Of the top 10, only ONE player has an axis win% under 50. Of the rest, the lowest is 64 % (1 guy). The rest are 70% or higher. Again, some evidence that axis +8 might be too much.
1. Serghis Khan
Field Marshall
2832
84.3 % (43 of 51)
80.8 % (21 of 26)
88 % (22 of 25)
(12 votes)
2. Crimsontide
Field Marshall
2613
74.1 % (20 of 27)
71.4 % (10 of 14)
76.9 % (10 of 13)
(6 votes)
3. Incy
Field Marshall
2472
93.3 % (28 of 30)
85.7 % (12 of 14)
100 % (16 of 16)
(9 votes)
4. Kublai Khan
Field Marshall
2341
70.8 % (34 of 48)
71.4 % (15 of 21)
70.4 % (19 of 27)
(11 votes)
5. enoch101
Field Marshall
2001
82.4 % (28 of 34)
76.5 % (13 of 17)
88.2 % (15 of 17)
(8 votes)
6. Dartman
General
1999
71.4 % (25 of 35)
64.7 % (11 of 17)
77.8 % (14 of 18)
(8 votes)
7. TexasAggie
General
1980
55.9 % (19 of 34)
47.1 % (8 of 17)
64.7 % (11 of 17)
(7 votes)
8. jeffouner
General
1941
86.4 % (19 of 22)
80 % (8 of 10)
91.7 % (11 of 12)
(5 votes)
9. bayder
General
1918
83.3 % (20 of 24)
84.6 % (11 of 13)
81.8 % (9 of 11)
(4 votes)
10. yavol
General
1860
72.7 % (16 of 22)
90 % (9 of 10)
58.3 % (7 of 12)
I am missing header information to read what is what.
Also, remember that the BEST players tend to END UP with the Axis more due to lower bids. Thus they become better at playing the Axis than the Allies
I am a good example of that…
10 Axis games, 8 wins
5 Allied games, 3 wins
80% win Axis
60% win Allies
@ncscswitch:
I am missing header information to read what is what.
Also, remember that the BEST players tend to END UP with the Axis more due to lower bids. Thus they become better at playing the Axis than the Allies
I am a good example of that…
10 Axis games, 8 wins
5 Allied games, 3 wins80% win Axis
60% win Allies
1st % is overall, 2nd is axis and 3rd is allied.
But, under AAA, players must play twice. 1 axis, 1 allied. Bid is 8 in both games.
So your stat example doesnt apply.
Squirecam
OK…
Your own site stats show a 51/49 overall split. Pretty darn balanced.
Also, averages for folks with win percentages over 50% are going to be skewed, since they more than likely will win no matter which side they play.
Here is a prior discussion that places the Axis bid even HIGHER (9) in order to be balanced.
I read that section. Found a very interesting quote…. :)
quote author=ncscswitch link=topic=6629.msg102217#msg102217 date=1147216381]
Carrying over IPC remainign from the bid to be used on Turn 1 is essential to pairing down the bid.
Otherwise, you end up with low bids all being in increments of 3 (for the most part)
Allowing for IPC carry over, I’d be willing to take a bid of $1 against most opponents…
Since you accept a bid of ONE, I’d say your whole argument saying 6 is needed to balance the game was just fluff. :)Â You are basically willing to play straight up. Which is what I said earlier, a bidder means “I can beat anyone with +1)”
Notice the rest of that quote…
Start with MOST oponents. Meaning against folks who are not as skilled (sorry, int he past 9 months I ahve become a VERY skilled player).
I also specified that agaisnt the best players (players equal to my skill level or better) that I would want a higher bid to keep it even.
You cannot use me vs. your average player as an example because you are dealing with unequal skill sets. And the whole question of balance hinges on equal or comparable skill sets.
If you feel confident enough to beat most people at ONE, I doubt you need 9 to beat the “best”.
Perhaps you beat the best at 6-9 because 6-9 is too much. :)
Squirecam
But alas, I lost to one of the best at 7 just my last game.
I still don’t understand your argument, Squirecam. If you’re saying if a bid is NEEDED, then no game REQUIRES a bid. Not even classic does if there is a 25% or even 1% chance for the Axis to win, because your argument is that there exists the possibility that the Axis will win.
If this is not what you’re saying, if you actually want a 50% chance to win, then a bid helps this in the long run. Your argument that luck cancels out the bid is a bogus argument, because you only look at situations in which luck negates the bid, you’re not looking at the average when things come out a little bit better which ups the 40% to closer to 50%. Over many games a bid HAS to affect the game somehow. It is not nonexistent and therefore unnecessary like you’re making it out to be.
If adding units is irrelevant, then removing them should be also.
Instead of adding 6-9 IPC’s to the Axis, let’s just delete that many from the Allies…
Remove 1 ARM, 1 INF from Egypt.
There. According to Squire’s argument, it won’t matter because luck will cancel out such a minor change.
6-9 IPC most certainly changes the odds.
Extra units given to a competant player early in the game should make a difference. How much of a difference I suppose depends on the competition.
And to be honest, that is one of the best things about Revised…
You don’t have to do the huge bid, or the choreographed moves that have been worked out over 20 years and the “one true and only way” to play A&A like you do in Classic.
Small bid, just to even out the histroical averages over the past few years, but with a variety of placement possibilities (instead of pre-set PE, PAfr, or the rare Pasia, which is an even LARGER bid) and you get a great game, lots of variability, and lots of enjoyment.
In fact, I point to my current game with Darth… probably one of the top 5-10 Classic players in the world, and THE best I have ever seen; who has transfered his game play to Revised and now is enjoying the game (I think) in ways that it has been years since he was able to enjoy and explore.
And both of us are having a ball. Winning an losing is not the point in this one. We are playing for the pleasure of it.
with a 7 bid, 10 turns in, the Axis dominates the land, the Allies the Seas and Skies… and barring catrastophy by one of us, no end in sight…
And THAT my friends is a BALANCED game :-)
Of the top 10, only ONE player has an axis win% under 50. Of the rest, the lowest is 64 % (1 guy). The rest are 70% or higher. Again, some evidence that axis +8 might be too much.
Look at the stats again, at http://tripleawarclub.org/ladder/standings.php
Of the top 10 players, 7 of them have a higher winning percentage as the Allies than as the Axis. Yes, their Axis winning percentage is high, but their Allied winning percentage is even higher. This implies that at the highest level of play, that a 9 bid to the Axis (which is what all these games used) might be a little too LOW.
TY James, I knew someone with more experience with those numbers would ahve the answer :-)
But time tends to average out those rolls.
In a short game, sure one dice frack can be the deciding factor. over 15 turns, both sides tend to get several fracks.
Wow, what a thread!
I must say, I take NCS’s position on this one for several reasons, the most pertinant of them being that
a) While the Axis certainly CAN win without a bid, when you have players of equal skill and who are equally skilled at playing both Axis AND Allies (not just one or the other side), a bid can certainly make the difference in the early round(s) and many times it’s what happens the first 2 rounds that can help decide the game.
b) figuring out statistics is something that can only be done over thousands and thousands of games. I mean, you can flip a coin 100 times and get 90 heads. Does that mean the odds of getting tails are skewed? No, because if you were to flip that coin 10,000 times or 100,000 times the odds are it would be very close to 50/50 and 1,000,000 times or more and likely the difference would be so negligible as to allow us to say it was 50/50. While we cannot play 1,000,000 AAR games, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to suggest that a bid helps even out the game.
You know, just as many of the issues of AA Classic were worked out in AAR, I think probably in the next iteration (or version) that many of the issues we’ve seen here will be worked out as well. Maybe an extra unit here or another territory there… whatever it takes to balance the game.
