The Axis Advantage is Bigger Than You Think.

For purposes of this post I’ll assume you mean 2nd edition.

I agree, but I don’t do bids on principle.  I’d rather find a house rule that benefits the Allies in some way.

Karl,

Whats the solution?

We need to start coming up with more effective alternative Allies strats?

I wonder if Germany not succeeding at sea lion as much is actually hurting the Allies?

–Jeff

I hope we can figure out what the fairest allied bid is. Once the game gets to its “even” point, an allied victory is presumed. Because of that, the equilibrium point necessarily has to be slightly on the axis side of the ledger. It’d be nice to know at what point can both sides be expected to win half (ish) of the time, where gameplay and strategy can move the needle more.

and then you get diced hard. :D

I liked the original no subs in the Atlantic NO.

That’s where I would start.

@Cow:

and then you get diced hard. :D

I don’t mind that. It’s a game with dice in it. I think that reflects the whole “even the best battle plan doesn’t survive the first encounter with the enemy” bit…

I’d posit that if you’re in a battle where the dice, if they screw you, will completely take you out of the game and remove any and all possible paths to victory, then you’ve probably made some mistakes prior to that point (or putting yourself in that position on that turn was your mistake).

There’s no reason that an “oh, 4@ck!” moment can’t turn out to be the start of a fun one-off game that you never expected that you’d be playing.

I like the idea of bids in the 15 ipc region because that enables a tremendous variety of bidding strategies.  Which makes Allies alot more interesting to play.

However it would be good to have a “standard bid” that quickly balances the game for novice players.

There’s a chance that bids will come down later when Allied strategies get better.

@Zhukov44:

There’s a chance that bids will come down later when Allied strategies get better.

+1

BAH! Using bids to start out the game is nonsense. “Okay, I will play Allies, but only if you give me an extra 10 or 15 IPCs.” PSHAW! After all the play testing and changes to the rules and setup, I can’t believe there are still those out there that think this game is so terribly unbalanced.
There is NO WAY this game has a BIG advantage for the Axis. There might be a slight advantage due to the larger number of military units that the Axis start with compared to the Allies, but that’s they way it actually went back then. The Axis powers built up a huge war machine and the Allies had to catch up.
First, with the latest setup, a successful Sealion seems even more remote. Sure it’s possible but Germany has to commit so many resources to it that the Eastern front gets neglected. Plus, between wiping out the Royal Navy and the invasion itself, Germany will end up losing much of it’s air power. Plus, with the rule that Russia can attack if London is captured, once Russia sees Germany preparing for Sealion, Russia can buy accordingly and end up making good headway against Germany in Eastern Europe and Scandanavia.
If Germany tries for straight Barbarossa, that will take at least 4 rounds and leave England in the game to build up and harass Germany from the west. Also, with England still in the game, it makes things almost impossible for Italy to gain any ground.
As for Japan, they have a whole lot of stuff to try and take and they have to do it fairly quickly. Once the US gets into the war and shows up with a huge fleet, Japan is going to lose the sea war. Everyone knows it is easier for the US to replace warships than it is for Japan. Sure Japan could take India, but they have to commit quite a bit to do so and the US Navy could end up convoy raiding the home island. China is not easy and Japan’s 6th VC has to be Sidney, Honolulu or San Francisco, all of which are very hard after commiting a substantial force to get Calcutta.
As for which of us play what country, we usually roll our combat dice. Each person takes a turn rolling the dice and whichever country roundel comes up, that’s what nation that person plays for this game. If more than one country symbol come up, that person gets to choose which of those countries to play. This way no player has to play the same country every game.

@Fortress:

@Cow:

and then you get diced hard. :D

I’d posit that if you’re in a battle where the dice, if they screw you, will completely take you out of the game and remove any and all possible paths to victory, then you’ve probably made some mistakes prior to that point (or putting yourself in that position on that turn was your mistake).

Depends on the game. The bigger the game (global) the more I agree with you. The smaller the game (2004 Revised for example), The game can literally be decided the first round, even with conservative moves by the hosed player. There are certain attacks the axis must do to have a chance, and when they ALL go bad (which does happen), it’s either take more risks or just be overrun.

You can’t always play against a player who is going to make a bunch of mistakes and let you off the hook for your bad dice. Dice are often the deciding factor in games. Not even a slim majority of the time, but often enough.

You can’t always avoid putting yourself in a position where the dice could really hose you, especially (at least in most versions) as the Axis.

@knp7765:

BAH! Using bids to start out the game is nonsense. “Okay, I will play Allies, but only if you give me an extra 10 or 15 IPCs.” PSHAW! After all the play testing and changes to the rules and setup, I can’t believe there are still those out there that think this game is so terribly unbalanced.

I’m going to go the other way and say that it might also be nonsense to expect that a game this huge with such a mediocre quality of playtesting actually be decently balanced. There are so many territories and units and rolls that it is a huge number of variables to handle.

Let’s not forget that one of the dangers of opening up Larry’s ear to the general players is that ideas for changes for balances reasons may actually often (accidentally or on purpose) include ideas that were more like features people wanted to see than actual “necessary” changes for balance.

Looking at the sheer number of territories, units, IPCs and types of units (and even number of ways to win!) relative to the original A&A, to me it’s a bit reckless to say it COULD be balanced.

I agree with the opinion that it was a mistake to open play testing for the alpha versions to the public. I followed the progress at the harrisgamedesign website, and some of the battle reports and change suggestions made after were pretty freaking ridiculous. Trying to tailor a game of this magnitude to fit the real war is ridiculous. And the people who were suggesting wholesale changes to the set up based on a single game did more harm then good when it came to putting up worth while suggestions to balancing the game. I think it’s a decent game where it’s at. there’s so many variables when it comes to the dice though. But we have to remember that, that is part of the game and not to go claiming it’s wildly unbalanced because of a few games that you had bad dice. But I seem to be in the minority. Oh well. Maybe it would be better if I was more effective in expressing my opinion.

I think Axis has a SLIGHT advantage. In fact, I always find more fun playing the Allies, and I see myself winning more often as the Allies. (Thing is I’m also not a good Axis player).

It might be easier for the Axis.( I do not always find it so.) If you really believe that,then make sure the better player plays the Allies. I too am not a great Axis player:lately I get beaten.
Maybe I should have an Axis bid!

I would  have to agree with knp7765 on all his points, particularly on Japan. I enjoy playing the Axis and mostly have played one on one games with my son who plays the Allies. In most games Japan can get to 5 VC but I have only once gotten to six. By the time Calcutta falls, the Us is so strong and China is such a thorn that Japan just loses steam and gradually territories. It is easier to go for a victory in Europe but it is not a for sure thing. I have tried both Sealion and Barbarossa but have only been successful with Barbarossa. Essentially with Sealion the same problem develops as it does with Japan. The Soviets are a monster by the time Germany can swing around to the East . They can easily hold Germany at bay until the US can invade Africa and slowly erode what the Italians have gained. When the Axis have won, it is usually Barbarossa and somewhere around the 4-5th turn a Japan invasion of the Soviet Union the prevails.

I saw that beat down ChalkyWhite gave the axis, so much for their perceived advantage

I still don’t think the game is so imbalanced.

There are few things I don’t like, especially the medi-battle being so one-sided (either Italy dominates or he becomes an useless country, there’s no in-between).

But as far as balance goes, I might say between inexperienced players that Axis can win more often (Allies need a great syngery to win, while Germany/Japan can basically play their own game without affecting eachother).