• We have a balance poll and we seem to have a growing discussion on how to tweak balance, but how, if we agree on what it is, should it be adressed. The options:

    1. Bids, simple and can be adjusted in detail, but takes away the beauty of a fixed set-up and can turn the game into a more predictable affair. For example, everyone might come to a consensus an infantry in Egypt and an artillery in Karelia is what is needed to balance the game and then some German openings become impossible, removing choices.

    2. Tech, as I’ve argued, should give the Allies more of a chance due to the fact that they’re less pressed for constant land unit buys and also have more air and naval units on the map to use techs. Of course, tech is more random and not appreciated by all due to that fact.

    3. Opt rules, should overall be negative to Axis since shielding Caucasus is really good for Russia. Interceptors goes both ways since a lot of players bomb Russia in AA50, Germany is no longer the only obvious SBR target in the game. Overall Allied-biased, but some think these rules eliminates some interesting strats from the game.

    4. China mod, from the making of China into a full power with IC and IPCs to just giving them the -42 setup or boosting their production or moving that fighter, a lot of people are thinking this is what to do to add balance in mainland Asia where Japan now reigns supreme. Sceptics, on the other hand, claim that the problem is Japan’s production and not China’s, and making China a full power might just give Japan an IC to grab.

    5. Tweak NOs, these are simple to change, and seems to be the main reason Axis has an advantage. Ideas might be to demand two of Karelia+Caucasus and Hawaii+India+Australia for the third NO, or change conditions to at-start NOs such as Japan’s home NO being void if Japanese units enter Soviet territory, or giving UK its at-start NO with 4 out of 6 of Wca, Eca, Gib, Egy, Saf and Aus instead of all. Allows for even more precise adjustments than bids, but getting people to agree could be troublesome!


  • Bids, that is all that is needed.  As we develop as allied players the game gets more and more balanced.


  • Bids, b/c this is an option which changes the game as little as possible. Optional rules are official, so we can use them if we want. I’m waiting for the SBR interceptors to be implemented in TripleA, not b/c they are needed for game balance, but it will decrease the randomness in game mechanics.

    Tech is probably not a factor which will change balance, but I don’t play tech so I wouldn’t know it it did 🙂

    As for tweaking NOs or China mod, or any other mod, those are house rules, so it’s an unacceptable choice imo, as long as we can easily change the balance with cash or units, this is a type of modification we can do and still avoid house rules.

  • '18

    I voted option 5 because I like the idea of negating a NO to Japan if they attack Russia. It seems more historical to me this way.

    Interceptors fighters and the Dardanelles strait options sound good but would need some play testing in my opinion.


  • When we’re discussion balance, I think we should separate changes which are strictly about balance, while other changes are the same as introducing house rules. I think we should discuss house rules and balancing issues separately.
    Unit bids have been used in classic, revised and AA50. Bids are also a “kiss” principle.

    It’s also worth mentioning that most players think that the balance is pretty good. Very few players think either side should get a +$10 bid, and in a setting with ADS, no tech, NOs, I would take either side with $5 bid.

    There’s no need for a major balancing of AA50 as such, a few units it’s all thats needed, so unless someone is really unhappy with some major aspects of AA50, the game balance is not a big deal.

    I don’t think we should expect a game balance like chess  🙂

    As long as the balance is not more asymmetric than revised, it’s good enough for all of us who play on line, we’ll be informed if one side starts winning almost all games.

    edit:

    What I really would like to try, is cash only bids. In this way the original setup is the same, but one side will get some cash so even if i.e. axis are favored in a LL setting and will attack and advance more than allies can defend, when giving allies a cash bid, the axis advance will be stopped, albeit later than with a allied unit bid, and then allies can start to push back axis, if they allies use their extra money wise enough.


  • It’s early to see what people want to do, but bids seem to be the most popular choice so far. Cash-only bids are better than unit bids I would say but it doesn’t add much historical flair or any more game-play value.

    The optional rules are historically grounded and makes good sense I think. They also have the advantage that they can be used with tech to balance Heavy bombers (interceptors). Tech is unlikely to be a dominant playing-style online since most people want less random play it seems. So on that note I favour opt rules and they also seem to be Larry Harris’ choice in that he added them on his site. Yes, even less house-ruly than bids, which, after all, are NOT mentioned in the rules at all…  😉


  • Thing that is nice about bids though is they can be used as a handicap as well against players with an uneven skill level.  That is why i prefer them.

  • Customizer

    you can still bid even if you accept a change to NOs.
    personally, I think the NOs are fun but WAY WAY WAY unbalanced.  By turn 3, the Axis are outproducing the allies AND have more units on the board AND those units are close to the fight.  I would argue that ALL axis NOs should be 2-3 IPCs instead of 5.


  • I kinda miss the “we dont need anything to achieve balance”-option, if I am allowed to say that here.
    As others have stated before me…the game could also just be perfectly balanced, but we just havent figured it out completely yet.


  • I mean, in Revised, the General consensus was that Allies had the advantages.

    Right now, do we have a general consensus? No. Some claim that Axis are at advantages. Others believe not. Some even believe Allies are at advantage. Give it more time before claiming for fixes.

    I personally like the bid rules in tournaments or other play. The bid system is not used to “balance” but rather to determine who plays what .Say I don’t want to play them unless you give me that much IPC. Someone can then bid lower to play with them, etc.

    Robert


  • AA50 balance discussions have gone through different stages. First, after a few games then we assumed axis are favored, now it’s more balanced.

    It’s also worth mentioning that w/o NOs allies are favored in both setups. And the 42 (+NO) scenario hasn’t been played extensively enough to determine any bias yet. In LL, 41, NOs, allies need a bid, probably 2 units.

    So why are most of us still inclined to continue to use unit bids, why not cash only bids? I think both AA50 and the upcoming AA42 could be more fun playing w/o changing the setup units, a strict cash only bid could affect game play even less, and for me it would be a new experience, as I have never tried cash only bids yet, only unit bids.
    Someone else who think we should try playing with cash only instead of unit bids?


  • I don’t like the idea of cash only bids for one reason, in LL axis turn 1 with no unit bid is disgusting.

    G1 Kar, Egypt, sinking of all UK boats except dd/trans.
    J1 Flying Tigers, US BB, 2 DD/Trans’s, all 3 islands + burma +kwang.

    As yes, i know the game isn’t supposed to be played LL but all those attacks can be done in dice as well, and axis have good odds on all and none are game ending if they fail.  Annoying yes, but not game ending.


  • Just to add one little thing, I know everyone thinks that the Europe half of the map is designed properly but the Pacific is where the problem is, I disagree.  If Egypt could hold till UK1 with most of its units Italy isn’t as big of a threat, that fig can reinforce India on turn 1, armor can attack India turn 2 with the TJ inf, it adds more options this way.  Also, the G1 setup is messed up, there should be absolutely no way to get all 3 NOs without serious risk, and there really is none on the G1 Kar.  With the G1 Kar and/or Egypt you force specific allied responses or they loose the game.  Also, the simple fact that Russia cannot last at all against a G push without serious UK help is another reason for the KGF format.  If egypt alone could keep its armor/fig on turn 1 that would open up some serious possibilities in the pacific in my opinion.  If Italy wasn’t making almost what russia was at the end of turn 1 and germany what russia and the UK combined almost, maybe the UK/US could focus a bit more in the pacific.  Perhaps if the UK didn’t have to invest every penny they have into a navy they could afford an IC on UK1 a bit easier.


  • @ Bugoo, if we play with cash only instead of unit bids, then obviously the bids must be higher, b/c unit bids are stronger b/c they are placed before the game starts. It’s only a matter of finding the right amount of cash.

    Probably, cash only bids should be twice as high as unit bids, but the priniple is mainly the same in both unit bids and cash bids. So would you give me 18 ipc cash with allies instead of a 9 ipc unit bid  😄

    My point is that before we tried to play with cash bids, we cannot say for sure if this is a better or worse solution as to balance the game, before we tried it. It’s just the same as I had to play several dice games to know that the game balance in AA50 is influenced by LL vs dice, while LL or dice didn’t effect game balance in revised.


  • @Omega:

    The bid system is not used to “balance” but rather to determine who plays what .Say I don’t want to play them unless you give me that much IPC. Someone can then bid lower to play with them, etc.

    Actually the bid does both.  It might not if both players bid zero, but other than two zero bids, there will be some sort of altering to the initial set-up with the bid.  Even $1 IPC is altering the set-up.  It’s probably so small to really affect the game, but it might alter soemones preffered buy for G1 (like 5 tanks and 2 inf, for example)


  • My FTF play group is trying several combinations of the above, and that wasn’t an option for the voting.

    Reducing NOs, optional rules (tweaked the interceptor rule to NOT subject the ftrs to aaa fire), and our own China mods (simpliest was to allow the ftr tyo be moved before the game starts).  Will these mods be played online or in a tournament?  Probably not, but I would rather have a balanced game in my FTF play group than worry about playing with universally accepted rules.

    One game in and we have a great game going.  More testing is needed, but the results are favorable.


    We have found that unless Japan is kept in check somehow, the axis will eventully prevail.  This is not easy to do af often Germany is the bigger problem early and you can not just ignore that problem.  Oh, and it’s not such an easy problem to address for the allies either.  Therein lies the issue.


  • My friend and i have tried many rule variences and have come to the conclusion that with NO’s and/or fighter escort the axis are too strong and tech simply is too much of an unknown and can unbalance both ways.  We’ve found the most fun and balanced game is no NO’s, no tech, no fighter escorts and closing of the Dardanelles.


  • But by not playing with NOs, the Pacific theater cease to be one : what’s the point of retaking islands if they do not benefit neither side?

    But if we “follow history”. Didn’t Rommel successfully pushed the UK forces in Africa and failed to destroy them because of lack of resources and Allies’ reinforcements?

    Right now, my group isn’t as dedicated as me. We don’t go and read all strategies. So we aren’t feeling any imbalancement yet. But I intend to suggest the bid system if they it. Otherwise, we usually use the dice. Highest gets to pick first, etc.

    Robert


  • /axis roll

    I took the easy way and just listed the alternatives. How did you change NOs in your group? We can set-up a larger poll if people want after this one.

    Another possibility for bidding would be to say: we bid number of territory changes to NOs. So if Allies win the bid with 2 territories, they might choose to make the third German NO need both KAR and CAU and then make the UK home NO count with 5 of 6 territories (i.e. Egypt can be lost and still get it).


  • @falconrider:

    My friend and i have tried many rule variences and have come to the conclusion that with NO’s and/or fighter escort the axis are too strong and tech simply is too much of an unknown and can unbalance both ways.  We’ve found the most fun and balanced game is no NO’s, no tech, no fighter escorts and closing of the Dardanelles.

    I play with the same rules except the closing of the Dardanelles.  I have found the game to be very balanced with that rule set so far.


  • @Lynxes:

    /axis roll

    I took the easy way and just listed the alternatives. How did you change NOs in your group? We can set-up a larger poll if people want after this one.

    We made the NO’s worth only $4 instead of $5.

  • '16 '15 '10

    Perhaps NO tweaking has some potential.  I think bids are best.

    Without NOs, Axis will need a bid of at least 10, maybe 15.

    With NOs, Allies need the bid.  Probably around 9-13.

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    AA50 does not need any balance. Look at the thread regarding results which show pretty clearly no issues.

    If anything China may need help to make it more playable, but thats not really addressing any balance issues but its just making China less dynamic because the flying tigers is destroyed in most cases and this leaves a sour taste historically, because thats how it went. The playtesters did a really good job on this game.

    However, if LL is played thats not AA anyway.

    AA is a dice game with strategy and lots of players.


  • "However, if LL is played that’s not AA anyway.

    AA is a dice game with strategy and lots of players."

    I agree with this.
    Playing a 6 players game is not the same as doing a 1v1. 6 players have different views of how to get things done. Because of that, funny things happen. Lack of cooperation, insults, good jokes, etc. I for one hate to have someone dictate my moves.

    Real dices is different from any program. It adds some “fun/surprise” to the game. Some people hates this, but I think it prevent games from becoming too linear. History is full of lucky/unlucky events

    Robert


  • @Imperious:

    However, if LL is played thats not AA anyway.

    AA is a dice game with strategy and lots of players.

    I strongly disagree with your statement on LL.

    FYI LL is still dice, and A&A with LL is still a strategy game, although with less randomness.
    A&A can be played by 2-6 players, so 1vs1 is within the rules.

Suggested Topics

  • 88
  • 46
  • 28
  • 20
  • 1
  • 82
  • 17
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

30
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts