# Simple question: is the game balanced?

• I haven’t played much
but I guess some people around here did
so, is the game balanced?

does playing with NOs affect the game balance?
yes? no? to what side?
is playing with NOs necessary for the Axis to have a chance?
can I play with out NOs and have a balanced game?

• Without NOs = heavy allied favor
With = axis favor, bids for LL are around 7-10 (average 8).  LL=low luck.  With luck the balance is decided by the dice on axis turn one, but has a high chance of ending with an axis advantage.

• I have yet to see a single path to victory for either side (so far I think it is pretty good). I also believe there are degrees of depth to strategies for each side. I personally believe the Allies are often underplayed thereby giving the impression the Axis have the advantage. People often struggle with making the US effective which is critical for the Allies effort.

People put a lot of weight on the outcome of the Egypt battle to determine the course of the game, but the Allies have quite a bit do deal with the loss of Egypt on turn 1. At the same time, the Axis are far from sunk if they do not take Egypt on turn 1.

The game is designed to be played with national objectives, remove those and you will have a very different game.

• Axis is much easier to play, so give the noobier player the axis to start off.

without NOs = allies are favored, I suggest a high bid divided evenly between the 3 axis players
with NOs = axis are favored, I suggest a bid of 6-10, with the minimum that I am willing to play as the allies being an extra inf in both Karelia and Egypt minimum.  I would not bid less than 2 units, or more than 3, since more than 3 is way op.

• I have played over 50 games.  Dont play without the National Objectives.  It upsets the game balance.

That said the game is balanced.

But it is heavily strategy dependant.

Strategies are almost never equal. (and dice are well… dice)

You need to have a plan, stick to it, and know what your doing.  More so, also be able to identify what your opponent is doing and respond to that appropriately.  I believe that was larry’s intention and vision for this game.  It’s his masterpiece.

dont believe the bid hype about the allies needing help in a game with national objectives.

There isn’t a person on the site i  couldnt have a 50% or better chance of beating in a no bid game as the allies.  And that challenge stands.  There seems to be alot of people who agree to play against me, but dont :s ??? anyways…

The only issue as i have stated, is the comparative strategy paradigm which is still developing.  So put your Logistics cap on, and get in the fight to find out for yourself

• Myself have a way easier time winning with the allies.

Just stall the axis in the first few rounds and recover with superior economics.

In my mind, the easiest way to set up win circonstances in the 2 first rounds by achieving 3 main goals  :

• Sink Italian fleet asap.
• Prevent J2 taking of India
• Hold the eastern front with Russia

Once theses are achieved, it’s a walk in the park.

• I agree entirely with Gargantua.

I’ve played a dozen games so far and it’s been pretty evenly matched, with more or less equally experienced players.

Axis does seem to have an easier time of it, but good strategy on the Allies part goes a long way towards potential victory.

I’ve also always played WITH NO’s.  It does seem quite balanced to me.

• I have played over 50 games.  Dont play without the National Objectives.  It upsets the game balance.

That said the game is balanced.

But it is heavily strategy dependant.

Strategies are almost never equal. (and dice are well… dice)

You need to have a plan, stick to it, and know what your doing.  More so, also be able to identify what your opponent is doing and respond to that appropriately.  I believe that was larry’s intention and vision for this game.  It’s his masterpiece.

dont believe the bid hype about the allies needing help in a game with national objectives.

There isn’t a person on the site i  couldnt have a 50% or better chance of beating in a no bid game as the allies.  And that challenge stands.  There seems to be alot of people who agree to play against me, but dont :s ??? anyways…

The only issue as i have stated, is the comparative strategy paradigm which is still developing.  So put your Logistics cap on, and get in the fight to find out for yourself

You are absolutely correct sir! this is Larry’s masterpiece and I have found it to be exactly the way you described it. I feel it’s the best game ever made.

• Balanced? Hard to say.  I can say this, after many games I still feel as though I am no expert on the game, due to it being so diverse.  The other AA games would have started to get a little tedious or boring by now, not this game though.  As always the axis are more easy and direct to play, you will probably see them win much more often in your first 20 games.  After that though it becomes a lot more murky.  I would have to agree w/ previous posters, this is by far the greatest AA game and one of the greatest boardgames of all time, in my opinion.

• A bid of 6-7 (to the Allies) makes a big difference….without it Axis has a small edge, but that can easily be negated with bad Axis dice on G1 or J1.http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=14806.0;num_replies=9

I’ll need to play the game more before making a judgement on whether this is a better game than Revised.  It’s certainly more historical than Revised and the naval rules are better…the one drawback is the imbalance in Asia makes strategies a bit static–ie Allies go for Berlin and Axis goes for Moscow every game.

• I will happily play as the Axis against anyone without a bid, 1941 or 1942 With NOs.  (see me on tripleA)  :evil:

• I will happily play as the Axis against anyone without a bid, 1941 or 1942 With NOs.  (see me on tripleA)  :evil:

I’m on for a PBEM using TripleA
drop me a PM and we can set a game

• Me too Verqyn

• One big thing to keep in mind as far as balance goes is the dice and how aggressive the axis player is on turn 1.  If the axis player makes the attacks that are dicey but in his odds on turn 1, and does not get bad dice, the allies are in for a world of hurt, this is what makes low luck such a big factor.  However, if the axis uses T1 attacks in an effort to win, instead of playing not to loose, more times than not he will have the advantage.

Take for example the G1 attack on Egypt.  Even without the bomber he has a 57% chance to win that fight, 6% for mutual destruction.  If you add the bomber the odds get much better, 90% and usually 2 armor and a bomber left.  Now to use the bomber down there you are using 2 subs and 1 fig against the battleship, an 83% in your favor battle.  But if your dice are bad on those attacks, it can cost you the game.  For this reason, many axis players are ignoring Egypt on G1, but they do have the odds.

An even more disgusting opening is using the bomber in egypt, and using 3 inf, 1 art, 3 fig, 1 bombard on Karelia (78% almost 3 units left), and sinking the BB+transport.  Most of the time you will win these fights, and if you win all 3 allies may as well concede, but if you loose big on any of 'em (2 AA guns hit in Kar, BB lives, etc) you may as well concede.  What are the odds of winning all 3 fights?  I’m honestly not sure, other than in LL it is 100%.

• Good post Bugoo.

One thing you are inching on is how to deal with results (and how to interpret them). I have metioned in the past that far too many people believe that when they win it is good strategy, but when they lose the dice or bad (or the game is inbalanced).

A combat is deeper than a winner and loser, but each side can perform in two manners: rolling above odds, rolling below odds (it is possible to roll exact odds but that is not possible in most combats).

It is possible to roll below odds while your opponent rolls above odds and your combat goes horribly wrong. Does this mean your strategy is poor? no, it just means you have to do things differently to stay in the game.

I feel that far too many people try to do the quick kill and either win or lose on the first turn of the game (Egypt or Naval combat for G1).  This distorts the idea that the game is inbalanced or Germany must be even more extreme in order to win (or in some cases the Allies).

This is why I believe that good strategies can win despite rolling below odds.

• 58% for all those 3 attacks bogoo, but add in the odds for the 3 eastern europe attacks and its highly likely at least 1 of the 6attacks will fail

• @Pin:

58% for all those 3 attacks bogoo, but add in the odds for the 3 eastern europe attacks and its highly likely at least 1 of the 6attacks will fail

Which is why dice are important to the design of the game.  Yes, T1 Axis have great openings, but chances are that one of their many opening attacks will fail, and that is what the allies have to base their recovery on.  Unfortunately, in LL, none of their attacks fail, producing a relatively static game.
Good post bogoo, +1

• Actually the odds are better than 58, that is without the bomber at egypt.

Kar - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 3 fig, 1 cruiser bombard vs R: 5 inf, 1 art, 1 AA gun = 78% odds typically 3 units left
Egypt - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm vs B: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig = 90% odds typically 3 units left
SZ 2 - G: 2 sub, 1 fig vs B: 1 BB = 83% odds typically 1 unit left
Baltic - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 3 inf = 95% typically 3 units left
Poland - G: 2 inf, 4 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 5 units left
Ukraine - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 3 units left

Now those are pretty good odds, but with the small number of units anything can happen.  Baltic/Poland/Ukraine if you loose you were gonna loose anyway, and it still sets up the can opener for G2.  Provided you do not get diced hard in any of the fights, you should win, esp when your collecting 50+ IPC to spend on G2.  And of course, J1 can get dicey too, I’ve seen the pearl fight go south before, or the DD at india destroy 2 figs, etc.  Typically if J looses 2 figs on J1 and the DD at pearl your alright as allies, if they loose no figs, or keep the DD, it can get ugly real fast.  Same with the 3 inf vs 1 inf fights if they take that route in china.  Playing with dice though, I see no reason not to play to win on turn 1 with axis, the odds are in your favor.  Also, even when the dice do bite you, many allied players get too aggressive in there counter attacks on turn 1 making it hard for them to hit in force in the mid game.

• The issue I see with such an agressive first turn is the burn rate of infantry and inability to hold ground.

From those first moves I would set the US and British builds to prepare for a big invasion on turn 3. The resources necessary to stop/hold the invasion would eat into the majority of German builds meaning the East would be starved of support.  The natural result would be the Russians getting the +10 IPC’s for taking German soil.

In short, I believe the same (well, near same) can be acheived by taking a more conservative approach while not losing as many units and holding back the Red Hoardes.

I could be wrong, but that is how I see it.

• Actually the odds are better than 58, that is without the bomber at egypt.

Kar - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 3 fig, 1 cruiser bombard vs R: 5 inf, 1 art, 1 AA gun = 78% odds typically 3 units left
Egypt - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm vs B: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig = 90% odds typically 3 units left
SZ 2 - G: 2 sub, 1 fig vs B: 1 BB = 83% odds typically 1 unit left
Baltic - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 3 inf = 95% typically 3 units left
Poland - G: 2 inf, 4 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 5 units left
Ukraine - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 3 units left

Now those are pretty good odds, but with the small number of units anything can happen.  Baltic/Poland/Ukraine if you loose you were gonna loose anyway, and it still sets up the can opener for G2.  Provided you do not get diced hard in any of the fights, you should win, esp when your collecting 50+ IPC to spend on G2.  And of course, J1 can get dicey too, I’ve seen the pearl fight go south before, or the DD at india destroy 2 figs, etc.  Typically if J looses 2 figs on J1 and the DD at pearl your alright as allies, if they loose no figs, or keep the DD, it can get ugly real fast.  Same with the 3 inf vs 1 inf fights if they take that route in china.  Playing with dice though, I see no reason not to play to win on turn 1 with axis, the odds are in your favor.  Also, even when the dice do bite you, many allied players get too aggressive in there counter attacks on turn 1 making it hard for them to hit in force in the mid game.

Actually the odds are worse.  Although each of your 5 battles has very good odds individually, the odds of you winning ALL 5 of those battles is just 53% (multiply all your odds together as decimals).  And i do not know how you got those odd for Egypt, because 5 germany units vs 5 uk units = 41% win, not 90%

For a few other kinds of openings:

My Heavy without Karelia:
Seazone 2 (1sub,1bomb,1ftr): 95%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (1sub, 2ftr): 86%
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 3tank): 98%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 99%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 34% win + 7% no uk left = 41% (this attack is optional)
Chance of winning all without doing Egypt: 72% (<- a strong opening without NOs)
Chance of winning all with Egypt: 30%

My Risky with Egypt, without Karelia:
Seazone 2 (2sub,1ftr): 83%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (2ftr): 50% win + 15% no enemy left = 65% (optional attack)
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 3tank): 98%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 2tank): 99%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank, 1bomber): 75% win + 5% no uk left = 80%
Chance of winning all without doing sz12: 59% (<- a strong opening with NOs)
Chance of winning all with sz12: 38%

Super Risky with Egypt and Karelia:
Seazone 2 (2sub,1ftr): 83%
Seazone 6 (1sub): 40% win + 20% no units left = 60%
Karelia (1bombard, 3inf, 1art, 3ftrs) = 78% chance (ftrs: if you lose zero you have 89% chance winning, lose 1 ftr you have 68% chance winning, lose 2 ftr you have 35% chance)
Baltic States (4inf, 1art, 1tank): 98%
East Poland (1inf, 4tank): 99%
Ukraine (2inf, 1art, 1tank): 97%
Egypt (2inf, 1art, 2tank, 1bomber): 75% win + 5% no uk left = 80%
Chance of winning all without doing sz6: 49%
Chance of winning all with sz6: 29%

IL’s Not Risky without Karelia and Abandon Africa:
Seazone 2 (1sub,1bomb,1ftr): 95%
Seazone 6 (1sub, 1ftr): 92%
Seazone 12 (1sub, 2ftr): 86%
Baltic States (1bombard, 5inf, 2art, 1tank): 100%
East Poland (1inf, 4tank): 99%
Ukraine (pulling 1inf and 1tank from africa: 3inf, 1art, 2tank): 100%
Chance of winning all: 74% (<- Strong opening with or without NOs, though Italy will never get its NOs)

I believe that is pretty much all 4 different openings with Germany that people use, subject to slight modifications and subject to what you decide to buy as germany.

• Actually the odds are better than 58, that is without the bomber at egypt.

Kar - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 3 fig, 1 cruiser bombard vs R: 5 inf, 1 art, 1 AA gun = 78% odds typically 3 units left
Egypt - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 2 arm vs B: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 fig = 90% odds typically 3 units left
SZ 2 - G: 2 sub, 1 fig vs B: 1 BB = 83% odds typically 1 unit left
Baltic - G: 3 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 3 inf = 95% typically 3 units left
Poland - G: 2 inf, 4 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 5 units left
Ukraine - G: 2 inf, 1 art, 1 arm vs R: 2 inf = 98% odds typically 3 units left

I wasnt saying it was the individual odds for Egypt, i was talking about ALL 3 succeeding in the same game. Basic odds maths state that you have to multiply the odds for each of the individual battles as decimals to get the odds for a all out success.

For youre 6 attacks G1 the odds for all beeing successfull would be:
0.78 x 0.90 x 0.83 x 0.95 x 0.98 x 0.98 = 0.53 = 53% chance of success. Remember these numbers just state its a 53% chance you will win ALL 6 battles with at least 1 remaining unit after the battle. But thats a crappy result if you only have 1 unit left in each of them, so if you want the typical result as you type after in each battle the odds would probably be around 10% even though i havent calced those. I know a lot dont have the statistical background, but these considerations are very much important to take into consideration to make a good strategy in a dice game like AA50. Off the board the Axis looks so very powerfull before turn 1, but doing around 20 attacks combined for all the axis turn 1 will make one or more attacks fail and then again lead to an opening for the Allies to exploit.

Offcourse an all out offensive every game will lead to a round where everything is successfull and you will almost decide the game in turn 1. But this is not a versatile approach that will make you win games on a consistent basis. I would try to come up with an opening where you with a high chance will stand so strong that whatever the dices throw at you, you will still be in position to win the game.

• forgot to list the bomber at egypt

What would the odds be on how many fights would go bad, like for example, if 53% of the time i will win all 6, how often would i win 5, or 4, or 3?  Or how badly I would loose them?  Because if I lost Kar but got all other 5 I would still be happy.  I’m not trying to be argumentative i’m just bad with statistics and curious.  I normally play LL anyway.

• forgot to list the bomber at egypt

What would the odds be on how many fights would go bad, like for example, if 53% of the time i will win all 6, how often would i win 5, or 4, or 3?  Or how badly I would loose them?  Because if I lost Kar but got all other 5 I would still be happy.  I’m not trying to be argumentative i’m just bad with statistics and curious.  I normally play LL anyway.

If you include the bomber, you chance of winning OR eliminating all units in Egypt is = 80%, so that total for you would be 47%, not 53%.
I’m guessing the chances for winning 5 would be around 35, winning 4 around 15, winning 3 around 2.5%, winning 2 around 0.4, winning 1 around 0.1.
I’m not willing to do the math right now, but I do want to do it at some point.

Ok, so using NCn = N!/(n!(N-n)!), we find that
there is only 1 way to win them all,
6 ways to only win 5,
15 ways to only win 4
20 ways to only win 3
15 ways to only win 2
6 ways to only win 1
1 ways to lose them all

Odds = P = {.78 , .80 , .83 , .95 , .98 , .98}
Q = 1 - P = { .22 , .20 , .17 , .05 , .02 , .02}

Matrix that shit….
etc. etc.
do the rest tomorrow

• Thanks mate, because in all honesty if the odds came down to -

47% of winning all 6
75ish of winning 5, i still feel it would be worth it.  Even if you lost one of the big three, your still in a strong position and can simply take fewer risks with Japan’s turn.  Because even if you loose against the BB, or Egypt, or Kar it wouldn’t be a game ender, now if you lost 2 of them, well that would be bad.  Now I guess the question would be, how much of an advantage or disadvantage you would have if you lost one of those, or two of those.

91

8

7

21

2

4

20

3