Axis can't win? IMO Allies can't win.

[Lucifer]

With no bids it would be G1:

Baltic, EPL, Ukr, Egy, sz 9, sz 6.

I’m posting a typical J1 also:

Kwantung, Yunnan, Fukien, Suiyuan, Phillipines, sz 35, sz 53, sz 50, sz 56.

I’m off course speaking of attacks, not combat moves. Combat moves with no battles are 100% the same in LL and ADS. It’s the battles which are different. With a bid like no Egy attack G1 I would perhaps attack sz 12 instead of Egy.
Also possible I would do the Kalia attack G1.

What do you think U-505, is most favorable for allies, of the options I mentioned?

[U-505]

Oh, what the hell. I’ll play. I can take on another game and I have nothing better to do anyway. I will request that we post maps in the “play boardgames” forum so the people here have a chance to discuss it there while we play.

I do believe, like DM and Mazer Rackham have said before, that Low Luck eliminates a portion of the risk which makes your claim that the Allies need a bid in Low Luck probably true. However, if you were playing ADS, your typical German opening looks solid, but your typical J1 attacks are a bit risky and you would likely lose a battle or 2 OR take a good amount of losses if you won them all. But, ADS is a different animal and we are here to play Low Luck. We aren’t going to learn anything if you hold back the Axis openings so we will play straight up AA50 no bid, no tech, yes NO’s.

How do you want to do this? I have the latest unstable version of TripleA but I’m not very adept at using it so you’ll have to help me a bit.

[Lucifer]

U-505, fine, I send you pm when I can play and other details. I agree with the terms.

If you have the latest TripleA unstable, I can host directly or we can enter the unstable lobby.

As we know, TripleA is not 100% free from bugs, and not 100% AA50 yet, but we both know the rules and we use edit mode if necessary.

I see this as a win win situation for me, I really think I have better odds to win because of the balance, but also, I truly believe that I played horrible with allies in the games w/o bid which I felt I had no chance to win. So even if I loose, I think and hope I will see better allied play than both me and my previous opponents have showed.

[bongaroo]

Have enough games been played to really establish the need for an allied bid?

I also don’t like the idea of bids being used to place units instead of just extra cash to spend.  I’ve seen silly things done to completely change opening moves with bids before and thats not what I would like to see.

I do agree with earlier posts that moving the Chinese fighter would be a good idea.  It never has a chance to make any real difference, which I think is a shame.

Perhaps a few games where we move the fighter back off the frontline to see how it would change the momentum of Japan?

[Funcioneta]

We should start letting the poor old chineses go out China. That rule is total crap and mother of game bugs :-P

Anyway, it’s not enough moving the fig. China needs more guys. It’s hilarious that one country that in real life could pop as many cannon fodder as Soviet Union only pops one popcorn inf the whole game with proper J1 attacks (and not more than 1 guy each round from round 2 even without total J1 killing)  :-P

So, the best would bid chinese infs instead of money or other allied units. It prevents gamey bids as Egypt (that one can make the game the opposite, allied advantage) and China is the main broken area. The one who bid less chinese infs gets allies. You can bid negative, of course  :-D, and relieve Japan’s player the nuisance of killing a dead corpse, just simply advancing into empty areas  :mrgreen:

Allies need 3-5 more inf in Yunnan. It would be balanced. But not 3-5 more inf in Egypt or East Poland, that would be unbalanced

[bongaroo]

@Funcioneta:

We should start letting the poor old chineses go out China. That rule is total crap and mother of game bugs :-P

How many games have you played where it would make a difference if China could have moved out against Japan?

I’ve only ever seen them quickly lose territory and just a few times hold on to a territory or two with help from Russia.

I just don’t see it being that big of a help at all.

[beerbelly]

Relaxing the rule would really help the operational usefulness of the Flying Tigers.

[general jason]

In all the games I’ve played, whether they be 1 player (yeah, I play myself sometimes  :cry:), 2 player, or the dozen 6 player games I’ve played, I find the most balanced game is:

1. 1941 scenario
2. No National Objectives
3. Tech

We’ve been splitting games between Axis victories and Allied victories, and I’m not playing with a bunch of chumps, though I’m not saying they are masters either.

The National Objectives I find push for a quicker game due to more money being put out, but I do not believe they are balanced or necessary for playability. Also the byproduct of National Objectives is that they push for a prosaic and programmed game. I prefer the game to be balanced and all over the place without the game designers pushing one play style.

Now I know there are a lot of arguments that the National Objectives push for the more historical war, but who cares. If we were going for realism, I never would have had 4 Japanese Infranty and 4 Tanks in Western Canada. You never would have had 4 Italian Tanks sitting in the Cacausus. The game is balanced in my experience when it is played with the above conditions.

1942 - National Objectives or not, is broken. It plays almost exactly like Revised. Germany stronger, Japan pathetic. Again, just my opinion.

As for my 1941 strategies:

1. Industrial Complex in Manchuria in J1. possibly another Complex in Kiangsu once you’ve made some space. After that, the Tank Empire of Japan.

2. Italy is the thorn - that is all. Play her that way. Hit Egypt, hit Russia. That ‘no pass’ into Seazone 16 stuff is baloney. Italy’s only making 10 without National Objectives, so how hard can they possibly hit Russia even with their fleet hitting the Cacausus? They are a nuisance that can easily be crushed by any of the allies if they concentrate on them.

One game we played the Italian player had 30 IPC WITHOUT National Objectives (mind you his luck was through the roof, and the allies underestimated Italy early on. In reality, all Italy can ever be is the thorn, which the allies can squish at any time.

3. Germany - ALWAYS built one fighter every round.

4. UK - built factories in Africa and India. I see the Tank Empire of Britian right now.

5. Russia - my tendancy is to always build Infantry, but I saw a very effective all tank policy where they were gaining ground in Germany and supporting the Chinese. German player was new, so who knows if that works all the time.

6. USA - Try and hit Japan right away before they can consolidate their fleet. Built anti-fleet in Pacific, lend transports to Britian in the Atlantic.

[Jennifer]

A good allied player can make Japan fold in on themselves in less than 5 rounds.  (I did not say take Japan, I said fold in on themselves as in be virtually meaningless to the over all Axis campaign.)

A good axis player can make Russia fold in on themselves in less than 6 rounds. (I did not say take Russia, I said fold in on themselves as in be virtually meaningless to the over all Allied campaign.)

Two good players can make the game take FOREVER with neither side getting a strategic edge over the other without the dice benefiting one or the other.

Two bad players can make the game take FOREVER with neither side figuring out how to win over the other without accidentally getting some decent dice.

Hence:  The game is balanced.

[general jason]

You’re talking 1941 with NOs in your analysis right Jen?

Anyway, I find the game plays better without them. I think it’s more balanced without them. From what I’ve been reading, the game so far has had a slight Axis advantage with NOs, and a slight Allied advantage without them, am I right?

Regardless, no NOs promotes a more open play style and doesn’t require a player to always take the same territories or zones with the promise of bonus cash. Sure, Germany is always going to go hard to Russia - no question. How everybody else reacts differs from game to game. NOs I find limit this.

But yeah - the game is always going to be long with good players, no matter what optional rules you use. 1942 however, I can checkmate Russia with Germany in 4 rounds. I can isolate Japan and cut off her mainland and wipe out her fleet in 4-5 rounds with the USA. And this is with or without Objectives.

[Lucifer]

@general:

But yeah - the game is always going to be long with good players, no matter what optional rules you use. 1942 however, I can checkmate Russia with Germany in 4 rounds. I can isolate Japan and cut off her mainland and wipe out her fleet in 4-5 rounds with the USA. And this is with or without Objectives.

My understanding is that allies have advantage in both setups w/o NOs.

And I also think that axis have advantage in both scenarios when NOs are on.

I still haven’t lost with allies in 42 w/o NOs.

[Lucifer]

@bongaroo:

Have enough games been played to really establish the need for an allied bid?

I also don’t like the idea of bids being used to place units instead of just extra cash to spend.  I’ve seen silly things done to completely change opening moves with bids before and thats not what I would like to see.

I do agree with earlier posts that moving the Chinese fighter would be a good idea.  It never has a chance to make any real difference, which I think is a shame.

Perhaps a few games where we move the fighter back off the frontline to see how it would change the momentum of Japan?

At least I have played enough games to acknowledge that allies need a bid with NOs.

I think a 6 bid will help allies survive, and possible equal odds for winning. 1 inf in Egy and 1 inf in Kalia or Belo, then both teams can win.
To move the Chinese ftr is not enough to prevent an axis victory.

I also think we should try cash only bids, to see if the this impacts the game less than unit bids.
I have argued cash only bids for those of us who might be interested to play in a TripleA AA50 ladder.

The games I have been playing with bids, goes from 6 to 8. Usually the allies place one inf in Egy, so we can agree that the Egy attack is important for axis. To not do the Egy attack may help allies survive, but again, not w/o a bid somewhere else on the board.

[Lucifer]

As you are aware of, I’m looking for a 41 game, NOs, LL, NT, against those who think that allies are favored or that the game is balanced.

Jennifer initially accepted with a 5 bid to allies, then she was unavailable for playing at the time we first agreed.

U-505 accepted the challenge w/o any reservations.  8-)

Now it seems it will be difficult to arrange a game with me vs U-505 in the time frame I expected. If there are no other takers I might hope to play U-505 or someone on this forum in the coming weekend, or some time else?

The game will be TripleA unstable. Real time and live.

I will repeat my offer I made for this game, no Egy attack rnd1 or maximum 13 attacks G+J rnd1.

I was hoping to play later the same day the challenge was accepted, possibly the next day. Or as soon as possible after this  :-)

Since there have not been any takers, (which also are available for playing a game pretty soon) for my challenge, then I will bid even lower for my axis side.
It seemed that many players think the Egy attack G1 is important for axis, both in LL and ADS. So my offer of no Egy attack G1 will still be an option if someone wants to play against me.

I will also modify the other option which seems to make axis not as strong as in a game w/o any reservations.

Maximum 12 attacks G+J rnd1.

I’m also curious to to know if you think that a no Egy attack G1 is more favorable for allies then maximum 12 attacks G+J rnd1 ?

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

If the allies have as good chance of winning as the axis, why would you need a 5 ipc bid?

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

Allies need 3-5 more inf in Yunnan. It would be balanced. But not 3-5 more inf in Egypt or East Poland, that would be unbalanced

I think I will win more often than not with a 3 inf bid for allies in Yunnan.

[Lucifer]

@Mazer:

It’s not just the number of hits, it’s risk management for strafes and allocation of offensive power (particularly airpower).

1. LL dice favors/allows precise strafing.  Does one side benefit from strafing more than the other side?  In AA4 the Axis gains a major strafing advantage in the managment of WEU/EEU.  Often if you attempt a strafe out of Berlin but accidentally take the territory then Berlin falls.  This means the Axis can gain one or two rounds by inflicting a maximum strafe without dropping Berlin.  I suspect this accounts for bids being slightly lower in LL than I would expect them to be with normal dice.

I guess you’re argumenting from a principle point of view, with examples of Moscow and Berlin. Its obviously much more profitable to take capitals than strafing.
When strafing Poland or Kalia perhaps, and some other TT’s if Germany have only tanks in a specific TT, then allies can strafe one battle rnd and retreat and gain a few + tuvs.

The allies gain as much from strafing France as axis does. And this discussion is when playing NOs. So I would rather own France the whole game with either axis or allies to make more money than strafing. Also allies have as much advantage when TT trading France and/or Northwestern Europe or other similar TT’s as Germany have. Its just as easy for allies to attack France with 2 infs and lot of air or naval bombardment to take it with one inf, as it is for Germany to attack with 2-4 ftrs 2 inf or 2 ftrs 1 bmr 2 infs, against 1 or 2 enemy infs. This exactly the same for both sides.

The Allies theoretically should have a similar advantage coming out of Moscow, but functionally the stacks are different and LL favors the Axis in regards to large strafes.

If I’m allies i would like to keep my capitals  :roll:
I could say the exact opposite, that LL favors allies in regards to large strafes.

The side that favors strafing is the side that do not place 20 tanks at the front, or easy available for enemy attacks, when the enemy has 10 infs + a large stack which will kill more tuvs than you lose because infs are cheaper than tanks.

2. LL gives precision attacks allowing near-complete knowledge of force needed to take a territory.  For instance, both players know how much airpower to send in small battles to swap land.  This would theoretically be a wash, but since Germany has more airpower than Russia the Axis gain a slight advantage here as well.  You know if you send 1inf 2ftr at 1inf then you take the land 67% of the time and never lose a plane.

I would do this also in ADS. In the long run it will be the same, what you’re really saying is that Germany has more air power than Russia and that an attack with 1 inf 2 ftrs vs 1 inf is favorable. This is totally unrelated to LL vs ADS.

There are a few other risk dynamics that are negated by LL, but I’d say in general a LL bid will differ from a normal bid by several IPCs to reflect the leverage gained by more complete knowledge of the dice.  Note in AA5 I’m not saying yet which side benefits more from LL, I’m merely pointing out that LL should have a slightly different bid than normal rules.

Those risks that are negated by low luck can very well be negated in ADS by using more ground units when attacking with air units, or using less air units.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that LL favors one side more then the other in AA50. There is no fact which supports this claim. It is a fact that in AAR LL or ADS has nothing to do with game balance or grand strategies.

The reason why I think that LL or ADS do not influence balance in AA50 is because we do not judge balance for one game, we judge balance for hundreds, maybe thousands of different games. With dice rolls which is not favorable for either side, the statistics for total amount of a number of games will even out over time.

Edit:

Things happen when I read too fast, and english is not my first language either. Now I see that Mazer Rackham meant strafing OUT of a capital, not allies strafing Berlin :-)
My arguments still holds though, with regards to LL vs ADS. If Germany are surrounded, they are as weak as a weak Russia surrounded by either Germany or Japan. And again I will inform anyone who has not played any LL games. Strafing does not favor any side or nation. In fact, I have hardly seen any strafing of large stacks in AA50 yet. In my games, both me and my opponents either take a TT with minimal amount of units, or we stack it and plan to hold it as long as possible.
I also played some AAR games before AA50, most of them was LL. I also watched many games played by skilled players, I can hardly remember that strafing was an issue at all. It happened several times, but it is/was never part of the core gaming mechanics of AAR, more than it is in ADS games.
The strafing aspect is probably something ADS players are obsessed with, for some reason I don’t know…

[Lucifer]

@tcnance:

i think if we total the results in the league page at the end of the year we will know more about who has the advantage. right now im winning more often as the allies and losing as the axis.

Why wait until the end of the year if we know it already?

You could try a game against me, 41, NOs, LL, NT. No bids, I’m axis.

[axis_roll]

@Subotai:

@Cmdr:

Subotai:  I’ll take the allies with 5 IPC against you in a heart beat! (Since you said 6 IPC is where you’d start.)  I think the allies have just as good a chance to win as the axis.

This isn’t to say the allies cannot win, or that the axis cannot win.  The game is perfectly balanced, that means the stronger player will win virtually every time (there’s a chance to lose because of the dice.)

If the allies have as good chance of winning as the axis, why would you need a 5 ipc bid?

probably a typo

[axis_roll]

@Subotai:

It is a fact that in AAR LL or ADS has nothing to do with game balance or grand strategies.

I do not think EVERYONE who plays A&A would agree with this statement, so therefor, it can not be a fact.
Mainly because LL can change battle to battle strategies which WILL affect grand strategies.

---

Please let’s not side track this thread with LL discussions, it’s a good thread.

[Lucifer]

@DarthMaximus:

I think LL in AA50 might change the game a bit more compared to previous versions b/c of the number of Axis attacks in Rd 1.

G and J have roughly about 20 combined attacks to do. 
In ADS (no matter how good the odds for each single battle) you will lose (or have a disaster in) probably 2-4 of these battles.

LL takes that away.  Even in Egy (the worst of the rd 1 attacks) is essentially a guaranteed clear of the UK ftr.

For my part its about 14-15 attacks G+J rnd1 with LL, which imo is close to optimal amount of attacks. Its only the Egy attack which is substansially more different then the other attacks, as this is a 75% in ADS and 95% in LL. Also the risk is higher in Egy in ADS than LL. Among other attacks that can go wrong are the sz 35 and sz 56 attacks. They are 95% in ADS. The sz 53 attack with DD + 2 ftrs is 90% for win, but for win/draw its 94% in ADS.

In Egy it’s 73% to 75%for win, and 6% draw, almost all counts says defender wins 19% - 20%, so Egy attack can be bad for axis if it fails. Which in the long run it will, 2 out of 10 games.

Another important battle rnd1 is the sz 50 attack. The battlecalc in TripleA says 100% in ADS so it must be wrong.

The Frood calc says 99,8% I’m simulating with Revised DD + BB vs Revised sub, b/c the Frood calc is not yet updated for AA50.

The Philly attack (3 inf+1 art vs 2 inf) is 93% for attacker in ADS. This is an important attack, it will not help axis with a draw as in the sz 53 attack. In LL the Philly attack is 99,6% for attacker wins.

The last very important attack for Japan rnd1 is the Kwantung attack. 1 inf + 1 arm + 1 ftr vs 1 inf.
Frood says attacker wins 99,7% in ADS.

So what we’re left with, of those battles that will likely hurt axis rnd2 more than the change of TUV value, is the Egy attack, the Philly attack and the sz 53 attack if the BB lives, sz 35 if failed. That is 75% + 93% + 94% + 95%.

The result is 89% for those 4 battles. I’m counting the battles which will hurt more than the TUV change, or else the allies should have as much bad luck as the axis, so it will even out. In reality the Egy attack fails 20% so it would be more accurate to look at Egy attack as a single battle not counting with other battles. And most battles for Japan rnd1 is way over 90% for all those important attacks. Another number would look like 75% for German success rnd1, and 94% for Japan success rnd1.

If the case was 20 battles of 90% or 95% and all those battles was as important as the Egy attack if win or lose, or the Philly attack which is 5 ipc + for each side, + it would seriously slow Japan down if US goes after Japan in the Pacific, then I would agree more with your claim that the number of attacks will affect LL or ADS more than in Revised.
But this isn’t the case.
With even more number crunching I would say it’s only the Egy attack and the Philly attack which could get me nervous in a ADS game rnd1. All other battles are mostly TUV changes, or generally attacking/defending as with all warfare in A&A.