A Bid For Allies

@Joe:

Why is there still a discussion of bids? This is a rock star, totally balanced game. The only lack of balance I’ve ever seen is poor strategy, bad moves, or tough dice.

You will only get the advantage of good dice rolls so many times……

An axis player who knows what he’s doing will win against you much more than 50% of all games, and that’s not balanced!

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

@a44bigdog:

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

How bout Egy and Kalia G1 w/o bids…?
Anyone who knows what happens 65% of all games shouldn’t claim AA50-41 +NOs is balanced, but there’s no need for a bid that is higher than in Revised either.

Or maybe the (TripleA) live players are different from the PBM/PBF players…?

@Subotai:

And this means that as long as there are more money in Europe, (Classic, Revised, AA42, AA50) it doesn’t pay off to build and send stuff to TTs and regions which aren’t worth a lot

Unless Japan decides there is more money in America and Asia than only in Asia  :wink: In Revised, Japan can make a very powerful assault against America if done enough quickly (bid of tra to z50 can work marvels). Even in AA50 41, Japan can at least annoy USA’s rear and there are plenty of NOs and islands that can aid allied cause in Pacific. In AA50-42, there is a big fat IC at India that you should buy and protect

And AA42 … well, let’s say buying trannies early is not going to aid allied cause too much with so much kriegsmarine and luftwaffe in play … if at least we had not that stupid Perry Channel icecap …

I cannot say nothing about Classic, I started playing with Revised  :wink:

@a44bigdog:

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

Some people need better axis strats, I’d say. I’ll agree with Subo this time. Just check first rounds of tourney: many axis players simply played horrible, thinking still in Revised terms. Others surrendered due time issues. I think this is not representative, and I still have to read a convincing allied strat article that works. All many say is “KGF will save us again!”, but economic balance makes me doubt it even if axis let allies do a KGF (passive Atlantic, ignore America). Also, many ignore the exploit of killing China J1 for some reason and let China grow when clearly there is not a strong reason to allow it

@a44bigdog:

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

Hmm I’d theorize either the sample is too small or playing with tech skewed the sample (tech helps Allies because they have more money to spend on it early).  I think the potential for skewed samples is high given how dicey G1 can be and/or the effects of hitting a good tech early.  There is almost always a bid of 6-9 on TripleA and lots more games have been played there.

If there’s a way to win w/o a bid, I haven’t seen it yet.  In a tourney/league format, I wouldn’t take Allies for less than 8, tech or no tech.  Mistakes tend to devastate Allies while Axis can recover from them easily.  And the long game favors Axis.

Allies are doubtless harder to master, so maybe the bid will come down as people get better, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

@Zhukov44:

Hmm I’d theorize either the sample is too small or playing with tech skewed the sample (tech helps Allies because they have more money to spend on it early)

Agreed with sample too small. Not agreed with tech skews the sample. First, you simply don’t play the same with tech that without tech (you have to take into account much more variables); second, allies will have more money as much 2 rounds and from 3 axis will have more. In those 2 first rounds, USSR cannot afford tech (it needs a airfleet and some tanks to work), UK will struggle to buy even 1 researcher (they need IC, navy or expensive air) and USA could spare as much one or 2 because they have to fight a 2 front war without cash for all places. On the other hand, Japan and Germany can spare easily at least 2 tech teams each one and I guess even Italy could buy one if axis pursues a tech race

More than that, a G1 tech can be crippling for allies (LRA or HBs are big, but even jet fig, super subs and super shipyards can be used, and radar would cancel allied SBRs), while a round 1 tech for allies is going to be good but not crippling for axis (I guess the betters are paras for UK or HBs for USA, but HBs is not going to make the mess german HBs can create against allied fleets in Atlantic, and Germany can absorb HB SBRs if done right)

As much, tech could be irrelevant for game balance, but is not going to give advantage to allies

The first tournament was no tech. I seem to recall that coming out almost dead even. Plenty of the league games have been no tech and some of the early ones even had Axis bids. I think the last results Darth posted from the League were around even.

I don’t play using TripleA so I can not say if the payers there are better or worse than here. I do know that here one can face anyone form a relative newbie to players that have been playing Axis and Allies for years. I have also noticed that Subotai seems to advocate a KGF and I am making an assumption that this is the Allied strategy that is most common at TripleA. I have noticed here that I see more balanced and KJF strategies from Allied opponents. I use a balanced approach with the Allies and that has been an evolving strategy since I got the game last December until about a month ago.

Myself I have no qualms about taking the Allies without a bid. Besides the dice server is going to rape me more than any imbalance in the game.  :-D

@Funcioneta:

while a round 1 tech for allies is going to be good but not crippling for axis (I guess the betters are paras for UK or HBs for USA, but HBs is not going to make the mess german HBs can create against allied fleets in Atlantic, and Germany can absorb HB SBRs if done right)

Well, LRA rd1 for USA can kill a lot of Japan navy (there are a lot of unescorted trannies after J1 most of the time for instance).

There are both n00bs and expert players who use TripleA, just as in the PBF games here. I don’t think the playing skills and experience are much better in the TripleA community, but, i.e. you are not a decent player if you lose to KJF in Revised.

A better (allied) player will take advantage of an axis player who doesn’t do the right first rnd moves, and if the axis player plays inefficient in general, the better player will win. It is also fully possible to lose as allies in Revised in a no bid game, but not if both players are decent.

As stated earlier in other threads, allies must take advantage of bad dice for axis, or bad decisions after the first rnd, or else, assuming decent players on both sides, axis will win for certain, but again not more certain than allied victory is assured in Revised. No victories or losses are guaranteed before the game starts, it’s just that somethings are more difficult or easy, depending on the task. Any A&A game with bid levels generally lower than $10 means that dice and experience will matter.

You will have a very hard time finding opponents in the TripleA lobby, if you wanna play axis w/o a bid to allies (+NOs). LL or regular dice doesn’t seem to change the bid level either.

@Yoshi:

Well, LRA rd1 for USA can kill a lot of Japan navy (there are a lot of unescorted trannies after J1 most of the time for instance).

You have a point here. However, I’d say Japan will lose as much 3 trannies if well played, and it’s pretty possible they will lose only the 2 ones at Dutch East Indies. Some players buy 2 trannies J1 and that could indeed hurt (I guess that is one of the reasons I always buy Manchuria IC J1). I must add two more things:

• Japan starts with too many trannies. So much that they can allow losing 2-3 without noticing too much. It’s going to aid allies, of course, but not to a crippling way for axis because Japan has plenty of money to recover
• Japan loses less than allies in case of LRA. In case of LRA G1, germans can hit both Egypt and z2 (and also the default z12) with serious chance of winning all places; if that happens, that’s game over for allies. To exploit this, I guess germans could buy 1 bomber each round to annoy allied fleets so much they never arrive at time to save USSR, or they could buy 1 AC, then bombers to contest Atlantic, and they could have chances of win. As alternative, they could ignore z2 anyway and abuse of Egypt with figs (and ensure Africa early) and simply rush to Moscow. In resume: USA LRA, Japan simply loses a bit of money (trannies); in case of german LRA, allies lose many tactical ground (or sea I mean)

Well, it can also be 1BB, 1CA and 2 trannies in sz50 killed by 1bmb and 3fgt (these units are quite often here, and if the CA is not there, it means that one of the attacking units can kill an unescorted tp instead).

I think that a US round 1 LRA can be really painfull for Japan, and give a good chances for the allies to make something in Pacific.

OK, that one is better  :-). I’ll try remember that one next time I play 1941 … if I play again that scenario, I mean  …

Not that America achieving Long Range on US is very common, (I usually roll 2 tech dice, then Chart 2, so that’s probably only about a 5% chance of geting it, but I recently got Long Range on US1, and combined with a Russian bomber in Caucausas, left the Japanese Navy transport-less before J2.  The Allies did go on to win the game with a KJF.

Below is the attached map file if anyone is interested in looking at a Japanese Turn 2 response to having NO tranports on the board.  :-)

The game still seems to be pretty balanced in that, usually it seems that either my own poor gameplay or really bad dice are what seem to lose me most of my games.  That said, I would not be opposed to an extra Chinese infantry unit in Yunnan, moving the Chinese fighter to a different territory, or even disallowing a J1 Yunnan attack.  A free bid for the Allies though, would seem to always go to Europe/Africa, which I and many others feel is pretty balanced.

Bardoly(Allies)_02Br.AAM

Not that America achieving Long Range on US is very common, (I usually roll 2 tech dice, then Chart 2, so that’s probably only about a 5% chance of geting it, but I recently got Long Range on US1, and combined with a Russian bomber in Caucausas, left the Japanese Navy transport-less before J2.  The Allies did go on to win the game with a KJF.

Below is the attached map file if anyone is interested in looking at a Japanese Turn 2 response to having NO tranports on the board.  :-)

The game still seems to be pretty balanced in that, usually it seems that either my own poor gameplay or really bad dice are what seem to lose me most of my games.  That said, I would not be opposed to an extra Chinese infantry unit in Yunnan, moving the Chinese fighter to a different territory, or even disallowing a J1 Yunnan attack.  A free bid for the Allies though, would seem to always go to Europe/Africa, which I and many others feel is pretty balanced.

Bardoly(Allies)_02Br.AAM

@Bardoly:

Not that America achieving Long Range on US is very common, (I usually roll 2 tech dice, then Chart 2, so that’s probably only about a 5% chance of geting it, but I recently got Long Range on US1, and combined with a Russian bomber in Caucausas, left the Japanese Navy transport-less before J2.  The Allies did go on to win the game with a KJF.

Ah $10 IPC’s for a 5% chance to win the game.

Small risk, high reward.  These type of crazy outcomes are what I dislike the most about the game.  I know it’s part of the game, just making a comment about your tech comment.

Good gaming!

@axis_roll:

@Bardoly:

Not that America achieving Long Range on US is very common, (I usually roll 2 tech dice, then Chart 2, so that’s probably only about a 5% chance of geting it, but I recently got Long Range on US1, and combined with a Russian bomber in Caucausas, left the Japanese Navy transport-less before J2.  The Allies did go on to win the game with a KJF.

Ah $10 IPC’s for a 5% chance to win the game.

Small risk, high reward.  These type of crazy outcomes are what I dislike the most about the game.  I know it’s part of the game, just making a comment about your tech comment.

Good gaming!

Yes, US1 Long Range did help the Allies a lot, but I don’t feel that it single-handedly won me the game at all.

I do agree with you that tech coming in to play on the same round as it’s rolled for can make for some game winning/ending rolls, but probably not all that often if one’s opponent is on his toes, trying to be prepared in case of one’s technological breakthroughs.

It is not possible to be prepared against tech rolls, or any dice rolls regardless of regular dice or LL. The only way to be prepared, as such, is to look into the future, and we humans are not able to predict the future.

@Subotai:

It is not possible to be prepared against tech rolls, or any dice rolls regardless of regular dice or LL. The only way to be prepared, as such, is to look into the future, and we humans are not able to predict the future.

True.  True.

That’s why I said, “…trying to be prepared…”

Peace.