Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Alternate bidding scheme


  • 2017 2015

    Well… may be we should make a step back from trying to catch all historic references and limitations.
    After all we all know the good guys lost in WW2…. Just kidding of course  :mrgreen:

    Axis lost the War, but A&A should be a balanced game, not a way to play out again what happened back then to a 100%.

    On a technical level: we should not try to focus on what each power was capable of at the end of WW2. Sure…

    • Russians tanks and men were crazily outnumbering Germans, but that was also due to the fact that stupid “prestige” battles were fought for the cities with fancy names instead of going after the proper targets
    • Japan attacked US, but didn’t accomplish all what they aimed for (e.g. destroying the oil depots, dockyards and carriers), so pacific fleet was able to easily compensate for the losses in due time

    Isn’t a goal of that game to give us coffee table generals the possibility to avoid these mistakes so that it wont happen that e.g. Russia is able to outproduce Germany eventually?

    In my first games on 1940 1st Edition, when Germany made some wrong moves on the Russian front line and invested IPCs in worthless goals, it easily came to that disaster, and suddenly I felt like sitting in the Führerbunker in Berlin wondering what Allied Power would capture it first…

    And back to our current discussion: I think A&A is STRONGLY designed on the fact that Moscow can only go down or at least be minimized to Moscow for a final all deciding battle, while Germany needs to distribute its resources for that goal while maintaining western Europe under its rule.

    US should be hard to play, decide how and when it can intervene and they should be the last chance for an allies victory. If Russia has a real chance to win against Germany… then what is US good for? They easily can crush Japan right now with the infamous KJF strategy.

    Has anyone tried this proposed increase of Russian income or sth similar?



  • After all we all know the good guys lost in WW2…. Just kidding of course :mrgreen:

    I bet you are German, Elrood?
    Don’t worry, it won’t be held against you :-D.

    I have used a ~12-bid to add all Russian Units, once. And it didn’t make much of a difference against a G4J4 used against me that time. If used in the Med it certainly would have been of better use… Don’t know what it could have done against a different axis strategy, though.

    Whoever is interested in knowing what would have happened if certain historical mistakes would not have been made: A&A is not the right game for that. It is certainly a fun game, but with more similarities to chess than with WWII, I’m afraid.

    Moscow is definately the kick-dog of this game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCARDozMEU
    Aren’t the developers Americans? If so, this is probably by design :P.
    But seriously. I think you are right about Russia being designed to go down economically. I don’t like it, but if Russia could hold their own against Germany, it would certainly be moot to play the game (USA would kill Japan, while UK + Russia sandwich Germany). Though it could be a little harder for the axis to reduce Russia to an economic non-factor.



  • @variance:

    @amanntai:

    The final blow was dealt by the US in its invasion of continental Europe and push into Germany.

    Bagration.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6UkVl3ZFuI&list=ELlzBS5WrPu4s&index=10

    EDIT:
    What Germany faced in June 1944:
    Allied troops on D-day: 156,000
    Soviet troops in Operation Bagration: 2.4 million

    D-day was a very small portion of the US military during WWII. In total, the US had over 16 million serving in the military throughout the war, only about 500,000 of them died. The USSR had more troops committed, but also far heavier casualties.



  • @KimRYoung:

    The Russians produced more tanks then the Americans (and certainly better tanks); twice as many artillery pieces, and twice as many soldiers as the US. Russian aircraft production exceeded Germany throughout the war (and Germany’s went UP every year through 1945). An extra income bid for the Russians makes far more sense than for the US.

    Eliminate the pre-game unit bid for the Allies (effectively the UK) this allows the Russians get the income Bid each turn. With no extra units for the UK, Italy can make a fight for the Med and assist the Germans in Russia. The Eastern front is now a battle of uncertain outcome every game, and if Germany knocks out Russia, the extra income for the Allies is gone! (It never goes away for the US).

    The original post is the right idea; it�s just for the wrong country. I gotta go along with Vance and Garg on this, and I think it makes for a better game all around.

    Kim

    I haven’t had time to look up the statistics on unit production in the USSR and US during WWII, but your post does neglect one rather important factor: Naval Production. The USSR was by no means outproducing the US in that regard, and the US, fighting a largely naval war in the Pacific, obviously put a large portion of its production into naval vessels. I don’t know whether that outweighs the extra Soviet production in other areas, but it certainly would affect it.

    But those are excellent gamewise reasons for shifting the bonus to Russia.



  • @ItIsILeClerc:

    After all we all know the good guys lost in WW2…. Just kidding of course :mrgreen:

    I bet you are German, Elrood?
    Don’t worry, it won’t be held against you :-D.

    I have used a ~12-bid to add all Russian Units, once. And it didn’t make much of a difference against a G4J4 used against me that time. If used in the Med it certainly would have been of better use… Don’t know what it could have done against a different axis strategy, though.

    Whoever is interested in knowing what would have happened if certain historical mistakes would not have been made: A&A is not the right game for that. It is certainly a fun game, but with more similarities to chess than with WWII, I’m afraid.

    Moscow is definately the kick-dog of this game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCARDozMEU
    Aren’t the developers Americans? If so, this is probably by design :P.
    But seriously. I think you are right about Russia being designed to go down economically. I don’t like it, but if Russia could hold their own against Germany, it would certainly be moot to play the game (USA would kill Japan, while UK + Russia sandwich Germany). Though it could be a little harder for the axis to reduce Russia to an economic non-factor.

    Hmmm… an interesting point. If the game is made truly historically correct, can the Axis ever win? In this case for the sake of game play Russia cannot be historically correct, for the same reason France is not historically correct.



  • @KimRYoung:

    The Russians produced more tanks then the Americans (and certainly better tanks); twice as many artillery pieces, and twice as many soldiers as the US. Russian aircraft production exceeded Germany throughout the war (and Germany’s went UP every year through 1945). An extra income bid for the Russians makes far more sense than for the US.

    Well acording to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II,
    the US, USSR land units production was as follows:

    | | US | USSR |
    | Tanks & SPGs | 102,410 | 106,025 |
    | Artilery | 257,390 | 516,648 |
    | Personnel | 10,000,000 | 20,000,000 |

    but US fought a naval war in Pacific so major part of its production went to navy. As for air force US produced 324,000 planes, USSR 136,000.

    Interesting are GDP data, before the war US was 800 b$, USSR 359 b$, during the war USSR went down to 274 b$ in 1942 but by the end of the war it recovered back to the prewar level. As for US however GDP was gradually rising, reaching almost 1500 b$ by the end of the war.

    So if Moscow manages to protect east from Japan it shall still be able to make about 23 IPC = 18+ 5 (Iraq). If it even managed to collect 5 IPC from lend&lease NO then it would be 28 IPC which is perfect match to the historical drop of GDP (28/37 ~ 274/359). So I would say Russia’s economy is reasonably accurately modeled in the game. What makes it hard for Russia in my games is that Germany can allocate almost 100% of its resources on Eastern front. If this was the case historically I believe Moscow would not be able to hold. The reason why there is no western front in my games is poor US or I would also say rich Germany and strong Japan. With OOB rules, US has to focus on Pacific early just to slow down super strong Japanesse. So just few bucks are left for European theater… which typically would not accomplish anything significant in Europe anyway so I also rather allocate them to Pacific as well.

    But without pre-placement bids, axis can get control of ME so easily so I believe US is forced to enter European theater early. With western front opened Germany has to allocate resources to West so Russia gets more air to breathe.

    So I believe boosting US (by extra income) and Italy (by removing pre-placement bids) shall result in opening of Western and African fronts early and thus help Russia as well. I am worried that by pure Russia boost we would get two separate games (Germany against Russia and US against Japan)

    I would also not mind to remove some of the starting Japanese military (so US can allocate more into E. theater) and weaken German economy (probably by downgrading its lebensraum NOs). But all of these go beyond a simple bidding scheme and are real rule modifications. Well, I would be happy to playtest anything that would make the game better but would be hard to actually agree on it as a community. Gamerman started his house rule project http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.msg1206272#msg1206272 18 months ago. He is changing so many things and initially was getting a lot of feedback but the project is kind of dead now(no activity this year yet).



  • @nerquen:

    (…)
    Interesting are GDP data, before the war US was 800 b$, USSR 359 b$, during the war USSR went down to 274 b$ in 1942 but by the end of the war it recovered back to the prewar level. As for US however GDP was gradually rising, reaching almost 1500 b$ by the end of the war.

    So if Moscow manages to protect east from Japan it shall still be able to make about 23 IPC = 18+ 5 (Iraq). If it even managed to collect 5 IPC from lend&lease NO then it would be 28 IPC which is perfect match to the historical drop of GDP (28/37 ~ 274/359). So I would say Russia’s economy is reasonably accurately modeled in the game. What makes it hard for Russia in my games is that Germany can allocate almost 100% of its resources on Eastern front. If this was the case historically I believe Moscow would not be able to hold. The reason why there is no western front in my games is poor US or I would also say rich Germany and strong Japan. With OOB rules, US has to focus on Pacific early just to slow down super strong Japanesse. So just few bucks are left for European theater… which typically would not accomplish anything significant in Europe anyway so I also rather allocate them to Pacific as well.

    But without pre-placement bids, axis can get control of ME so easily so I believe US is forced to enter European theater early. With western front opened Germany has to allocate resources to West so Russia gets more air to breathe.

    So I believe boosting US (by extra income) and Italy (by removing pre-placement bids) shall result in opening of Western and African fronts early and thus help Russia as well. I am worried that by pure Russia boost we would get two separate games (Germany against Russia and US against Japan)

    I would also not mind to remove some of the starting Japanese military (so US can allocate more into E. theater) and weaken German economy (probably by downgrading its lebensraum NOs). But all of these go beyond a simple bidding scheme and are real rule modifications. Well, I would be happy to playtest anything that would make the game better but would be hard to actually agree on it as a community. Gamerman started his house rule project http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25260.msg1206272#msg1206272 18 months ago. He is changing so many things and initially was getting a lot of feedback but the project is kind of dead now(no activity this year yet).

    Indeed interesting data, nerquen!
    I know (also from some historical simulations) that Russia transported its European factories into Urals and destroyed those they couldn’t. German reinforcements certainly had to come all the way from German cities. Russia also lost a few European resources (resources + fatcories = production), but those that were lost were replaced by lend lease.

    The fact that they shortly went down from 359 to 274 was due to the fact that the world held its breath because they were certain Russia would go down. After it became clear Russia would not go down, lend lease started to flow in and Russian production was restored.

    Side note that I find very interesting: German troop numbers in Russia (~2,500,000) remained pretty steady during '41 - '43 because their reinforcement rate was roughly equal to their loss rate. Russian troop numbers however, went from ~2,500,000 in '41 to 4,500,000 in '42 without lend lease. Production is one part of a war machine, manpower certainly is the other part. During '43 the Russian troop numbers went up to 6,000,000….



  • @nerquen:

    So if Moscow manages to protect east from Japan it shall still be able to make about 23 IPC = 18+ 5 (Iraq). If it even managed to collect 5 IPC from lend&lease NO then it would be 28 IPC which is perfect match to the historical drop of GDP (28/37 ~ 274/359). So I would say Russia’s economy is reasonably accurately modeled in the game.

    Hmm, does Germany really need so much NO money for Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow? This somehow goes totally against scorched earth policy employed by Russians. Germans did not increase their war production much by conquering scorched USSR’s territories. So instead of making Russians richer, making Germans less rich might be a better option to improve the game in European theater. Less money for Germany might also bring KGF allied strategy back into the game. Hmm, not sure what a design purpose of +5 for Russians cities was, but if it was supposed to create a history like long battles for Lenigrad and Stalingrad it just failed to do so. There is no way that Russia can spread its army so wide, German mechanized units and Luftwafe can easily force Red army to turtle in Moscow.

    The original rules had German NO slightly differently. +5 for keeping Western front safe and +5 for capturing at least one of  Leningrad or Stalingrad (but not 10 if both are captured). I guess 1st edition had KGF as such a dominant strategy that designers tried to discourage it in the 2nd edition. So Germany got additional NO of +5 for Moscow and they made opening of western front less attractive for allies (moved NO from keeping W front safe to double the NO for Stalingrad and Leningrad). But all those changes together with VC condition change just overshoot it and suddenly KGF is not plausible, and rules force allies into KJF in competitive play. Reverting some of those changes might bring the KGF strategy back into the game.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    The German Russian NOs are messed up.
    Stalingrad was worth as much to Stalin as Hitler, yet only the Germans gain money for owning it and the other cities too.
    Give the NO to both or neither side.  I am inclined to remove the NO fro Leningrad, as it is too easy to attain anyway.
    I am hoping to start a game soon, with that removed and an at War bonus to Russia and The US.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    From what you’re describing, Wittman, I think you may be overcompensating.  Unless you want the Allies to have the advantage…

    I don’t think the idea behind NO’s is that they are hard to get.  I think Leningrad is a very appropriate NO for Germany.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Hi Gamerman. thanks for your input. I am not as good a player as you and others here and am finding it more and more hard to win as the Allies. I would like to redress the balance and make it more historically accurate. I am enjoying this game less and less and am sad. I want to find something that tilts it back the other way. I want Russia to hold its own, without UK Fts and Mech in its backyard.  And yes, I would like to see the Allies prevail, as they did.
    I said I am happy for Germany to have the Leningrad NO, as long as Russia also gets it and the others.
    Variance suggested 3 per VP city. That would be a start.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    It’s a pretty good map (the game board) to work with -

    I am house-ruling the heck out of this game too, so am certainly not pointing any fingers.

    I also think it can be a fun game while being much more accurate in the ways I want it to be accurate  😄
    Hoping to work on and finish my project this summer, maybe after my 5 current games are winding down

    I am also pretty dis-enchanted with the 2nd edition version of the game - lot of good things done with the game by the developers - lot of good things still begging to be done.



  • Do you guys think the 2nd edition is more or less balanced than the various Alpha versions?


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Hard to remember, Calvin, but if I recall correctly, OOB and Alpha2 were weighted in the Allies’ favor?

    2nd edition is actually pretty close to balanced I think

    Bids are around 15 to the Allies, and in 221 league games this year, Axis win percent is .511

    Considering there is about 3,600 TUV on the board at game start, I think bids of 12-20 are pretty small, so is pretty well balanced considering the developers changed so many rules from Alpha2 to Alpha3 (Alpha3 is nearly identical to 2nd edition, although an infantry was removed from Egypt)

    So if you put the infantry back on Egypt that they took away, that’s another 3 you could take off bids.

    If you put a sub in 98, an infantry on Egypt, and bid from there, I think you could have bids much closer to 0 and standardize the game start more.  (Other “standard placements” than my suggested ones could certainly be used)

    But again, my major point is that the developers took an infantry off Egypt, and that went in the wrong direction in my opinion (taking a key infantry away from the Allies)



  • @Gamerman01:

    2nd edition is actually pretty close to balanced I think

    Bids are around 15 to the Allies, and in 221 league games this year, Axis win percent is .511

    Somehow my impression is different, I personally don’t have an idea how to win with allies. I tried to search in the league games of top players and all the allied victories I saw were more less due to either the bad luck or a mistake of Axis player rather than a solid strategy of Allies. Gamerman, could you please point me to a game (or two) of top players (tier 1 or E) where Allies won and there was not much bad luck nor an important mistake on the Axis side? Thanks in advance. I looked on the Axis vs Allies record in the games of tier 1 and tier E players couple weeks ago and it was 33:18 in Axis favor. I did not try to replay all those 18 allied victories, but all I replayed were strongly influenced either by bad luck or a mistake on the Axis side.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    Sure

    I am aware that top players take Axis and win.  But I thought we were talking about the average now - average players.  Fact is, Allies are winning their share of games.  Also a fact that I am currently of the persuasion that in a hot game against a top opponent I want the Axis.  (Don’t tell Ghost, who I’ll probably be playing for the league championship)

    I’ll check league records, including last year, again, to try and find examples for you.

    For starters, there’s my current game against bmnielsen - I believe I am in command with the Allies, vs. the bomber strat, and have not really been lucky, I don’t believe.  In fact, his early airstrike on my 91 fleet went very well for him, though I shot down a couple bombers after that to help make up.

    Looking at my own records, I also killed JuanSpain (who has a good record this year somehow) in six rounds with the Allies, game ended 10/6/14. 
    Also defeated Boldfresh with Allies, game ending 7/1/14.  According to my notes, the game was definitely decided by round 13 if not earlier, though he played it out through 20, as Bold is wont to do.
    Before that, I defeated Hobo for the league championship using the Allies, 9 rounds.  Game ended 3/25/14. 
    Defeated Alexgreat in the 2nd playoff game last year using the Allies, 6 rounds, game ending 2/20/14. 
    Defeated Wheatbeer in 4 rounds, game ending 7/18/13.  Wheatbeer was a very successful Axis specialist at the time. 
    Also defeated Wheatbeer in 9 rounds, game ending 7/6/13.
    Defeated Infrastructure 6/22/13, 18 rounds (was decided long before that, when Russians started pushing back around round 😎
    Defeated Snakeeyes Spring 2013 7 rounds.

    Perhaps if you looked at these games you will conclude that I was lucky in some, or there was a significant skill difference.  But I have had little trouble winning with Allies
    In fact, I went 18-3 with them in 2013 (and yes, 7-0 with Axis) although many games were against weaker players.
    I would argue that 1 or 2 of the losses were due to dice, though.

    Anyway, I’m not actually arguing with this anecdotal evidence that the Allies are on par with the Axis.  I’m just giving evidence that the Allies can’t be THAT disadvantaged when I’ve had this much success with them, including the last two games of last years’ league playoffs!


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    We’re only halfway through this league year, so you should probably look at last year too.

    Ghostglider and Boldfresh have had a lot of success with the Allies.  Pretty much all of their wins are against upper competition.

    Ghost has 2 very quality Allied wins this year.  2-2 with Axis, though.
    Seems you just have to know what you’re doing with the Allies.



  • How did you beat someone as the Allies in 4 rounds?


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    My 2nd game against Wheat I won on G1, Calvin.  His France blew up in his face and he gave up.

    I’ll see if I can find the 4 round game.  Basically, if the Axis player sees he can’t win, he quits.


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    See for yourself.  Failed Sealion.  Russia already has Scandy and is in Europe.



  • Yes, Gamer, impressive record you have as allies :-D.

    I’m with Nerq in this, although I am not out of allied ideas yet, but may I ask the question a bit differently then?
    For two players with equal skill, no bid (need to have a neutral reference point) and perfectly neutral dice. All combats run 100% like predicted by the BC. Do you think the allies have an equal chance?


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then

    Wait.  It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.

    If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance.  And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.

    Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag.  I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.



  • @Gamerman01:

    If we could add to the premise that neither player knows the results are going to be neutral (that is, they are not playing low luck or something), then

    Wait. ��� It also depends on whether these players of “equal skill” have low, medium, or high skill.

    If I assume both have equally “high” level skill and experience, I would say no the Allies do not have an equal chance. ��� And apparently almost everyone agrees with me, because in league play the Allies always have a bid.

    Thank you ItIsLe, although I want to say I am not trying to brag.���  I was just trying to give evidence that the Allies are not all weak and helpless.

    Thanks for the smart answer Gamer. And no worries about any bragging ;-).


  • '14

    I’m not sure anyone would dispute that Allies have won their fair share of games with a preplacement bid. But OOB there is surely a concensus that the board is Axis advantage in 2nd ed right? As Gamer points out bidding is standard in league play and even among competive players the bid it pretty high by A&A standards (into the double digits.) If Allies are taking a pair of subs, or even 3 subs for UK to squash Italy, or use other preplacement units knock off a large chunk of Axis TUV right out the gate, then it’s not unreasonable for Allies to chalk up some wins. Question is, how much do you need on starting income or with a recuring income bonus to match this?

    I think the ideal would be a bid alternative, rather than an income boost that augments an existing preplacement bid. Players might grumble about the loss of UK subs, but it just seems easier to go all one way, rather than doing some kind of hybdrid, with extra starting units and extra income. I say nix preplacement and take it back to the OOB unit set up, but this would likely need the income boost to be pretty large to compensate for the Italian TUV that UK isn’t destroying in the first round, and the fact that Italy could once again have an impact on the endgame. This later point is significant. Consider that even if you give USA a recuring income bonus, Italy will likely receive a sizeable recuring boost as well, since it will be harder for UK to lock them out of the med and raid them out of existence. Also, as others have noted, an income bid on the periphery (USA) is rather less effective than one at the center (Russia), so I’d think you’d want to go pretty high with it for USA. A cap at 6 ipcs seems a bit low to me for example.

    I think others in this thread have already noted that stuff, just wanted to join in the chorus. I like the idea, but I know it will take time to arrive at a concensus. Balancing on the razors edge and all.

    😄


  • 2015 Official Answers '11 '10 Moderator

    OK, Elk, but what do you think about at least adding back the UK infantry in Egypt that was taken away from Alpha3 to 2nd edition?  You indicate you don’t care for double digit bids…


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 12
  • 13
  • 2
  • 5
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games

50
Online

13.1k
Users

33.3k
Topics

1.3m
Posts