interesting. I will check out that thread.
Alpha 3 vs Alpha 2 Axis Bid Differential Poll
-
Say there was big money involved for winning a tournament.
You know what you know, today, about Alpha 2 and Alpha 3 and you need to come up with an Axis bid. How much higher / lower would your bid be in Alpha 3 vs Alpha 2?
If my bid was 6 IPC with Alpha 2 and becomes 12 IPC with Alpha 3, the answer to the survey is 6.
If my bid was 10 IPC with Alpha 2 and becomes 8 IPC with Aplha 3, the answer is -2
Looking forward to see results, and what would you do with the money you got if you win the bid?
-
My bid in an Alpha 2 game would be 9.
By bid in an Alpha 3 game would be 21.
I answered 12.
The money would be spent on infantry in Kwangsi (7 infantry). This would cut the Burma road once and for all and enable an easier push to take India.
-
Whoever voted minus 3, can you enlight us on new Axis opportunities in Alpha 3?
-
First, I’d like to say I think your range of votes is going to be too large. I’ve found that about 5 options is best if you want to have a clear winner. In this case, you’re probably going to end up with a lot of 1 votes with some 0 votes and maybe 2 or 3 votes in another category.
Alpha 2: +2 German submarines are generally needed to be assured of the kills you really want to have in Alpha 2. Also, the added CRD is very beneficial without having to actually purcase the submarines.
Alpha 3: Due to increased threat from the submarines, I’d drop that to 1 extra submarine to make the SZ 106 attack stronger. (2 attacking submarines now, not 1.) However, I may just up and go with no bid. I did a game as axis and one as allies here face to face and it was a 5 player game, so that might have had an impact, but in both games it seemed to come down to someone making a mistake that resulted in one side winning or losing.
I say this not to start a discussion off context about the merits or flaws in balance, only to justify my answer.
-
@mantlefan:
Whoever voted minus 3, can you enlight us on new Axis opportunities in Alpha 3?
I have seen one thing that helps the axis significantly: The aa gun situation in india is weaker for the allies (However that creates issues elsewhere on the board, but I am looking for ANYHTING)
possible strat 2 stage overwhelming air 2 strike on aust or india early then?
-
@Cmdr:
First, I’d like to say I think your range of votes is going to be too large. I’ve found that about 5 options is best if you want to have a clear winner. In this case, you’re probably going to end up with a lot of 1 votes with some 0 votes and maybe 2 or 3 votes in another category.
More information is always better, we can rebucket the info the way we want after this.
-
@mantlefan:
Whoever voted minus 3, can you enlight us on new Axis opportunities in Alpha 3?
I have seen one thing that helps the axis significantly: The aa gun situation in india is weaker for the allies (However that creates issues elsewhere on the board, but I am looking for ANYHTING)
possible strat 2 stage overwhelming air 2 strike on aust or india early then?
Agreed. That does seem to lend more authority to my statements in the past about ignoring China and gunning for India/Australia earlier instead. I had not thought about the fact that only 6 of my 80 billion Japanese aircraft could be shot at. ^_^
-
The crowd thinks that the changes to the game need to be offset by about 11 IPC added to their usual Axis bid.
-
I agree with Jenn that the sheer number of options is going to skew your results. I voted for +8 btw. These are at best going to be incredibly shaky and unreliable results, so don’t put too much stock in them.
-
@mantlefan:
I agree with Jenn that the sheer number of options is going to skew your results. I voted for +8 btw. These are at best going to be incredibly shaky and unreliable results, so don’t put too much stock in them.
I still don;t get what’s wrong with taking an average.
The poll is for an integer, not a phrase. Less options mean people can be less exact, which is good if it were a poll made up of subjective phrases and not hard numerals.
Because 1 person voting for 80 billion IPCs can skew the results.
-
Where is the 80 billion IPC option?
I’d like to check that please. (Wonders If I’ll have enough chips and pieces, for his bid, from every box of A&A he owns)
Oh wait… there isn’t one…
No offense, but with the way this poll is presented and CONTROLLED, an average would give a pretty good notion as to where people are at at the moment.
-
My problem is we don’t know who’s voting, what is the average skill level, and how many of these voters think aircraft can move 6? (just poking fun Jenn) Thats why I said I wouldn’t consider the results of this test to be reliable. Also the large number discrepancy means there is a chance of having a few outliers affect the average, although it doesn’t look like that will be too much of an issue in this pool, when doing the number crunching tho take into account the big gap of area up there where nobody seems to be voting. (I’d call it out but then we may see a flurry of votes there:))
-
Garg, you know it was just an example meant to be ridiculous enough to demonstrate a point.
Still, you could have outliers in this poll. (1 vote for -15 would drag down 6 or seven votes for +2). If you only had 5 options, it would be a lot harder to get outliers.
Jimmy makes other points.
And I can say, if the bid needs +15 as many are claiming, then DAMN that’s +20-30 IPC bids! Most of the trounament games are coming in with either 0 or + a lot. (I’d give actual numbers but I still need 10 bids and I don’t want to influence them. You can PM me, and if you are not in the tournament, I’ll be glad to give you the average number of IPC actually bid (not what someone said they would bid) for Alpha 2 and you can do the math. Needless to say, many of the bids reported here are the equivalent of doubling the Italian fleet and I think that’s a bit ridiculous. Perhaps many who voted +15 did not understand they need to subtract what they bid in Alpha 2?
-
I voted + 15.
Garg, you know it was just an example meant to be ridiculous enough to demonstrate a point.
More and more I find that that is the definition of everything you have to say about the game.
-
Know, I couldnt remember if it went to +20 or +15 etc, so instead of saying something like +30 (because I was too lazy to make sure where it cut off) I used 80 billion which was so ridiculous and crazy no one could possibly think I literally meant 80 billion.
Guess there will always be at least one person (or three) that will refuse to acknowledge the point and pick at the little details.
-
@Cmdr:
Garg, you know it was just an example meant to be ridiculous enough to demonstrate a point.
Still, you could have outliers in this poll. (1 vote for -15 would drag down 6 or seven votes for +2). If you only had 5 options, it would be a lot harder to get outliers.
Jimmy makes other points.
And I can say, if the bid needs +15 as many are claiming, then DAMN that’s +20-30 IPC bids! Most of the trounament games are coming in with either 0 or + a lot. (I’d give actual numbers but I still need 10 bids and I don’t want to influence them. You can PM me, and if you are not in the tournament, I’ll be glad to give you the average number of IPC actually bid (not what someone said they would bid) for Alpha 2 and you can do the math. Needless to say, many of the bids reported here are the equivalent of doubling the Italian fleet and I think that’s a bit ridiculous. Perhaps many who voted +15 did not understand they need to subtract what they bid in Alpha 2?
My bid for Alpha 3 would be 21 (9 + 12 answered on this survey).
With 21 worth of IPC, I would feel like Axis and Allies are even at Alpha 3 right now. Bids of 6 IPC hardly make a difference (e.g., 1 sub to get that cruiser in 91, 50% of the time, what is this good for?)
21 IPC is hardly anything on a board of this size, (although position matters)!
To avoid outliers is precisely why I stopped the option at 15, forcing people to think about it, rather than expressing frustration. The distribution of results is well spread out, I have to say I was right on when choosing the answer choices.
-
1 Submarine makes it so you can have 2 submarines in SZ 106, SZ 110 and SZ 111.
I used to bid 2 submarines, so I had one for the cruiser in SZ 91, but given the changes to the game, I no longer need 7 submarines, 6 is plenty. It really feels a lot more balanced now, at least in the 4 games I’ve completed and 3 games I am currently engaged in online.
-
@Cmdr:
1 Submarine makes it so you can have 2 submarines in SZ 106, SZ 110 and SZ 111.
I used to bid 2 submarines, so I had one for the cruiser in SZ 91, but given the changes to the game, I no longer need 7 submarines, 6 is plenty. It really feels a lot more balanced now, at least in the 4 games I’ve completed and 3 games I am currently engaged in online.
I think I ought to review those threads and see what you are doing (and verify that all moves are legal). A sixth submarine helps, but it’s really just an insurance policy for 110 of some sort. Not a game changer on a gigantic map like this.
At the slightest Axis mistake, my feeling is that they become in trouble. The allies can make some mistakes on the other hand, it appears.
-
@Cmdr:
1 Submarine makes it so you can have 2 submarines in SZ 106, SZ 110 and SZ 111.
I used to bid 2 submarines, so I had one for the cruiser in SZ 91, but given the changes to the game, I no longer need 7 submarines, 6 is plenty. It really feels a lot more balanced now, at least in the 4 games I’ve completed and 3 games I am currently engaged in online.
I think I ought to review those threads and see what you are doing (and verify that all moves are legal). A sixth submarine helps, but it’s really just an insurance policy for 110 of some sort. Not a game changer on a gigantic map like this.
At the slightest Axis mistake, my feeling is that they become in trouble. The allies can make some mistakes on the other hand, it appears.
I dont think Alpha 2 or Alpha 3 need “game changers” to balance them out. OOB I would say that the allies needed 80+ IPC for me to feel comfortable taking them (all of it British), but then, I have paranoias about OOB rules.
Alpha 2 a submarine shot at the cruiser in SZ 91 was always nice, even if it failed, it was a bid unit and the second submarine made SZ 106 almost feel like it’d never fail.
Alpha 3, since you dont need to fret about England anymore (its a null personality in the game for the first, oh, 7 rounds at least) you dont need the shot at the Cruiser in SZ 91, but you do still want that destroyer in SZ 106, so the second one helps. With no bid, I give up shooting at both battleships so I can crush both destroyers, with a bid of one submarine I’ll try for one of the battleships. It’s more a security blanket. Honestly, as far as this game is, Alpha 3 is the most balanced to come out yet.
It is my personal opinion all these ridiculously high bids are knee-jerk reactions to not have Sea Lion be virtually guarenteed like it was in Alpha 2. Despite the fact that Russia is SOO much easier to take out now. (6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 2 Armor, AA Gun in two or three stacks and Russia has no recourse but to retreat allowing you to enter it faster.) So you activate Mongolia if you attack Amur. Whoopity do dah. +6 Infantry for Russia. And your point is what, exactly? France has an AA Gun? Everyone stop the presses, you mean A MAJOR EUROPEAN CITY HAS SOME AIR DEFENSE!?!?! Let’s ignore the historical aspects for a moment, you dont NEED aircraft to take France! You probably shouldn’t even use aircraft to take France. The only way I could see it being needed is if you are being greedy and/or trying for Sea Lion anyway, despite the fact that 2 submarines negate England and you have no objectives there anymore anyway. If you look at history, I’m sure SOMEONE in France had an old WWI AA Gun. Maybe that one guy got lucky and shot down a plane (that shouldnt have been there in the first place, if you ask me.) Japan, uh, well, you have a lot more AA Guns there too. Put yourself in India’s shoes. You can hit a stack of 7 infantry, 2 artillery and an Armor and probably win, but dang, there’s an AA Gun there, do you want to risk your fighters and tactical bomber? Russia, do you want to attack Japan and give up any treaty defense?
I am not going to say the game is balanced, but I am going to say that the axis were severely beefed up. Yes, the allies got more units, technically, but they are in bad places. 4 Guns in England? What are they going to do but fire off fireworks? 4 Guns on the Continental United States? Really? I guess they look cute and all, those funny white pieces (mine are white, deal with it) but will they impact the game? Not in the least. The Russian guns, the German guns, teh Italian guns, the Japanese guns and the Indian guns are going to have an impact and if you’ll notice that’s only 1.5 allied countries getting more units compared to 3 axis countries getting them. +4 Guns Allies, +7 Axis (not counting france, that gun is as useless as a screendoor on a submarine).
Sorry, had to vent. All this crying about Sea Lion being a little bit (emphasis on the little) is really irritating me now. The game is not 15 IPC out of balance, it is not 30 IPC out of balance. If anything, another submarine is NICE, not NEEDED. IMHO.
-
Lots of contradictory statements here, maybe you should do like me and go get some sleep.
Why is Russia easier to take now? Because it gets 12 shots at planes in the final battle instead of unlimited shots?!
Suggested Topics
