I didn’t start playing Revised until 2006, I didn’t know there was a new version, and I didn’t learn about TripleA so I got a head start with bids, only played a few games f2f before I started playing online.
I’ve heard that it took several months, after Revised was released before bids started to reach 7-9, which is where it should be, granted experienced players and equal skill. It sure didn’t take long until AA50 have been perceived as biased against one side, dependent on what scenario and optional rules are included.
One of my AA50 games I won as axis -41 with NOs, was against an allied player which I think is at my level or better, the allied player got a 6 ipc bid.
@Mr:
I’ve seen all the chat about how the game is ‘balanced’…
But in the real world, where I live, the players are not living odds calculators or tactical geniuses… the 1941 NO with tech set up is HEAVILY in favour of the axis… in my FTF games I have never seen an allied win…(around 8-9 games so far)
This is among ‘normal’ people mind you, sure there are people on here who could thrash me if I was playing the Axis… but among the ‘civilians’ there is no way for the allies to win…
Every game is the same… Japan goes mad… and if the Yanks try to stop them then Germany and Italy smash the russians and own Africa… nuff said! :mrgreen:
30 IPC bid to the allies I think ! :-D
That’s how my results go too. But things are calming down now.
Perhaps you need to teach the allies to not all pounce on Germany. Most times that results in an Axis victory. Instead, America should be primarily focused on Japan which gives the allies a chance to win.
A saying goes, don’t fix it if it ain’t broken.
Is the current bid system broken, and does it need fixing?
I could try cash only bid, but it would be hard to determine the amount when we’re all used to unit bids.
I don’t see any threads with players unhappy with the current bid system on this forum.
New to the group, and I have voted.
I will applaud you all for your creative thinking.
Here are a few questions for you all.
Presuming it is true that the 1941 scenario with the National Objectives is biased towards the Axis, then is the opposite true that the 1941 scenario without National Objectives is biased towards the Allies?
Here is another question, National Objectives are an optional rule, right?
As you all say, earlier versions of this game also favored the Allies, right?
Always respectful of Larry Harris and impressed with his games, I offer the following suggestion, that perhaps National Objectives are part of his grand plan. Due to the inherent bias of the war/game towards the Allies, he created National Objectives as an optional rule to turn the tables on the Allies.
So while I applaud your creative thinking about lump sum bid systems and moving units around the board for the 1941 scenario, maybe the point is that National Objectives are supposed to favor the Axis. And if it is true that without National Objectives the game/war favors the Allies, then without redesigning the game or the setup or implementing new rules, maybe the simplest way to play “balanced” game is just to reduce the value of the National Objectives from 5 IPC to 4 IPC or 3 IPC or 2 IPC, depending on the skill level of the players at the table.
This way requires no new rules, no new units, no new setups and fixes any balance issues quickly and with a minimum of fuss.
Good thinking Chi Chi, +1 :-)
It’s elegant in its simplicity, provided the two premises are true (that 41 +NO favours axis and -NO favours allies).
However, it would impact on the strategies and flow of the game in ways that are not immediately apparent. With reduced NOs, the US is far more likely to focus on Germany rather than the pacific. German strategic options would also be limited due to lower funds and Italy would have an increasingly marginal effect on the game (they really rely on NOs to be able to build the fleet or produce land troops).
The generally increased cash levels of all the teams makes the game far more interesting and strategic IMO.
@Cmdr:
Perhaps you need to teach the allies to not all pounce on Germany. Most times that results in an Axis victory. Instead, America should be primarily focused on Japan which gives the allies a chance to win.
I certainly agree, after playing a few games, AA50 turns out completely different than Revised in the pacific, whith NOs on.
Thats not the real problem though, even if it’s obvious that a non-pacific US strat is inferior in AA50 with NOs, as KJF is not the most effective strat in AAR, this is not the whole answer to the axis bias.
And its not so much about KJF vs KGF or KIF, regardless of NOs on or off, it’s important to go after the money, and with NOs, there’s a gold mine in the pacific 8-)
For Telamon, thank you and yes I agree that National Objectives (or NOs as you call them) are fun and new and make for interesting game play. Yes, without National Objectives the game changes, and it would impact the flow of the game, I totally agree with you. Pretty much all of the rules or bidding changes people are suggesting in this thread will change the flow of the game in potentially unforseen ways. But Larry has provided us with a lot of “optional” rules for the game, even 2 different setups (41/42) which used in various combinations provide a number of different games all in one box.
However the cover of the box says “1941” and optional rules are optional so I offer that the 1941 setup with zero optional rules must be used as the definitive game or “standard” or default to which all variations are compared.
I get the feeling that people out there have been using the optional National Objectives more often than not, and glancing at your After Action reports, which is the closest thing I can find to statistics here, that seems to be the case – please correct me if I’m wrong. For whatever reason this is I’m not totally sure, but my guess is because National Objectives are fun and new and add spice to the game, which is fine, but they’re optional and in my mind that means not part of the standard game.
So again the question is asked, the standard/default game, 1941 with no optional rules and therefore without National Objectives does the default game favor the Allies? I’m curious what you all think?
And if you find that 1941 without National Objectives favors the Allies and with National Objectives favors the Axis, can’t it be said that this optional rule just might have intentionally been created by Larry as the balance for the game? Used on a “sliding scale” of National Objectives this is the bid system you may be looking for!
I think the problem lies with the objectives themselves and there difficulty. Getting all objectives as axis should be done by the end of turn 2, yet allied ones are much more difficult. This is compounded by axis owning enough areas that even without NOs they are almost at the same income as the allies, combined with the ease for the axis to get units to the locations that matter compared to the allies and the increased firepower of bombers due to the cost. Why is it that axis NOs are so easy to get, and the allied ones are so difficult? I do not understand that, at all. Instead of a bid why not just change the NOs a little.
Germany: They should need both Karelia and Caucasus for there NO.
Japan: They should need 2 of the 3 with India, Australia, and Hawaii.
Russia: 2 of the territories instead of all 3 for the 10 IPC NO, reduce the NO to 5 IPC as well.
I think that alone would fix the problem instead of a bid. The big problem I see with a bid is with how crazy turn 1 is to begin with, how much different is the game if the US puts a sub somewhere in the pacific, or UK puts more units in Africa, or a sub in the Atlantic.
The other thing I wonder is if LL is to blame. With dice one would expect at least one axis attack on round 1 to go terribly wrong allowing for the allies to exploit that with the small margins they have. Like the attack on the UK BB, or Egypt, or the Russian front, or Pearl Harbor, etc. I don’t like that idea though because of the randomness f it. Or perhaps tech is supposed to be the answer as the allies can buy tech turn 1 if they choose where as the axis are hard pressed to afford it. That would not be good either though, esp as the axis can seriously outspend the allies starting as early as turn 2 or 3.
Has anyone noticed a difference with Tech on or using Dice aside from random freak things in later rounds in key battles?
i think that without the natioinal objectives, germany would have a tough time trying to take russia and hold off the u.k. at the same time, for the 42’ scenario no national objectives might be more reasonable, or collecting national objectives at every second turn,
if germany goes too far toward russia, the u.k. can build up relatively uncontested to the west, and if germany fails to defend against that threat, the u.k. can usually get to france or northwest europe, which means that germany has to
re-group and fall back from the eastern front,
unless japan is advancing toward russia, germany can not attack russia and keep out the u.k. at the same time,
that is where italy can make a difference, if italy concentrates their effort toward the middle east and africa, that would eat into the u.k. I.P.C. count and free up the german and japanese formations to more advanced attacking tactics, japan would have more I.P.C. to build a pacific fleet, and germany could look toward attacking the u.k. the u.k. would need defense from the u.s. and would have to wait until the u.s. would build a atlantic fleet to get to france, which in turn would draw I.P.C away from a u.s. pacific fleet,
there is nowhere that i can see from the 41’ scenario set-up that the allies need a bid,
i do not think that the axis need a bid, the strategies to use when playing the axis may be less obvious and more planning may be needed, although with some good advances at the opening rounds, the allies advantage of more time and resources to expend strategy wise can be turned around
@Chi:
So again the question is asked, the standard/default game, 1941 with no optional rules and therefore without National Objectives does the default game favor the Allies? I’m curious what you all think?
Most players here agree that w/o optional rules allies have advantage in -41, and with NOs 41 is favored to axis.
I think you can win against me if you play axis and I’m allies in 41 w/o optional rules. I lost a couple of games with this setting.
With NOs on, I don’t think you will win against me anymore than you will win against me or other decent players if you are axis in Revised playing w/o bids.
