April 2009 Balance Poll

I think the opposite: allies need at least 4 chinese inf in Yunnan to win 50% of times (bid of 12)

So far it seems that the best players usually win regardless of what side they are playing.  To me, that seems to be pretty well balanced.

@Mazer:

BTW - I still have only played the game a handful of times, so I don’t think I have an authoritative opinion on this at all.

But I’m guessing the bid will need to be at least $10 to the Axis.

We’ll see.

Thats nice, if you play TripleA I would gladly take a 10 bid for axis  8-) :-) :-D

I would also take a 10 bid for allies, so I guess that means that, imo, AA50 is not very unbalanced yet.
Of those 2 options, a 10 bid for allies or a 10 bid for axis, I would defintaly choose 10 for axis rather than 10 for allies.

Axis @10 FTW!!!   :mrgreen:

I think in the end the bid will be around 3-5 as allied players learn how to counter everything the axis throw at them.  The thing with AA50 in 41 is that even though you have a general plan, and builds that may not change, standard tactics change every game depending on the Axis battle plan.  Allied play after turn 1 must be very flexible in there attack moves.  Also, I feel Russia is very difficult to play properly and as we get better with Russia, the entire allied plan gets easier.  I think in the end Russia will take about 5 turns to fall without any allied support against Germany, and will last until at least turn 6 with minor allied help.  Also, i think as the crazy aggressive axis battle plans become countered we will see drastically different turn 1 moves from the axis, especially Japan.  For example, how at release everyone thought G1 Karelia and/or G1 Egypt was a must do attack and now, as the allies are learning to deal with this and turn it to there advantage, most players do not do these attacks.  I feel the same will happen to the Japan opening where they take Burma and threaten India hard, perhaps they will even begin to go after the 2nd US Pacific NO on turn 1!

You don’t think Egypt G1 is a must?

I’m in the small bid for the Axis category.  Maybe 3 to boost the G1 Egy assualt.  I do think that Ger must hit Egy.  Unless you place inf in Europe and go PE and try to hold Kar on G1.

For this reason I think any Allied bid would go directly to Egy.  It is much more strategically important than China.  If anyone gives the Allies 9 or 12 ipc you’ll see 3-4 inf placed on Egy, guaranteed.

This means Ger can’t attack and an Ita attack is scketchy as well with the Trj inf added in.  This means no Afr for the Axis at all, no Ita NOs and 100% focus on Europe from the UK immediately.  Not good.  I think China and SE Asia become irrelevant in this scenerio.

Agreed with Egypt, DM, (only with 9 or more bid, 6 is irrelevant due lost of UK z2 fleet, not sure about 7 or 8 bids), and that’s a good reason to bid chinese infs or chinese IPCs instead allied IPCs: Europe and Africa are NOT unbalanced, is Asia the broken one. All China stuff is a mess, but setup is specially crappy: you cannot solve this with old bid systems, you have to restrict the bid to chinese infs or chinese IPCs (to have, say a 11 IPCs bid for 2 inf, tank to yun)

Giving even more advantage to axis is killing a dead man

@Mazer:

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs

I’m assuming box rules on SBRs without any ‘fix’. Early, allies need them badly to survive. Later game, when axis economic advantage grows to 20-30 IPCs, Japan can bomb soviets to Stone Age. I don’t think a fix is needed for SBRs, even using techs (in fact, I think is more difficult abusing of SBRs without tech than with them, because there are 3 techs that counter SBRs campaings)

@Mazer:

Interesting.  At this point I am the only vote for giving a bid to the Axis.

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs.  A fix would certainly shift my opinion, but you have to assume box rules unless otherwise stated.

SBRs are not as broken as some thought when it first came out.  Not in 1941 anyway.

Both sides can use them, both sides can be hurt by them.

My assumptions are straight up box rules + whatever you voted for a bid.  House rules to nerf SBRs might shift the balance towards the axis, perhaps towards the allies.  Film at eleven.

@Mazer:

Interesting.  At this point I am the only vote for giving a bid to the Axis.

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs.  A fix would certainly shift my opinion, but you have to assume box rules unless otherwise stated.

Sadly, the ones who would give a substantial bid to axis, like $10 or more, don’t want to play against me in a  TripleA live game…  :cry:

And other players who claim that allies need a $20 bid to survive, are not interested in playing against me in a TripleA live game… :cry:

I think the most telling factor from my experience is with a 9 ish bid both Subotai and I have won as both axis and allies playing against each other in LL on TripleA using a large variety of tactics (i don’t think we have yet to repeat a turn 1 move for move).  Typically which ever one of us makes a mistake, looses.  And as our allied play gets better as the games go on, i feel our bid for allies will lower as well, being that playing allies is a very different beast in AA50 as simple TUV and income each round doesn’t tell the same story as it did in revised with the much larger playing board, IC limits, capital capture rules, and the NO rules.  Positioning is so much more important in AA50 that a 100ish TUV difference can easily be overcome.

@Funcioneta:

I think the opposite: allies need at least 4 chinese inf in Yunnan to win 50% of times (bid of 12)

With a bid system like almost all players use in AAR, open bid with pre. placed units, either one unit pr. TT, or several units placed in one TT. it would be stupid to place any bids in China, as you would get much more “bang for your bucks” with a placement in Africa or Europe. With cash only, which imo is a good alternative, the bids would go higher, but will not affect gameplay as much a unit bids.

I would be tempted to play axis against a 4 inf bid in Yunnan, assuming LL, no tech and NOs.

@Subotai:

I would be tempted to play axis against a 4 inf bid in Yunnan, assuming LL, no tech and NOs.

I would be also tempted, but sadly assuming LL and no tech is too much assume  :-D

Agree about the bid system. Because of that, we should change it to only chinese unit bids AND letting chineses exit from China

@Subotai:

@Mazer:

Interesting.  At this point I am the only vote for giving a bid to the Axis.

Is everyone assuming some fix for SBRs?  I’m assuming box rules on SBRs.  A fix would certainly shift my opinion, but you have to assume box rules unless otherwise stated.

Sadly, the ones who would give a substantial bid to axis, like $10 or more, don’t want to play against me in a  TripleA live game…  :cry:

And other players who claim that allies need a $20 bid to survive, are not interested in playing against me in a TripleA live game… :cry:

Because TripleA is flaky on people’s machines.  It’s far better to use Battlemap that works on everyone’s system, even if you are running an 80486SX chip and DOS 5.0 you can run Battlemap.

It may be far better for you to use battlemap, for one such as myself though TripleA has absolutely no drawbacks  :-)

It has become standard bid on TripleA using LL to give allies 7-9 bid, i believe even a 3 allied bid is standard for using dice.  I must say though the more games I play the more options I see for the allies, it is just very difficult for an allied player to adjust to the combination of axis moves.  AA50 has an ebb and flow so to speak in my opinion that income, positioning, TUV, etc all play a part in, esp with NOs that prevents you from doing the same old build/shuck so to speak with allies every game, as every game is different.  I’ve also noticed Russian play getting much tighter and better, usually getting there 2nd NO, previously thought impossible to get, as early as turn 3 or 4! (3 is my personal record).  I have also been seeing Russia denying Germany her third NO unless Japan gets it, I’ve seen Japan also denied her 3rd NO till turn 3-4 with good allied play.

Income does not tell the entire story, sure Germany gets some high income numbers, but, they can only produce 10 units unless they build an IC which can be threatened by the allies.  Those 10 units never seem to be enough when your building air to threaten allied fleets, trading 2-4 territories a round, and trying to stack up france and push Russia.  Japan gets some sickening income, but takes sooo terribly long to setup and after setup is vulnerable to a full US push against her in later turns.  The US income is fairly large as well, but she takes so terribly long to get into the fight.  The allies cannot hold in africa/south asia/china/etc, but they have some very potent harassing potential with there troops there.  It is a race against time for the allies to be sure, and Turn 2 is there turn, i’ve noticed alot of allied players try to get in there hits on turn 1 instead of seting up for something substantial on turn 2, I myself have been guilty of this.

In the end I feel the bid will be as low as 5 for allies, still do.

You know, I could see the allies needing a bid in Low Luck because the Germans and Japanese could calculate the absolute minimum needed to win and thus, be able to stretch even farther in the first round or two than they might otherwise (cause they would bring more to the battle to assure a victory).

I don’t think the allies, in 1941, are in the same boat.  They pretty much lose most of their starting units anyway, so it’s not like they can retaliate in the first few rounds with precision mathematics.

Of course, after about 5 rounds the board would even out again, but if the Axis got too strong a foothold in round 1 because they can use Math instead of Luck, the allies might not have a chance to rebuild and push back.  So yea, I could see the allies needing a bid in LL.

BTW, my indictment of TripleA was not to say it was a bad program, I was just trying to explain why people don’t use it.  It works fine for me, as long as I don’t try to play against a real human being.

Meanwhile, I have learned how to play with Battlemap on my cellphone.  I might be wrong here, but I don’t think TripleA is compatible with my iPhone or my Razr Rokr.

@Cmdr:

Meanwhile, I have learned how to play with Battlemap on my cellphone.  I might be wrong here, but I don’t think TripleA is compatible with my iPhone or my Razr Rokr.

So THAT’S how you play 30+ games at once!  :-) :-)