How to achieve balance

@Lynxes:

Your next in line when I’m obliterated by them…  :wink:

I object!  :-D

My issue with the Axis is their round 1 attacks.  I think far too much depends on winning every battle and when you have a combined 14-18 battles some of those are going to go bad or you’ll get sub par results and that in turn gives the Allies the Adv b/c they can see the weak links and respond accordingly.

Now if all the Axis battles are won with expected results the Allies certainly have their work cut out for them.

Well, the bad stuff with axis round 1 attacks is that only a few can go totally bad, and even losing one of them will not hurt axis too much because of their huge default advantage. Axis losing some attacks here and there simply means allies have a small opening, but axis should have to lose most of them to give a balanced game. Egypt is not critical to axis, nor z2 nor even Yunnan or z12. But each one of these successing for axis is a bigsetback for allies and hurts them much since they cannot recover from them as axis can.

In resume, axis has much less to lose in that combats than allies

With unit bids for allies in ADS, the risk for axis increases substantially.

I think allies have 50% or more with a $6 unit bid, (NOs, ADS, no tech).
I would like to try this, but I doubt there will be any takers.

Canada and Australia helped alot during WWII. I’m surprised that Canada doesn’t even have an IC (not that it would be of any use :S)
Not sure about India, I don’t know India’s history. If UK starts with an IC in India, then Japan can’t go crazy.
And yes, India IC can’t stand against a competent Japanese player. But the longer he takes to take it, the better it is for the Allies!

Me and my friends are going to play a no NOs game next time to see how things are. One thing is sure, if there are no NOs, Germany won’t have to spread himself. Neither will have Japan. But at the same time, they lose a lot of IPC from bonuses. I think it will be interesting

Right now, we know that the key of success for the Allies are a strong UK navy. If UK can keep a strong navy during the game, then he can threaten France and the reste of Europe.

@Subotai:

With unit bids for allies in ADS, the risk for axis increases substantially.

I think allies have 50% or more with a $6 unit bid, (NOs, ADS, no tech).
I would like to try this, but I doubt there will be any takers.

I’m more worried for the non-tech stuff than for the bid itself (I assume you play allies). Anyway, I cannot play more than 1 game at the same time until at least June  :|

Right but the problem with saying ‘allies have to hope a few attacks go bad’ is that the game is decided on turn 1 axis combats, not a good thing.

Bids are still the best, only debate left in my mind is cash only or units.  To actually fix the game would require alot of work and be best as a mod.

And the big thing that will determine if KGF will work, is if you can get russia her 2nd NO before japan gets there in force (turn 3-5) which can be done.  Another thing is US armor trucking threw africa to rally in persia helps big time, as does dropping a pacific fleet as US once you start to trade france, or if J went polar express its even better as you can waste her IPCs directly.  8-)

@Funcioneta:

Well, the bad stuff with axis round 1 attacks is that only a few can go totally bad, and even losing one of them will not hurt axis too much because of their huge default advantage. Axis losing some attacks here and there simply means allies have a small opening, but axis should have to lose most of them to give a balanced game. Egypt is not critical to axis, nor z2 nor even Yunnan or z12. But each one of these successing for axis is a bigsetback for allies and hurts them much since they cannot recover from them as axis can.

In resume, axis has much less to lose in that combats than allies

I disagree.  I think the Axis have a lot to lose.  I think leaving the UK ftr in Egy is a big shift for the Allies and the UK, as would be the BB b/c that likely means the UK already has 2 trns and a third if you bring over the Aussia trn.
Also depending on the G1 BST attack if the Russians get 1-2 hits then Kar might be stackable and Ger will have a real tough time ever getting the 3rd NO.  Japan failing at Pearl is a huge setback as well, since the US can essentially have an equal fleet at the end of rd 1.  Too many defensive hits in Sz 12 (or lost G planes) may mean Alg is an option in Rd 1 for the Allies, that means no two NO’s for Ita without putting their fleet in immediate danger in Rd 2.  Japan losing to the UK DD at India makes Egy counterable or provides the UK with their 4 trn or might make a SAfr IC more viable.  The Allies can have a lot of options depending on the results it is just a matter of playing them out and getting a better feel for what works and what doesn’t.  The game is only about 6 months old and Allied strat ALWAYS trail axis b/c they require much more coordination and realiance upon each other for back up.  We already are seeing some of it in the Tourney and League.  The Allies lead in the Tourney and the League, will it hold up?  I don’t know, but it is definitely promising considering it is still early and the Allies are winning more than the Axis.  People are still trying to figure the best balance for the US and I still have a couple all out KJF strats I want to try even though just a few games ago I thought it would be impossible.  I now think there might be some definite openings.  KGF remains strong IMO (with the refinement of minimal support to hold or deter a J move HI - but that still means an 8 unit shuck is very playable).  I’m also starting to like subs a little more (even for the Atlantic but haven’t really tested that much).

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

With unit bids for allies in ADS, the risk for axis increases substantially.

I think allies have 50% or more with a $6 unit bid, (NOs, ADS, no tech).
I would like to try this, but I doubt there will be any takers.

I’m more worried for the non-tech stuff than for the bid itself (I assume you play allies). Anyway, I cannot play more than 1 game at the same time until at least June  :|

I also made that statement rhetorically, but I wouldn’t say it if I was not willing to play games with that setting.
As I haven’t played that many games with allies, I would probably do more mistakes than with axis.
Atm I would not play allies w/o bids, even in ADS, but this is also b/c I’m more insecure with allies in AA50 than I am with axis.
I would feel slightly better in ADS, but with a bid of $9 or more (for allies) I think I’ll win most ADS games.
There’s no reason to believe that the bid needed for balancing AA50 is higher than revised, I think it’s about the same amount, or even less than revised.

I doubt that there are any players in the TripleA unstable lobby who would play against me if I get a $6 unit bid (or higher) for allies in ADS. And all games I play, be it revised or AA50, it’s always TripleA live games.

Darthmaximus just said that Allied are leading in the tournament. Maybe wait for all the results before arguing about this?

Robert

@Omega:

Darthmaximus just said that Allied are leading in the tournament. Maybe wait for all the results before arguing about this?

I agree.

The game is still new, allied play options are much greater (and more difficult) in this version of A&A, and it will be a while before the concensus agrees who needs help and how much they need.

What makes balancing AA50 more difficult is that the economic advantage can swing the Axis way mid-game (especially due to the Japanese Monster).  This means a longer game can benefit the Axis, something that was usually the opposite in older versions:  The old axiom: “The longer the game, the better the chances of the allies winning” is now out the window, IMHO.

If you agree that dynamic is changed, then you can see how delicate the balancing becomes… too much for one side and you’ve created a game that is unwinnable.

@Omega:

Darthmaximus just said that Allied are leading in the tournament. Maybe wait for all the results before arguing about this?

Robert

Then it wouldn’t be any fun, it’s also fun to argue, and although we cannot conclude with the same certainty as with revised, there are some results that have been showing already.

Until now, there is no reason to believe that the balance is worse off than revised. This could change in the future, but it’s unlikely.
As for which side to a give a bid, opinions on this matter can also change, but I would be very surprised if axis get a $3 unit bid or more.

I agree with axis_roll, with all the various Axis attacks (while seen as a potential dis adv by me) you also get a WIDE variety of setups and playouts, which I think is contributing to all the who has the adv and balancing stuff.  We are all just seeing lots of different scenerios simply because the results of round 1 are harder to duplicate than previous versions.

For Example in Revised, Russia Attacks Wrus and Ukr/Belo probably 90% of the time and the results are fairly predictible in that you can easily plan ahead for a G counter and then UK etc.

But in Revised the G1 attacks leave open lots of alternatives that make it hard to plan, does Russia attack Fin, stack Kar, pull out of Kar, stack Belo, counter Bst, counter Epl, counter Ukr, etc.?

And b/c it is harder to know exactly what you’ll face it makes it more difficult to come up with the counters that may have worked in past games.  While the attacks are predictible the results are not thus we see the wide variety of Allies need X ipcs all the way to Axis need Y ipcs.

@Omega:

Canada and Australia helped alot during WWII. I’m surprised that Canada doesn’t even have an IC (not that it would be of any use :S)
Not sure about India, I don’t know India’s history. If UK starts with an IC in India, then Japan can’t go crazy.
And yes, India IC can’t stand against a competent Japanese player. But the longer he takes to take it, the better it is for the Allies!

Me and my friends are going to play a no NOs game next time to see how things are. One thing is sure, if there are no NOs, Germany won’t have to spread himself. Neither will have Japan. But at the same time, they lose a lot of IPC from bonuses. I think it will be interesting

Right now, we know that the key of success for the Allies are a strong UK navy. If UK can keep a strong navy during the game, then he can threaten France and the reste of Europe.

Axis needs a bid of at least 10 in a no NO game.  KGF is very easy for the Allies.

@Zhukov44:

Axis needs a bid of at least 10 in a no NO game.  KGF is very easy for the Allies.

I see many people claiming this same thing:

No National Objectives, Axis should lose to a KGF
With National Objectives, Axis are too hard to stop.

I am not new in this suggestion, but I think perhaps reducing the NOs value to $4 or even $3 might do the trick to ‘MIDDLE’ this issue.

Perhaps even bidding {down} the NO value for the axis.  Lower NO value wins the bid.

@axis_roll:

@Zhukov44:

Axis needs a bid of at least 10 in a no NO game.  KGF is very easy for the Allies.

I see many people claiming this same thing:

No National Objectives, Axis should lose to a KGF
With National Objectives, Axis are too hard to stop.

I am not new in this suggestion, but I think perhaps reducing the NOs value to $4 or even $3 might do the trick to ‘MIDDLE’ this issue.

Perhaps even bidding {down} the NO value for the axis.  Lower NO value wins the bid.

I’d vote that neither of these are true.

People continue to judge based upon limited play and/or limited competition. Give it some more time and better competition before you start asserting you need +10 bids…

I think the statement “Axis are at a disadvantage if the game is played without NOs” is pretty self-evident.  In any game between decent players Axis will always get more cash from NOs.  The set-up w/o NOs screams easy KGF–NOs are there to fix the problem.

@Zhukov44:

The set-up w/o NOs screams easy KGF–NOs are there to fix the problem.

This is true, and even more true in 1942 scenario (I think this one is the most balanced)

@Funcioneta:

This is true, and even more true in 1942 scenario (I think this one is the most balanced)

Agree on all three propositions of your statement Func.  I’ve only just started 1942 but it seems promising - it’s certainly fun and interesting.

@Axis Roll.  I think the solution of reducing NOs value would improve balance, providing the assumption is correct that axis have an edge.  But I’m not all that keen on a solution which reduces the value of NOs - I think their addition was one of the best things about AA50.  Having extra cash for all makes decisions more interesting (Germany has realistic options to just buying infantry, the US has to think more carefully about what to buy and where to send it…).  Reducing NOs would encourage US to ignore the Pacific (which already is tempting enough).  Others have suggested elsewhere tweaks to make allied NOs (particularly UK’s) easier to obtain, or Japan’s harder to get (e.g. when occupying russian territory).  If deciding to go the path of fixing balance through NOs, I’d support these proposals rather than reduce the value of NOs.

Then why doesn’t someone go make a mod, its easy as all get out in TripleA.  But it still wouldn’t be AA50.

I have to second the NO value reduction idea, I think reducing them all to 4, or to 8 in russia’s 2nd NO case, or maybe even as low as 3, would be promising.  Bid is still my preferred method tough.

Cash bid is definitely my preferred option - it’s just you don’t know who needs it until G1 Egypt attack has been rolled…

But it still wouldn’t be AA50.

True, though I guess you could say the same about any changes - cash bids inclusive  :wink:  Do what feels good I reckon - whether that be China mods, low luck, bidding or whatever happens to tickle your fancy.  There’s certainly someone around who’ll give you a game  :-)

Until the game becomes predictable (if it does), I’ll enjoy playing straight up AA50, balanced or not.