-25 bid challenge: conclusions

[souL]

I’d still like to see a KJF against this -25 strategy.

[Lucifer]

Imo, you have to play at least 100 games to get a solid experience of the balance level in AA50, if you play with tech.

And the AA50 (veteran A&A players) playtesters said that you cannot judge balance if you’re playing with tech. This isn’t a tech or no tech discussion, but I strongly agree with that statement.

There is much more randomness included in any AA50 games with techs on, also compared to Revised. And for regular dice, it is mostly the first rnd which differs from Revised in this aspect. If the first rnd goes “average”, there is not much more randomness/luck in AA50 compared to Revised, when using regular dice.

When giving a bid to allies, there is no need for more than 6-9 ipc in a preplaced unit bid.

[Gargantua]

Lol the game is balanced.

The social rule in Axis and Allies that players are too arrogant to accept, is, that is doesn’t matter how good you are, best in the world. played 5000 games, whatever. there are still games you are going to lose. Hands down. dice/counter strategies/errors etc.

If you can’t accept that, dont play the game, and for gods sake don’t try and fix what ain’t broke.

The point I see trying to be made here with a controlled -25 bid. is that “the Axis has an unbelievable game” edge.

Wrong.  Put a factory to start in Bulgaria and 2 extra arm in LIB, or just 25 IPC’s to Germany, and your probably just as susceptible to defeat as you are at -25 against decent play.

Why not playtest it both ways? against players of equal caliber?

$25 is a piddlance, from memory there is like $600 + of units on the starting board.

Then people talk about how they need a 6 Ipc bid to “have a chance” and that this less then 1% game board variation makes or breaks the game.

Then the infamous quote “They never playtested this”, my response, “No? they just guessed it down to a less than 1% Variance?” Come off it! :s

Why not just move some pieces around? instead of adding or subtracting? It’s the same concept.

It’s un-needed, un-warranted, and un-appreciated by fans like me, and probably Larry himself.

What a ridiculous thread, about someone’s personal beef, probably over the fact they can’t handle they got their ass beat down fair and square. And probably more often than once.

Care for a straight shot at me? No bids? You can take Axis? or bid as Axis, so I can make my point, I don’t care, I’d still play, and have the same odds at winning.

[Lucifer]

I think players should acknowledge the very big difference between AA50 and Revised/AA42, mainly b/c the first in AA50 is very different from the first rnd in Revised/AA42. That is with regular dice ofc. There is so much that can go wrong for axis, and sometimes it does…

If we assume a series of 15-20 games, it’s extremely probable that the axis side will get diced in the first rnd in several of such games, (during a series of games), regardless of experience and skill level.

Telamon had a very interesting “essay” on how the dice influence in AA50 during the first rnd, and many (regular dice) games are plain and simply set after the first rnd, which is, imo, bad. It does not alter the fact that (imo) AA50 is way better than Revised in a total perspective.

I think too many seem to forget the importance of Egy G1.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

And the AA50 (veteran A&A players) playtesters said that you cannot judge balance if you’re playing with tech. This isn’t a tech or no tech discussion, but I strongly agree with that statement.

But the flaw of the game is pathetic China status, the kill China J1 bug and the 5 starting jap trannies. You will have those problems even in a non tech game, and even before anyone has a chance of getting a tech that affects China and Far East that could save allies (if Japan gets a tech J1, it only will become worst, never better). Those problems are critical because you have zero chances of changing them with normal rules and vanilla setup: they are there by default. It’s very difficult for me believe that AA50 playtesters say about tech and balance if they even didn’t noticed the various big bugs Far East has. They even claim the game is as balanced with NOs as without NOs!  :-P

I’ll not enter in tech debate this time because is irrelevant, but at least I must agree with Subo that Egypt is critical, as MrGreen’s game reveals. However, there is a great difference if Egypt fails with -25 bid than with no bid: it hurts much more in case of -25 bid if Egypt fails

Agh … ! I must find more time to comment JWW’s game …

[Lucifer]

@Gargantua:

Lol the game is balanced.

Care for a straight shot at me? No bids? You can take Axis? or bid as Axis, so I can make my point, I don’t care, I’d still play, and have the same odds at winning.

So far it seems that AA50 is as balanced as Revised, or very close, at least.

But giving a unit bid to axis will only make it worse.

If Germany attacks Egy G1 every game (original setup), they got Africa for several rnds, about 60%-75% of all games. Kalia G1 is risky, b/c Germany will have to commit every air unit in this attack.

Even if there is a bigger difference from Revised if we play some games with regular dice and some games with LL, b/c the number of attacks will favor the attacker in LL, not the defender. When playing LL it helps see dice importance in AA50 compared to Revised, b/c in Revised LL or regular dice is a minor difference for the game balance. Not so in AA50 though.
But for a series of games, the good/bad (regular) dice and luck will even out also in AA50.

The point I’m trying to make is that in 1vs1 competitive setting, it’s extremely unlikely that an experience player will lose to a (slightly?) better player, in Revised, as allies in a no bid game, and this applies for both series of games, and a single game.

In AA50, because the dice is much more important in the first rnd, it is easier to win or lose in a no bid game compared to Revised. This is especially true for a single game. But not for a series of games. It’s just a question of how many (AA50) games we need to play to see that axis are generally favored, in a no bid +NOs, no tech, and no other rules game.

I have lost several games as axis with no bids, +NOs, regular dice, no tech. But I won more than I lost, probably b/c axis are slightly favored.

You will not have the same odds for winning if axis gets a unit bid, but if you are a better player than (i.e.) me, you have a good shot at winning as allies in a no bid, +NOs, regular dice, no tech game. Same goes for an allied bid, then allies will have better odds for winning.

Even if axis gets only an infantry for a unit bid, this will make it very difficult for allies.

[Funcioneta]

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=14675.0

3) JWW’s game

Round 1 - Germany makes a big success at Egypt but fails BST. As result, I must retreat from Ukr after a small strafe. USSR buys 4 tanks, takes fin, kills baltic cruiser and stacks Buryatia. This time I skip fuk to ensure killing the indian fleet, but China is basically killed J1 anyway. UK makes a big navy buy (no ICs), but makes a error stacking trj with 2 inf, bomber, a error Italy is going to exploit, killing the bomber and taking trj in the process while getting the 2nd NO after the retake of alg. A bit of luck for me, I must say
With USA, JWW makes a solid opening, buying boats for z10, stacking z56 and sending the airfleet to Australia. But dices betray him again and loses at Torch operation

Round 2 - I killed allied navy in z12 losing only 1 sub. Also stacked Pol, fin & trj and continue expansion in Africa. USSR stacks kar, trj & chi and also advances in force to Manchuria. But a japanese counter kills the whole stack whithout loses (again, very lucky for me). I decide consolidate Japan’s position, so India and aus are not conquered yet and I focus in China, where I kill the last 2 chinamen and ensure soviets cannot liberate nothing important
Italy does the same as Japan: consolidate, but lady luck favors JWW this time and yanks hit LRA killing z60 jap fleet losing only 4 figs! That’s a big blow indeed. China? No more chinamen!

Round 3 - Germany fails again at bst, counters Norway and stacks France & trj. The biggest stack is now at Epol and Afrika Korps advance to eaf, dancing around UK infs. USSR evacuates Persia, takes fin and consolidates, same as does Japan, but now they have ICs at FIC & man. I buy 3 jap subs just in case JWW advances with his fleet. UK escapes from India to Persia, takes Norway and join aussie tra with USA’s fleet, while UK’s inf at Africa ignore the tank and split in two. Italy fortifies trj and France (latter is getting a stereotype in my games). USA takes Solomon islands and sets up a big SBRs campaign against Germany

Round 4 - Finally I taken bst, man! Also, a lucky shoot at rho lets german tank kill 1 inf and live to get saf later. Trj guys retreat to Egypt to protect it, while european stacks continue advancing at solid pace. Germany has 2 bombers now and colects 45 IPCs. With soviets, JWW still has not buyed any figs, so trading is costing him arts & tanks. However, and even if Siberia is now in solid control of japs, USSR makes a decent total of 32 IPCs. Japan finally complete conquest of China and India and scores 60 IPCs, also sending one fleet to south to compete against USA’s navy
UK starts a north dominant Afrika strat, so I decide escape with the italian fleet to Indian ocean and take mad in the process. I stack Egypt also to ensure one more time of that one as axis held. USA adavances to z39 (west of Australia), stacks planes at cau, aids UK in alg and also starts a shuck from WUSA. Seems he decides using his fleet as distraction for Japan taking advantage of LRA to restric movements. Is he shifting to KGF?

Round 5 - I clear Lybia, take SAF and continue the advancing germans (one more bomber built). USSR continues trading but does nothing special saving a stack in chi. Now collects 27 only (NO cancelled by USA’s figs at cau)
With Japan, I make a rogue small assault at Alaska. It’s not a Polar Express, just I try damage USA’s economy a bit. A stack of 8 is now at India and I sent a fleet to z37 to defend from USA
UK gets Improved Industry, continues the suck for alg and retakes mad with the sneaky ANZAC. I must stack Sudan with Italy now, and also Italy itself, while join fleets with Japan at FIC. USA stacks z29 (east of mad), continues the suck and starts the real SBRs, but has bad luck and loses 2 bombers (11 of damage to Germany)

Round 6 - Germany gets war bounds, a nice tech at this moment. I manage building 10 units after the repairings, but no more nasty planes this time. 48 IPCs this time with War Bounds
USSR continues trading and the stack on Chi (with UK supporters from Persia). Japan retakes mad in a very risky move, trades Persia and menaces USA’s Indian fleet while stacks Carolines to aim for Nzel or Aus later. UK SBRs ger and takes Egypt so they got a NO and a total of 33 IPCs! Italy, having bombed as well, decides buy one tech roll (not success) and keeps rest of the money.USA evacuates Indian Ocean and SBR Germany to 18, continuing the suck to alg. Now is getting full KGF mode

Round 7 - Germany repairs the whole 18 damage and still buys 10 infs! Now I must stack EAF, but european stacks are advancing without problem since west allies are totally centered in Afrika shuck. I have a big stack woth 16 german tanks at Epol, menacing both cau and kar, creating toruble for soviets to defend both. France is secured
Now soviets can afford trade only ukr and fail bad at bst so road to Karelia is open! Japan takes Australia (no more UK’s NO) and SBRs Stalingrad (two can play the same game)
At this point, axis economics are about 120 and allied are about 100, so JWW decides risk D-Day with UK. He fails, losing only a few italian infs, and is forced to retreat from chi, so no more NO also for USSR
Italy hits paras! But I cannot afford a bomber by now, so I must reinforce France and buy more defenders for Italy itself (after repairing a bit of damage). The stack is now at Rho and still join fleets with Japan
USA makes D-Day, part 2 and is defeated also (not big, but enough to not take France). JWW knows he is trading valuable allied units for cheap italian fodder and concedes, because he cannot destroy axis system

[Funcioneta]

Conclusions for JWW’s game:

For this game events, I think old Revised strats don’t work. North African dominance was a classic then, but now don’t works because allies cannot support both Africa and Europe, so my stacks had a happy day advancing. The distraction on Japan has merit (I was not expecting that trip to Johannesburg), but that didn’t stop Japan, even with that good shoot at my fleet

About luck at this match, in general favored me, but there were some lucky shoots for allies as 2 early bst and z60. However, I think it not was the crucial factor

I was a bit surprised my west axis african troops lived the whole game, even forced to escape to rho. But a interesting thing in this game is how well Germany can resist a heavy SBR campainn if colets 40-50 IPCs. Allied SBRs alone are not enough, and that’s good. Worst than that, I had my own japanese SBR campaing prepared just in case the match continued.

I must say JWW played a solid game if you must ask me. But the truth is that economic advantage is on axis side in 1941, a real handicap for allies

[Funcioneta]

Conclusions for the whole challenge

First, repeat that I enjoyed good sportmanship and fine skills of the challangers. Thanks to all again!

Overall, I think the best chance allies have to make real damage to Germany is with a very agressive USSR. That was the game I lost and the one that gave my more troubles almost from starting. I’m a bit surprised of this fact, and intrigued, but the fact still is there

I think we must forget Revised and Classic strats, the game has changed too much. Nor North African dominance (alone) nor SBRs (alone) are going to solve allies day. At the same time, Polar Express is not a valid counter now to KGF because of that Perry Channel frozen, because USA can mount a distraction operation as JWW did and because JTDTM is more easy this time. The most I could do is a small trading of Alaska, not a full invasion

Economic advantage is on axis side if Japan is ignored, so a strafing strat against west axis is not going to work: West axis is harder than USSR and resists more, Japan will arrive always at time to save their friends. SBRs don’t work for the same reason: USSR will suffer more than Germany + Italy from this

Since I got beaten by MrGreen, who did a aggresive USSR, I guess the proper bid cannot go beyond -25 (soviets will exploit a too weak west axis if only a few bad rolls as Egypt appear). But since I won the other two games, my conclusion is that the proper bid, with current league system is in the range of -19 to -25 (17 is the max amount you can rest from Japan’s cash, and both Italy and Germany can afford a only inf buy)

I’m pretty sure I’m forgetting some things. Feel free of remembering me them!  :-)

It was fun! As final note, I suggest you give a chance to 1942 scenario some times, it’s really fun  :-)

[souL]

3 games is not a sufficient sample.

a +6 allies bid is WAY worse than a -25 for the Axis.  2 inf -> egy is pretty tough to overcome for the Axis.

[a44bigdog]

Good summaries Funcioneta.

I am certain by now I have played well over 100 AA50-41 games. I fell overall the game is balanced but at the same time I feel some help for China, mainly moving the Flying Tiger off the front line would be order.

I do also agree with your overall assessment that AA50-41 can not be played like revised. Russia can and should be aggressive in this version. I also think that ignoring Japan is playing with fire for the Allies.

So to sum up my viewpoint I do not think a bid is necessary, but I do also feel that moving the Flying Tiger off the front lines and perhaps placing 1 infantry in each starting Chinese territory would improve things, without unbalancing the game.

[axis_roll]

@a44bigdog:

So to sum up my viewpoint I do not think a bid is necessary, but I do also feel that moving the Flying Tiger off the front lines and perhaps placing 1 infantry in each starting Chinese territory would improve things, without unbalancing the game.

Improve things… yes I agree!

The ‘beefing’ up of China would
1). slow Japan down a bit
2). offer some other strategic options for the allies

Your China improvement suggestion then boils down to a NCM of the flying tiger (before Russias turn?) and 7 additional Chinese inf (1 inf in each starting territory).  Did you mean that extra chinese inf for every territory or 1 in only the unoccupied chinese starting territories?  Probably the former.

I think this maybe a simplistic but effective China Mod for 1941 so I am just trying to confirm.

Thanks!

[Funcioneta]

I like your idea, a44bigdog, It could work. +1

About 2 inf to Egypt, the problem is not the inbalance. It could be inbalanced and shift the advantage to allies indeed, it could be balanced, it could be not enough for allies. But my fear is that it could lead to the old boring KGF strat of always and still being inbalanced, in a sense or other. European theater is the only place we should not touch in 1941, it’s pretty balanced that area

So my suggestions are bidding chinese infs or better, doing the same a44bigdog said  :-) Fighter to Chingai maybe?

[Funcioneta]

@souL:

a +6 allies bid is WAY worse than a -25 for the Axis.  2 inf -> egy is pretty tough to overcome for the Axis.

True, that’s the reason for I think the bid should allow a unit bid for both sides, not that extrange cash system in case of negative bid. Why bidding for axis after all? They play first, and the logic choice, if no consensus is still reached, is bidding for the team playing 2nd to let the loser of the bid start quicker

[a44bigdog]

I was referring to just placing 1 Chinese infantry in the Chinese territories that do not start with one and at the start of the game at setup placing the Chinese fighter somewhere besides Yunnan. I have had opponents skip the Yunnan attack and they can get away with it as Japan because even though the Chinese have the fighter, they have virtually nothing else to attack with. I also welcome my opponents doing this, as I know China will have some offensive opportunities latter, although they will be small opportunities.

That is also the only changes I would advocate making. I thing messing around with a bid and adding units will drastically change the game balance. As it stands right now Germany, if it wants to be aggressive must make several risky attacks that can have very negative influence on the game if they go bad. Japan is in a similar situation, while there are far fewer risky attacks to be made there are just so many of them that the odds are rather good of something going bad. While this tends to have less of a negative effect on the Axis it still hurts.

I think concerns of AA50 turning into the same old same old like Revised is a false alarm. There are too many more variables, (more territories, and additional Countries) for this to be the case. I have no fears of taking the Allies in a competitive game and I do not use KGF. As a matter of fact I think KGF has become something like the KJF in Revised, in that it is mostly advisable in certain situations to exploit Axis bad luck or poor moves.

[BlueIguana]

First time posting here.  Sorry if this idea has been considered and rejected earlier.
My thought would be to use the same starting pieces for China as in 1942 AND have China play FIRST.  The turn order would be China, then Japan etc with the US last. 
This would allow China to move the fighter out of the way and get a turn of reinforcements under its belt before getting hammered.

Just a thought.

[bugoo]

I personally still feel the game is balanced in a dice game, also, holding to revised strats will make you loose.  In a strong KGF Russia has to come out swinging to help lower German income to a reasonable level.  Also, protecting the US against Japan is easier than it looks if played properly.  One other important thing is the relationship of Germany and Italy in this game. The can opener threat can really stall Russia.  Also, the fact that Italy can easily stack around 10 units into france by turns 3 or 4 if allowed to gain a large income counteracts Germany only building 10 units a turn, as nearly all of those units get to swing at Russia.  Also of note is the extreme importance of holding Persia.  I have found that abandoning India and moving to Persia UK1, followed by Russian inf reinforcing turn 2 along with other allied units moving that direction threw Africa is the best way to hold Japan in the south.  You cannot loose Persia.  I also feel it is important in a KGF setup that the allies have two fleets, one to hold in northern europe, and one in the south.  This forces G/I to protect more territory than they can.

It also seems KGF is the only viable strat, and any pacific strat is limited in scope to holding onto a few NOs and distracting Japan a bit.  There is no real way to bottle Japan up early before her income soars while containing G/I as well.  I wish it were not so, but it is.  Japan just plain has too many transports and carriers for the US to even try to face them alone, and no one can afford to help.

[Lucifer]

@bugoo:

I personally still feel the game is balanced in a dice game,

Also for a series of games? Axis will have Africa for several rnds in over 60% of all games.

[bugoo]

Btw Func, I wouldn’t mind playing you in your -25 bid challenge if you play without tech.  With that setup I might not even ignore the pacific.

[Zhukov44]

@bugoo:

I personally still feel the game is balanced in a dice game, also, holding to revised strats will make you loose.  In a strong KGF Russia has to come out swinging to help lower German income to a reasonable level.  Also, protecting the US against Japan is easier than it looks if played properly.  One other important thing is the relationship of Germany and Italy in this game. The can opener threat can really stall Russia.  Also, the fact that Italy can easily stack around 10 units into france by turns 3 or 4 if allowed to gain a large income counteracts Germany only building 10 units a turn, as nearly all of those units get to swing at Russia.  Also of note is the extreme importance of holding Persia.  I have found that abandoning India and moving to Persia UK1, followed by Russian inf reinforcing turn 2 along with other allied units moving that direction threw Africa is the best way to hold Japan in the south.  You cannot loose Persia.  I also feel it is important in a KGF setup that the allies have two fleets, one to hold in northern europe, and one in the south.  This forces G/I to protect more territory than they can.

It also seems KGF is the only viable strat, and any pacific strat is limited in scope to holding onto a few NOs and distracting Japan a bit.  There is no real way to bottle Japan up early before her income soars while containing G/I as well.  I wish it were not so, but it is.  Japan just plain has too many transports and carriers for the US to even try to face them alone, and no one can afford to help.

Good post, this is pretty much how I feel about it.  The only thing I disagree with you on is the bid–I’d say that in a nt game, without some kind of bid Axis will have the advantage.  It may not necessarily have to be as high as 6, but probably at least 3.  With tech, it seems pretty even.

Also, I’d add that the strat you are advocating is pretty close to the Revised KGF strat–ie 2 Allied fleets, focus on Germany, USA goes to Persia while UK goes thru Karelia…pretty much the same strategy…just different map dynamics and Russia has to attack.

1 inf to Egypt changes the game fundamentally (ie the ipc difference if Germany doesn’t take Egpyt is massive)–if you add another inf to Karelia then the Allies probably have a slight advantage.  Without those bids, Allies need some dice to avoid getting beat up bad on G1.

I’d like to play you sometime by forum though I’m sure I’d be at a disadvantage due to your experience.