.

For one, Germany earns 120% of what Russia earns for the better part of the game and starts out with infinitely more fighters and bombers than Russia does. (Four is infinitely larger than zero!).  With 4 fighters and a bomber, Germany can be guarenteed to trade at least three territories for the cost of only 6 infantry.  Russia, with no fighters and no bombers, is guarenteed nothing, they’ll have to risk artillery and armor every round.  So Germany will have the financial edge, they’ll have Italy right there for support AND they won’t have to risk high value equipment like Russia.

That is why Russia needs the bonus equipment.  The Armored units are significantly back from the front lines so they cannot threaten German territories (as in the grey ones, not the ones captured) and the fighters give Russia a chance to build up without risking high value targets or blowing all their cash on fighters and thus not having units left to trade.

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.

Perhaps you could share some of your allied strats with us.  Do you focus on pacific, balanced, etc?  Are any of your games on a forum you could point us too?

Not to be rude i’m just wondering what i’m doing wrong!

@ cmdr Jenn, send a pm and we make an appintment when to play. Then start TripleA unstable and choose “connect to networked game” I’ll send you my ip address when we got things worked out. You as allies with 5 bid LL, or you as allies with no bid and regular dice.

PM sent.

Anyway, I have to agree with TC, the game is less than a year old and people are still figuring out strategies to use as base play (modified based on outcomes of the dice, but over all strategies.  Like in AAR the overall strategy was either ignore Japan or send only America after Japan and everything else at Germany and for the Axis to go full bore at Russia and only Russia.)

there is no set allied strategy as of yet, right now it has to do with the gazillion axis attacks in g and j1. where do the attacks fail? where do the axis win big? does russia turtle or purchase tanks and charge across europe?  this game is so different than revised in that a lot of the opening battles are so close. one real biggie is the g attack on egypt……that battle can determine if italy is gonna get 20 plus ipcs for a couple of turns or just collecting around 10 or 12… right now i would have to say the best allied strat is hit the axis whereever they are exposed after round 1.

i just say for references look at my league games against pin(1 and 2), flesh and gargantua, they are all different, pin had a terrible g1 and surrendered on j2 in game1, in game  2 verses pin he couldnt clear the bb in sz53, i hit him with the bb and wusa bomber in sz50 putting a big hurt on the jap fleet(1 bb 2 tranny sunk), flesh pile kicked azz on g1 and j1 russia is already on its heels, the game against gar is pretty even at this point.

@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.

Actually it’s 14 for my part, and I’m playing LL. I could easily cut it down to 13, but thats about it. I would do the same number of attacks in ADS.

Edit: when I think even more about this, I can actually reduce it down to 12 attacks. But now I’m expecting to choose my attacks as I want to. And if important attacks fails too often for axis rnd1, then why not reduce the number, those of you who play ADS?

@Mazer:

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.

The only important strafing attacks I’ve done so far in AA50 is in the 42 scenario with Russia. R1 against eastern Ukraine and Belo. I count 4 hits against EUkr and 2 against Belo, then I retreat to Moscow and Caucasus.

All other situations I try to conquer most TT’s in the shortest amount of time possible. I want global victory. I generally dislike that my opponents steal TT’s from me, which logically belongs to me b/c it’s my property, which I have lawfully and in all fairness won by excellent warfare  :-P  :lol:  :-D

@souL:

Low Luck, no luck, it doesn’t matter.

Hear! Hear!  8-)

@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.

Ok, so you agree that in AAR it doesn’t matter if the game is LL or ADS when determining the bid levels?

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.

Then I suggest I only do 14 attacks with G+J rnd1, I still think I will win almost every game with NOs, NT, LL, no bid.

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

Then I suggest I don’t do the Egy attack G1. I still think I will won almost all games with NOs, no tech, low luck and no bids.

Japan doesn’t have to worry about a bad Pearl with 1 dd, 2 ftrs vs. 1 bb.  2 ftrs are guaranteed to sink the UK dd in Sz 35 and US dd sz 56.  Ger is guaranteed to kill the DD in Sz 12 with an attack of 2 ftrs vs. dd and ca.
Ger is guaranteed to only lose 1 air in attack on Kar if they do that.  There is just no risk to any of the Axis attacks.

What if I don’t do the most risky attacks? I skip 1 DD + 2 ftrs against one BB. I could also skip the attack against the US DD in sz 56. I usually don’t do the sz 12 attack. Let’s say I don’t do the sz 12 attack, I don’t think it will matter much.

The biggest Allied adv in AA50 is the number of Axis attacks on rd 1 and the mathmatical probability that all of the combine attacks won’t succeed.  LL removes that.

Not so much if I remove the numbers of attacks.

20 attacks with individual odds of 95% to succeed still means you will only succeed in all of them like 35-40% of the time.  This of course doesn’t even count that Egy isn’t a 95% winning battle.

Then I reduce the numbers of attacks, AND I also don’t attack Egy G1.

Although, I do still think the Allies will have the Adv.  I don’t think the Axis can maintain the economic lead long enough.

Ok, I bid maximum 14 attacks with G+J rnd1, no Egy attack, and no 1 DD + 2 ftrs against 1 BB, no Kalia attack G1. 
I still think I win with NOs, low luck, no tech and no bids.

Seriously, if anyone still think allies are favored, or that the game is balanced to the extent that there’s no need for any bids, then my offer is: 14 attacks maximum G+J rnd1. Low luck, no tech, NOs, no bids. I’m playing axis.

I have different offers for those of you who think the game is balanced, or allies are favored in 41, NOs, NT, LL, no bids.

1. I bid maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd.

2. I bid no Egy attack in the first rnd.

3. I bid no Kalia attack first rnd.

4. I bid no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!!

I’m playing axis.

@Subotai:

I have different offers for those of you who think the game is balanced, or allies are favored in 41, NOs, NT, LL, no bids.

1. I bid maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd.

2. I bid no Egy attack in the first rnd.

3. I bid no Kalia attack first rnd.

4. I bid no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!!

I’m playing axis.

Uhm, I think you are really, REALLY handicapping yourself here.

Well, yes, but remember that those are 4 different options. You may pick any1 of them if you want. Not all together.

And if you think I’m handicapping myself, then why don’t you play against me?

@Cmdr:

Uhm, I think you are really, REALLY handicapping yourself here.

Which one of them is most favorable for allies then?

@Cmdr:

Dunno, so far on this server I am (this does not count games IRL, at AAMC, at FoE or at DAAK mind you, just here)

1942:
Allies - 8
Axis - 2

But those are just my totals, when you compare them to everyone else’s totals on the board, you see the 1941 scenario being much closer to 50/50 and the 1942 scenario being almost a complete route for the allies.

I bugged you about the 42 stats before, and I’m not quite sure myself, the 42 stats are also with NOs?

I think 42 is favored for axis as well as the 41 scenario, with NOs. I’m not quite as sure about the 42 as I am with 41, I haven’t played it enough yet.

Then there is a lot of disagreement on the balance issue. Which is good thing imo.

The only thing which has total consensus, is that allies are favored in both setups w/o NOs.

@Subotai:

I have different offers for those of you who think the game is balanced, or allies are favored in 41, NOs, NT, LL, no bids.

1. I bid maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd.

2. I bid no Egy attack in the first rnd.

3. I bid no Kalia attack first rnd.

4. I bid no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!!

I’m playing axis.

Which one of them is most favorable for allies then?

I would have to say IMHO these would be the most favorable to the Allies in order of most favorable to least favorable.

1. no Egy attack in the first rnd. - Not doing this attack ensures UK’s NO for the first round, probably means that Italy will only collect on 1 of its NOs, and if sz12 is not attacked, allows UK to sink Italy’s navy on UK1.  Also, it just plain gives UK more options in the Indian Ocean.  Not attacking Egypt on turn 1 is a big mistake for the Axis.

2. maximum 13 attacks with G+J in the first rnd. - There are so many attacks which the Axis need to do in Turn 1.  IMHO Germany MUST do 5 attacks, but probably SHOULD do 6-7, while Japan MUST do 9 attacks (I’m counting the Philippines as 2 battles - the naval one, and the amphibious assault), but SHOULD do 12.  Limiting the number of attacks forces the Axis to play slower, but IMHO the way that the game is set up, if the Axis play slowly, then they lose.

3. no Yunnan attack the first rnd, the Chinese ftr lives!!! - Not doing this attack could very easily come back to bite you if Russia invests a little into China.

4. no Karelia attack first rnd. - I don’t think that a G1 attack on Karelia is a good move for Germany, so I would NEVER choose this option.

Thx for the reply, Bardoly.

I actually don’t know what of the options which is most devastating for the axis, except when I think about it more and more I agree that “no Kalia attack G1” is not at all a serious bid in order to gain the allies.

Maybe I should bid: “must do Kalia attack G1”  :lol:

It’s interesting to hear what other players think is important and not so important. Also, imo, there’s no point in calculating, or playing against one self for more than one rnd. I have done it a few times, but I didn’t learn anything from it.

That’s because so many things can happen after the first rnd, and they do, for good and bad, both in ADS and in LL. Thats why the first rnd is always the most interesting to analyze. The opening moves can be studied because the game always has the same units on the same places in turn 1.

If other players feels the same about the Egy attack rnd1, then this will be my “main bid” for 41, LL, NT, NOs.

So what exactly are your G1 attacks in a normal Low Luck game?