How to achieve balance part 2-> bids

@DarthMaximus:

I’m not sure how your system would handle -13 vs. 12 then.  Obviously the -13 would get the Axis and the 12 would get 4 inf for the Allies?

Nope. Lower bid in this case is -13, so winning player plays axis and losing player plays allies, getting 13 IPCs to spent in allied units

@Funcioneta:

OK, both players can disagree what side is favored. But it could happen that one wants play, say allies, because he thinks allies are favored and the other thinks axis is favored but still he want play allies because he played axis last game and wants to change BUT he still doesn’t like playing at disadvantage

So, as you see, we can can get two players disagreeing about what side is balanced but both wanting play the same side -> they need the chance of a negative bid, blind or not

But then you can’t play against such opponents, I would not play axis in revised w/o bids, and definately not against allied bids!

Now this is AA50, but the same logic applies, even if we disagree which side are favored. If I think allies are favored, I will not give you any allied bids if I play axis. Then I should rather get a bid for playing axis.
You think axis are favored, if I think allies are favored, would you give me bid for playing axis?

If I’m playing against Darth, none of us thinks that we are at a disadvantage b/c I think axis are favored and he thinks allies are favored. If you play against Darth, same logic applies, you want to play allies, but you think axis are favored, and Darth thinks allies are favored, so why would Darth give you a bid for playing allies?

For me it does not matter what side I play, but I prefere axis. I can play any side in classic, revised and AA50 if the bid is high enough, and logically, my opponent will not give me any higher bid than that he thinks he can win against me.

@squirecam:

@Funcioneta:

OK, I voted China only bids. I think Europe and Africa are well balanced, the unbalance is a almost totally unchallenged Japan in Asia, so the bids should go there. I think there is a strange effect if we use fully opened bids: 6-8 can be too few, because it will save Egypt but UK fleet at z2 will be toasted anyway BUT 9 can be too much because it will negate Africa to Western Axis and can favor KGF. 12 is out of question because that’s 2 subs for UK, a thing that can kill italian navy round 1, specially if we use tech and UK gets supersubs or HBs (or could mean still 4 guys to Egypt or 4 infs to Philippines, maybe that’s too scary, not sure  :| )

The only place where wacky bid effects cannot happen is China. So my vote goes there

A additional point is that maybe we should allow put chinese bid in those territories without units. Of course, my proposition of letting the chineses exit from China is still open, bid or not bid

Of course, people that thinks allies have advantage could add axis units at pleasure. Good luck  :-D

Edit: maybe we could use a “Japan restricted” house rule in the sense that Japan cannot attack chinese units 1st round (similiar in a way to “Russia restricted”). They could attack Hong Kong and the other western allies, but starting chinese units woud be saved

I find it ironic that you want to balance the game, yet consider tech effects (like super subs) in your calculations.

A game with tech, since it is random, and some are gamebreaking, is inherently unbalanced. One tech roll of HB by USA on Round 1 and the allies are pretty much guaranteed a win, everything else being equal.

If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.

NO tech
NO objectives
NO bids

See how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.

But this is ridiculously easy for the Allies.  Play the game this way and see it for yourself.  Axis would need at least a 10-15 ipc bid without NOs.

Europe is balanced.  Asia isn’t.  China inf bids are best.  Reducing the NOs to 4 and 8  (not just for Axis, but for Allies too) is also worth experimenting with.

@Zhukov44:

But this is ridiculously easy for the Allies.  Play the game this way and see it for yourself.  Axis would need at least a 10-15 ipc bid without NOs.

Europe is balanced.  Asia isn’t.  China inf bids are best.  Reducing the NOs to 4 and 8  (not just for Axis, but for Allies too) is also worth experimenting with.

So instead of a +10 bid to axis w/o NO in 41, people instead give a 4 inf bid to Allies in 41 with NO?

Thats really the same thing. A +12 allies bid.

@Zhukov44:

Europe is balanced.  Asia isn’t.  China inf bids are best.  Reducing the NOs to 4 and 8  (not just for Axis, but for Allies too) is also worth experimenting with.

Then you want to change the game itself, not the side balance.

AA50 is the way it is designed. AA50 is supposed to have Europe balanced and Asia unbalanced, if that is your perception of AA50. What you’re really saying is that you don’t like the game, or only a part of it.

Also, AA50 is designed so that w/o NOs KGF is more efficent than KJF. If you don’t like it this way, you want another game, or an AA50 mode, like China mod. Then play the China mod if you don’t like AA50.

@Funcioneta:

OK, I voted China only bids. I think Europe and Africa are well balanced, the unbalance is a almost totally unchallenged Japan in Asia, so the bids should go there.

You want to change the game, not the side balance, but at least you made your own mod, so it’s obvious that you don’t like AA50 as it is, but you see it as platform for making other game(s) in which AA50 is the base.
How bout side balance then, you still think allies need $12 in unit bid?
Why can’t you understand that many of us would rather play AA50 than something else? What my concern is in this matter, is the side balance, and what bids should be used to change the game as little as possible, or else I would make my own mod.

I haven’t determined my opinion on this yet, but some posters here seem to prefer KGF in all circumstances, with or without NOs.  There are all kinds of obstacles to KJF strategies….honestly it seems tougher to go KJF in this game then in Revised.  The only reason to do anything in the Pacific is NOs.

China unit bids promote balance in this regard.

You can always say that “the game is designed in such and such a way”…  no one expects the game to be perfect.  We are just talking about how to balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible, rather than balancing it in such a way that the only reasonable choice is the same old race to Berlin and Moscow.

If you think the game is balanced and fun as it is (ie monster Japan vrs. Allied KGF every game) then great.  I do too…I’d just like to play with a real China and see whether this would open up some KJF possibilities.

Out of topic, Subotai: the thread says clearly NOs are in play

And a unbalance of Asia lead to a unbalance of the whole game. AA50 is designed to be played all the board, but we have a theater that simply is unplayable: Asia, probably due few playtesting time. That unbalance makes Japan rule the Pacific ocean without effort, so they can toast a KGF with Polar Express or hold a Pacific Navy in case of KJF (a bit more difficult but still easy)

@Funcioneta:

Out of topic, Subotai: the thread says clearly NOs are in play

And a unbalance of Asia lead to a unbalance of the whole game. AA50 is designed to be played all the board, but we have a theater that simply is unplayable: Asia, probably due few playtesting time. That unbalance makes Japan rule the Pacific ocean without effort, so they can toast a KGF with Polar Express or hold a Pacific Navy in case of KJF (a bit more difficult but still easy)

Japan

• Axis control of Manchuria+Kiangsu [Shanghai region]+French Indo-China/Thailand=5 IPCs
• Axis control of at least four out of: Kwang-tung [Hong-kong region], Netherlands East Indies, Borneo, Phillippine Islands, New Guinea and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs
• Axis control of at least one of: Hawaiian Islands, Australia or India =5 IPCs

US/China
*Allied control of France = 5 IPCs
*Allied control of Phillippine Islands=5 IPCs
*Allied control of West US+Central US+East US= 5 IPCs
*Allied control of at least 3 of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs.

Japan should get 10-15 in bonuses. USA is going to get 10. [If the allies get France, its 15.]
But lets say its 10.

Are you saying that in 41 with NO, the pacific is “unplayable” but in 41 without NO the allies will always win. All this over 5 IPC??

I’m used to hyperbole and some over-generalizations, but the difference is FIVE IPC. I dont see how that goes from allied advantage to “totally unplayable.”

It’s interesting, I think we may see more KJF type manuevers as we play more games.  Just recently I’ve seen some pretty neat stuff with the UK Aus trn, now I’m thinking you can get that trn to Sz 56 on UK 2 and then take the Canadian forces to Car Is. on UK 3 backed-up by Heavy US naval buys on US 1, 2, and 3.  This gives the UK an extra NO.  Will Japan try and sink the combined fleet?  A bunch of US subs in Sz 56 could then counter.

What if Russia stacks Bury heavy?  They may expect to lose a ton of inf, but how does this effect J’s future assualt on Ind/Aus?  And what if this is planned to help UK take Car Is. on UK 2 with US reinforcements.

I do think there may be some openings to go after Japan.  Well, I see potential openings, just a matter of seeing if they can actually be put into use.

@Zhukov44:

We are just talking about how to balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible, rather than balancing it in such a way that the only reasonable choice is the same old race to Berlin and Moscow.

If you think the game is balanced and fun as it is (ie monster Japan vrs. Allied KGF every game) then great.  I do too…I’d just like to play with a real China and see whether this would open up some KJF possibilities.

Excellent point!  +1 karma

I think this needs to be specified when we speak of balance:

I prefer the former (balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible).

However in my limited (20 games) experience, it is my opinion that this is not possible with the current OOB rules.  In fact, my FTF group has already altered the rules since we live by the above creedo (in RED)

@DarthMaximus:

It’s interesting, I think we may see more KJF type manuevers as we play more games.  Just recently I’ve seen some pretty neat stuff with the UK Aus trn, now I’m thinking you can get that trn to Sz 56 on UK 2 and then take the Canadian forces to Car Is. on UK 3 backed-up by Heavy US naval buys on US 1, 2, and 3.  This gives the UK an extra NO.  Will Japan try and sink the combined fleet?  A bunch of US subs in Sz 56 could then counter.

What if Russia stacks Bury heavy?  They may expect to lose a ton of inf, but how does this effect J’s future assualt on Ind/Aus?  And what if this is planned to help UK take Car Is. on UK 2 with US reinforcements.

I do think there may be some openings to go after Japan.  Well, I see potential openings, just a matter of seeing if they can actually be put into use.

It appears that the allied efforts against Japan will lose steam as the Japanese income expands as they overun Asia.  There is just not enough resistance to the japanese asia forces….

< Cue Functioneta >

@squirecam:

Are you saying that in 41 with NO, the pacific is “unplayable” but in 41 without NO the allies will always win. All this over 5 IPC??

It’s not so much the Pacific NO, it’s the extra $ from the european NO’s that makes Germany/Italy much more of a threat to Russia early on, that forces the allies to rush to the rescue as early and quickly as possible.

@axis_roll:

@DarthMaximus:

It’s interesting, I think we may see more KJF type manuevers as we play more games.  Just recently I’ve seen some pretty neat stuff with the UK Aus trn, now I’m thinking you can get that trn to Sz 56 on UK 2 and then take the Canadian forces to Car Is. on UK 3 backed-up by Heavy US naval buys on US 1, 2, and 3.  This gives the UK an extra NO.  Will Japan try and sink the combined fleet?  A bunch of US subs in Sz 56 could then counter.

What if Russia stacks Bury heavy?  They may expect to lose a ton of inf, but how does this effect J’s future assualt on Ind/Aus?  And what if this is planned to help UK take Car Is. on UK 2 with US reinforcements.

I do think there may be some openings to go after Japan.  Well, I see potential openings, just a matter of seeing if they can actually be put into use.

It appears that the allied efforts against Japan will lose steam as the Japanese income expands as they overun Asia.  There is just not enough resistance to the japanese asia forces….

< Cue Functioneta >

Only if you play with NO though, correct?

Somehow, I seem to recall this same thing for revised. “KJF” just isnt possible…. blah blah.

I’m sure someone smart enough will figure out a way.

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

Are you saying that in 41 with NO, the pacific is “unplayable” but in 41 without NO the allies will always win. All this over 5 IPC??

It’s not so much the Pacific NO, it’s the extra $ from the european NO’s that makes Germany/Italy much more of a threat to Russia early on, that forces the allies to rush to the rescue as early and quickly as possible.

In 1941. Without NO. How much of a bid does the axis need then to be competitive?

@squirecam:

@Funcioneta:

Out of topic, Subotai: the thread says clearly NOs are in play

And a unbalance of Asia lead to a unbalance of the whole game. AA50 is designed to be played all the board, but we have a theater that simply is unplayable: Asia, probably due few playtesting time. That unbalance makes Japan rule the Pacific ocean without effort, so they can toast a KGF with Polar Express or hold a Pacific Navy in case of KJF (a bit more difficult but still easy)

Japan

• Axis control of Manchuria+Kiangsu [Shanghai region]+French Indo-China/Thailand=5 IPCs
• Axis control of at least four out of: Kwang-tung [Hong-kong region], Netherlands East Indies, Borneo, Phillippine Islands, New Guinea and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs
• Axis control of at least one of: Hawaiian Islands, Australia or India =5 IPCs

US/China
*Allied control of France = 5 IPCs
*Allied control of Phillippine Islands=5 IPCs
*Allied control of West US+Central US+East US= 5 IPCs
*Allied control of at least 3 of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs.

Japan should get 10-15 in bonuses. USA is going to get 10. [If the allies get France, its 15.]
But lets say its 10.

Are you saying that in 41 with NO, the pacific is “unplayable” but in 41 without NO the allies will always win. All this over 5 IPC??

I’m used to hyperbole and some over-generalizations, but the difference is FIVE IPC. I dont see how that goes from allied advantage to “totally unplayable.”

No offense, but alot of your comments suggest that perhaps you haven’t played this much.  Actually, I haven’t played it alot either.

As for the Pacific and NOs….here are the ones at stake

2 Jap NOs (not including the China NO)=10 ipcs
2 British NOs=10 ipcs (one is for the Allies controlling a Jap territory, the other one is for Gibraltar, Egypt, and Aussie–late game Aussie is the tough one since the Jap turn is after the USA turn).
2 American NOs=10 ipcs

So we are talking about 30 ipcs at stake either way.  That’s alot of money for the Allies to just give up w/o a fight.

Bottom line is Allies have no good reason to contest the Pacific if the game is played without NOs unless the Jap player drops the ball.  Without NOs, Aliles win easy by concentrating on Germany, since Japan can’t reasonably threaten Moscow till turn 8-10 or so, and Germany and Italy quickly crumble without the NO IPC boost.  With NOs, it is still tempting to go all out on Germany but IMO there ought to be something going on in the Pacific in order to get some NO cash and try to threaten some Jap NOs.

I can’t say offhand what the bid to Axis should be w/o NOs but it needs to be substantial.  At least 10, possibly 15-20 or more.

@squirecam:

In 1941. Without NO. How much of a bid does the axis need then to be competitive?

Can’t say that I know, we always play with the NOs (tuned down to $4 NO’s)

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

It appears that the allied efforts against Japan will lose steam as the Japanese income expands as they overun Asia.  There is just not enough resistance to the japanese asia forces….

Only if you play with NO though, correct?

Somehow, I seem to recall this same thing for revised. “KJF” just isnt possible…. blah blah.

I’m sure someone smart enough will figure out a way.

Japan didn’t have 5 transports to start in Revised.

Japan didn’t have 9 fighters to start in Revised

UK went BEFORE japan in Revised

Those are three very big factors that help prevent KJF.

Without NO’s might be easier as Japan’s income would be $15 less….

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

In 1941. Without NO. How much of a bid does the axis need then to be competitive?

Can’t say that I know, we always play with the NOs (tuned down to $4 NO’s)

I wonder if we could find enough people to test this. We’d need 20 games for a good start.

Play 2 games vs an “equal” opponent. No tech. No NO.

If the consensus is correct, the allies should win 19-1, correct?? (given one statistical dice @$@&* to axis)

So who would sign up to be axis and prove the consensus wrong?

@axis_roll:

@squirecam:

@axis_roll:

It appears that the allied efforts against Japan will lose steam as the Japanese income expands as they overun Asia.  There is just not enough resistance to the japanese asia forces….

Only if you play with NO though, correct?

Somehow, I seem to recall this same thing for revised. “KJF” just isnt possible…. blah blah.

I’m sure someone smart enough will figure out a way.

Japan didn’t have 5 transports to start in Revised.

Japan didn’t have 9 fighters to start in Revised

UK went BEFORE japan in Revised

Those are three very big factors that help prevent KJF.

Without NO’s might be easier as Japan’s income would be $15 less….

I agree it would be more difficult. Just not ready to say it cant be done.