• I believe I get it now. When we played the original A&A we would give the Germans a tank to place in Libya and the Japanese a sub to place in th Sea of Japan. So if I am understanding this correctly, we would have in essence made a bid of 13 (since the sub was 8 and the tank was 5).


  • @war:

    I believe I get it now. When we played the original A&A we would give the Germans a tank to place in Libya and the Japanese a sub to place in th Sea of Japan. So if I am understanding this correctly, we would have in essence made a bid of 13 (since the sub was 8 and the tank was 5).

    Pretty much. :-)


  • The map is balanced in the 1941 scenario, if you play dice or out of box rules. I totally agree with the original poster.
    It’s just strategy dependent.
    Also for the tripple a fans, most of you play the same linear strategys and the same openings regardless if its LL or dice.
    The first is the let japan go crazy and push into europe with allies, I’d give it 40 % winning for allies without a bid.
    I don’t give much for your so called experience playing the same strategy 1000 times, it does not prove that its the best one. Maybe there is a different approach that you haven’t figured out lol.
    As for the latter not adapting your openings between low luck and dice is a sure sign of abysmal understandning of statistics.


  • wrath the problem with your statement here is that you are basically saying these players who play thousands of axis and allies games against thousands of opponets wouldn’t revise their strategy to all sorts of different forms. Say in revised if Japan lost a couple planes and some sea units on turn 1 and built 2 factories US could go pacific. Otherwise US goes all out germany. People that play thousands of games realize this and can instantly counter every move their opponet makes. A game with two experts is like a giant chess board, with both players Looking to counter on a possible minor mistake or capitalize on their 4 turn ahead thinking that chess grandmasters use. Great axis and allies players play the same way. They don’t do they exact same thing everytime, except for russia. The best way to play is play off of what your opponet does, and I know Zhukov knows this as well as many other posters on this thread. Bids are needed to balance games. Otherwise the game wouldn’t be fun at the expert level as whoever got allies in 1941 version would loose most games. Yes, low luck is a different game than dice since you can assure most outcomes and not get hosed in big important battles, but great players always start on dice for a hundred or more games before playing LL. Dice gets you started in the game and can give you the since of “what if I get unlucky here what do I do”, while LL gives you the idea as to what attacks are better and what units are more cost effective and why at a deeper level than dice. Lastly would you want to play as the allies in 1941 if you know you are going to loose most of the time? and if your answer is yes, why would you want to be on the loosing side?


  • @theROCmonster:

    wrath the problem with your statement here is that you are basically saying these players who play thousands of axis and allies games against thousands of opponets wouldn’t revise their strategy to all sorts of different forms. Say in revised if Japan lost a couple planes and some sea units on turn 1 and built 2 factories US could go pacific. Otherwise US goes all out germany. People that play thousands of games realize this and can instantly counter every move their opponet makes. A game with two experts is like a giant chess board, with both players Looking to counter on a possible minor mistake or capitalize on their 4 turn ahead thinking that chess grandmasters use. Great axis and allies players play the same way. They don’t do they exact same thing everytime, except for russia. The best way to play is play off of what your opponet does, and I know Zhukov knows this as well as many other posters on this thread. Bids are needed to balance games. Otherwise the game wouldn’t be fun at the expert level as whoever got allies in 1941 version would loose most games. Yes, low luck is a different game than dice since you can assure most outcomes and not get hosed in big important battles, but great players always start on dice for a hundred or more games before playing LL. Dice gets you started in the game and can give you the since of “what if I get unlucky here what do I do”, while LL gives you the idea as to what attacks are better and what units are more cost effective and why at a deeper level than dice. Lastly would you want to play as the allies in 1941 if you know you are going to loose most of the time? and if your answer is yes, why would you want to be on the loosing side?

    1. If you play thousands of times vs opponents that play the same strategys you, can play a million games and it still does not prove its the best strategy. If you don’t agree with my statement well I recooment to read a couple of pages from one of my favorite books called the black swan (author X. Taleb yes he’s an arab intellectual).
    2. We don’t talk revised here, its like comparing how you play doom compared to counter strike. We dont talk about chess here since its not even remotely the same. Instant counters aint the best counters, and your comparison to grandmasters are redundant they make mistakes all the time. And for sure there wouldnt be players like Kasparov and Carlsen that destroys grand masters.
    3. The difference isn’t just you can assess losses, the losses are much higher in low luck. This is an huge factor since axis have to push the game and make a lot of battles from the start of the game.
    Also you don’t have to adapt to volatility and have backup plans that is an huge skill factor and those players that go the same opening in low luck compared to dice don’t play good enough in my opinion.
    True the hose factor is important whats more important is to chose your battles and maybe not taking all battles you can go with rather take the battles you can afford to lose unless you been playing badly and got to gamble. Its all down to something called equity in poker terms its a profitable lesson if you don’t understand what I’m talknig about.
    I strongly disagree with that LL is deeper then dice, thats for me an absurd statement since in a game where the best option is murky (dice) is much harder to master then one where its mathematically guaranteed (LL).
    As I look at it a game with more correct strategically options are harder to master and you got more options in dice since the best strategy is losses dependent depending on the opening rounds. Since allies are the reacting side with position they benefit a lot from this. This is in my opinion a much more important factor then the oh I migth get hosed, because losses are higher in dice compared to LL the allied side get more options availible depending on how the initial battles go. Also the strategic reserv in the game is air units and air is the one you balance battles with, axis got way more air units and thus get a bigger bonus from low luck. That destroys the balance in the game in my opinion. It also takes out a lot of skill factors and replaces it with I got a good memory/opening book. Sure there are lots of people that prefer that since they just play to win and lose every game, since they miss out on developing themselves.
    4. I state the game is balanced. For me your statement is totally absurd saying that I’m on the losing side most of the time since I claim that both sides win about equal OOB, dice, if you play the proper strategys. I’m actually saying you only win 40 ish % of the time as allies if you go all in europe without a bid, go figure.

    5. I’ve had great fun playing tripple A where I’ve spent all games except one on suboptimal strategys where I’ve been theoretically on the losing side but hey I still won like 80 % of my games since people can’t adapt or in my opinion play well enough. My main goal has been to build two factorys as britts and whomp japan, let germany take Moscow and then still win the game. Playing the optimal strategy again after I’ve been playing it for years vs better opponents then most on tripple A is boring and probably someone will start to copy it. The latter I find very repulsive since I think you guys should look beyond your linear clown play, and base it on “ooh I need a bid to balance the game” and actually try to research other avenues, avenues I’m claiming is there THAT BALANCES the game.

    6. My next project is to play on tripple A and see how far down I can go with negative bids and still win the game, I bet I can fid some joe blow from idaho where I can get the bid down to 10 for axis and still win the game.

    7. And no I’m not even going to comment on your name dropping, and if you where going to name drop pick the best players to name drop.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Well Wrath, if you are correct, it would be easy to prove.  Challenge any of the top players on the ladder to a no-bid game of whatever preferences and play your Allied strategy against them.  If you are right, you should win 50%.

    But keep in mind the only games that would matter would be against expert opponents–playing some noob on TripleA and beating him with no bid proves exactly nothing.  Experience>bids by a large margin.  An experienced Axis player can easily defeat the 2 UK factory strategy–all you have to do is hold Japan and hold a few Japanese mainland bases until Germany can rescue you.

    There is an easy way to play using TripleA in the forums here, so if you were right you could challenge me or any other experienced player and demonstrate your contentions, and everyone reading this could observe the progress of the game.  So you’ve been formally challenged–bring it or shut it.

    The game is not balanced in dice–people have always played dice here (and at AAMC, where tech is also standard) and the bid just keeps going up, and no one agrees it is balanced at 0.  In tournament games (ie between some of the strongest experts in the world) on this site the bid is now going as high as 13, which is just as high as the standard low luck/no tech bid on TripleA.

    About 2 years ago, the majority of the users on this board shared your opinion (based no doubt on their face-to-face games) but after appropriate experience they changed their minds, as you will if you continue to play online.

    Playing the optimal strategy again after I’ve been playing it for years vs better opponents then most on tripple A is boring and probably someone will start to copy it. The latter I find very repulsive since I think you guys should look beyond your linear clown play, and base it on “ooh I need a bid to balance the game” and actually try to research other avenues, avenues I’m claiming is there THAT BALANCES the game.

    This quote reeks of ignorance.  First off, the best players on TripleA have played a wide wide variety of strats over the years.  Yamamoto was initially a KJF specialist who came after Japan every time and became the most advanced USA Pacific player at that time.  But nevertheless he eventually changed up his tactics in ladder games because he couldn’t beat the elite players that way.  Yet for a long time USA Pacific was the most common USA strategy on TripleA, and it only changed (fairly recently) when Axis strats improved to the point where USA Pacific was no longer viable.

    It may be true that ll/nt 41 play on TripleA has become overly technical and therefore is starting to get stale, but the same could be said for expert level play in Revised or any ruleset (or any chess-like game, for that matter).  It’s great that you desire to shake up the game but you come off as ignorant and arrogant when you assert the game is actually balanced without making an effort to prove it.

    People who cry about bids and want only “balanced” maps don’t understand competitive A&A.  The bid is a large part of what keeps the game interesting and diverse, because different bids lead to entirely different game outcomes.  When people create new Allied strategies in 41, a new bid strategy is typically part of the process.

    I agree with you on dice being a deeper and more complex game than low luck.  But the virtue of playing with low luck is that it is a fair contest where people =don’t blame losses on the dice.  If I lose a game in low luck it doesn’t bother me because I’ll have learned something from the loss.  But in dice people tend to blame losses on dice and sometimes don’t learn the right lessons.


  • Well Zhukov last time we played you bungled up the battleship outside hawaii and it ended up by stealing 1 hour of my life trying to explain statistics to a guy constatly saying I should study statistics. One game doesnt prove much, nor do I intend to show my best strat.
    The britt 2 factory strat isnt optimal but its jolly fun to play.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @wrath3:

    Well Zhukov last time we played you bungled up the battleship outside hawaii and it ended up by stealing 1 hour of my life trying to explain statistics to a guy constatly saying I should study statistics. One game doesnt prove much, nor do I intend to show my best strat.
    The britt 2 factory strat isnt optimal but its jolly fun to play.

    you may be confusing me with another zhukov.  I haven’t played a live game on TripleA for some time, though I do come on the lobby from time to time.  And arguing about statistics doesn’t sound like me.

    Anyway, you have my challenge.  Unless you can demonstrate that it’s possible to defeat experts with no bid, then you have no basis to claim you have knowledge of tactics that would change the game balance.

    The experts are the Top 5 players on the TripleA ladder–all honorable and creative strategists who give good games; as well as the Top 5 in the league standings in these forums.  Live games on the TripleA lobby are not useful statistically compared to ladder or league games, because people are more likely to fight hard and use optimal strats to win the league and ladder games.


  • Where is the postings for the leaderboards on tripple a?


  • Ive never heard of bids til recently. I can see both sides as it relates to classic 2nd ed. The game was more challenging for the axis and therefore i always played the axis cuz nobody wanted to. A bid system would have changed the human line up but it would have also biased the game. As it was…i got to be a strong axis player due to experimenting with different stratagies, deciding when to pull back, when to feint, and especially in the opening turns to push my numerical superiority to gain ipc and close the income gap before the allies could get mobilized. I cant speak to the other varients because i have limited play time in them, but i would imagine this to hold true. Im not knocking the bids but from my experience with classic, I see it as a custom rule that could be taken or left, but not necessary if you put in the time to play learn and stratagize.

Suggested Topics

  • 3
  • 7
  • 6
  • 2
  • 10
  • 21
  • 27
  • 47
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts