VCs are irrelevant in AA50, it doesn’t matter if it is 13, 15 or 18 VCs. Decent players concede when they think they can’t win. I have never achieved 13 VCs in AA50, and neither have my opponents.
VCs are only for new players who don’t know how to play, and/or end the game, but it doesn’t take many matches to learn the basic understandings of the game.
Approximately 70%-75% of US war production went against Germany during WW2.
@Imperious:
I think you need different solutions for different games:
- 1941
- 1942
- 1941 with no’s and tech
- 1942 with no’s and tech
Maybe we need different solutions, but first and foremost, we need different amount of bids for each setting.
As for the balance, it’s pretty obvious for those who haven’t figured it out, AA50 has been out for more than a year.
41 w/o NOs allies are favored, my guess is that the bid does not need to be much higher than AAR.
42 w/o NOs, allies are favored, my guess is that the bid does not need to be much higher than AAR.
41 + NOs, axis are favored, bids should be 6-10 ipc to allies.
42 + NOs, axis are favored, bids should be 6-10 to allies, maybe higher? But not much more than 10 ipc.
This is valid when “pretty” experienced players in a 1vs1 setting where both players use the tactics and strats that is most efficient, no fun games or multi-player-circus.
And tech is like Yhatzee, we don’t use bids in yhatzee do we?
LL (and no tech) helps A&A become more like chess, which is a good thing, imo.
The blitzkrieg worked fine against France and western Europe in the beginning, but it did not work well against Russia, b/c the Russian TTs are too big, meaning too many km2 to cover.
Germany needed higher production, and/or should went into total war modus from 1939, then they could attack Russia in 43-44 sometime. But the blitzkrieg or other tactical concepts are never more important than numbers of tanks, soldiers, aircraft, and technology for winning several big battles like happened in WW2.
@ABWorsham:
@Subotai:
Imo, no, WW2 was all about production, tech, manpower and what allied powers you had.
While manpower won WW2 special forces played an important role. The British commando raids on Norway played a major role in Germany’s decision to build up major forces in the region. When Germany surrendered in 1945, over 400,000 German service men were stationed in Norway!
Germany should never invade us in the first place… :-D
My point is that the “special forces” of WW2 did not play an overall important role, compared to what modern special forces can do during peace time, and against third world countries who does not have a modern army.
I would say, even if the British commandos was better than the average British soldier, I think it was the “hit and run” tactic which was very wisely used in Norway, as compared to a small number of soldiers who was better trained than the usual ones.
Imo, no, WW2 was all about production, tech, manpower and what allied powers you had.
Kalia G1, although most players prefer to take kalia G2 instead. Egy G1 and kalia G1 is the reason why allies need a bid.
i sometimes wonder what would have happened if Germany had put together a massive battle fleet in the Atlantic like Japan did in the Pacific
They didn’t have the naval knowhow that Japan and US had. The Germans had plans for building carrier vessels, but they weren’t able to do it.
But if they had done it, it would be much easier to knock out UK pretty early, and then Barbarossa also would be easier, but far from guaranteed.
@ABWorsham:
@Brain:
Yeah, we can’t talk about the US economy, but we can talk about the Haiti economy. What’s up with that?
stop failing at trolling please :)
Brain Damaged has a point, the down economic cycle has had a personal effect on everyone on a global scale.
This is a very valid point, the US internal issues is a “no-go”, but all other countries are ok, whatever we say?
Without a bid it is even more difficult to win a single game in 42 than 41, b/c of the attackers advantage in LL, but if we assume reg.dice, 42 is mostly the same concept as Revised, LL doesn’t favor any side.
The problem is not so much about holding Kalia, but have a slight chance (as allies) to win the game.
A German navy strat is as ineffective in AA50 41 and 42 as it is in Revised, the only difference is that it takes longer time to win with axis, in a no bid game, if Germany buys naval units, and a German naval strat can possibly make it possible for allies to win w/o a bid.
I don’t think the balance issue is tied up to the LL or regular dice difference, b/c I’m talking generally. That means much more than one game, maybe 20-30 games, but usually it is enough with 10 games to come to a conclusion, b/c it is very unlikely that one side has bad luck in more than a few games, and more games means dice averages even more.
So even if it is true that in a single (or several) LL game, the axis attacks rnd 1 will not fail much, while it happens more often in regular dice, but even with regular dice, it does not happen in the long run!
The Egy G1 being 95% in LL and 75% in reg.dice is a difference, but it does not change the fact that 75% is way more than 50%!
Kalia G1 is about 95% in reg.dice, and usually Germany would have one land unit left, but then there is a higher risk of losing several aircraft as opposed to LL where Germany may lose only one aircraft. But in the long run, this attack (kalia G1) is the same as in LL, the only difference is that we might have to play 10-15 games in reg.dice to get the same average result as in a single game in LL.
Telamon had a good explanation of the balance issue in AA50, but also the fact that AA50, is much much more dice dependent b/c of all the first rnd attacks the axis must do. Germany and/or Italy will have Africa for several rnds in 75% of all games.
In most cases, the axis attacks will not fail, meaning, dice rolls will be near average outcome, and then the axis will have the economic advantage from rnd 3 until it’s game over for allies. UK+Russia is not enough to stop Germany+Italy, generally. And the Italian can opener makes it even worse than in the 42 setup, even if the 42 scenario possibly(?) demands an even higher allied bid to balance the game.
It is easier to kill fleets in AA50 as compared to Revised, but that goes both ways for both US and Japan in a US pac strat.
It is possible but, imo, unlikely that the TripleA players have not tried enough US pac strat games, although it happens, but the KGF strat is way more popular, and that is b/c the TripleA players thinks that a US pac strat is ineffective. And that again I think is b/c a US pac strat is not more efficient than a KGF strat, b/c the KGF strat in AA50 is already tried and true.
I still don’t see how it is possible to win more games than 50% with allies, assuming two experienced players play a series of games, and not just one or two games, b/c the dice is more important in AA50 than in Revised, as much can go wrong for axis in the first rnd, but that is (bad) luck, and has nothing to do with good or bad strats.
And I think that since AA50 has been playable on TripleA for almost a year, that different players in the TripleA lobby have tried many different strats for trying and failing just like they did after Revised was available in TripleA, so I doubt that the reason why a US pac strat is hardly used is b/c they can’t master it.
As this is not a scientific question, but a question of faith, I believe that the experienced players in the TripleA lobby have found that in a 1vs1, +NO, no tech setting, that axis are significantly favored, so much that a unit bid of 6-9 ipc is necessary to balance the game, or else, the axis side would win much more than 50% of all games, and so it would not be fun to play w/o a bid, and axis players would have a very hard time with finding opponents.
victory cities are just for new players, I never played with VCs, and since Revised I’d never achieved the minimum nr. of VCs in revised/AA42/AA50. It has always been up to me or my opponent to concede, then the game is over.
@Subotai:
Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.
A monolitic point of view indeed. Are you going to continue doing this even in AA40 global? Good luck against uber 100+ IPCs Super Saiyajin Japan then
The Pacific must be fought, dude, face it
In the real WW2 the pacific had to be fought, but not in revised/AA42/AA50. When the global AA40 comes out, I will try different strats to see what is the most effective one.
8-9 ipc is most common, I have seen 10 in a few games, but there are extremely few experienced players who would play allies if axis got more than 10.
It’s been a while ago I tried to get opponents in the TripleA lobby, as axis in a no bid (+NO) regular dice game. I was laughed at… :-)
So there are two possibilities, either the TripleA players all have bad allied strats, or the PBF players here on this forum all have bad axis strats, and neither can disprove the others, b/c the TripleA players won’t use Abattlemap and you won’t use TripleA. So we’re stuck… :-)
the latest TripleA unstable has very few bugs, and is very playable, imo.
It is not generally a big problem with some players who play to slow, although it can happen. I once played a game against a player on this forum (one of several players), he had never played a livegame before, so it would be somewhat unfair to blaim “too slow play”, but it can be a concern, yes.
Imo, a country can take 5 mins, maybe 10 mins, this is variable, but A&A in the TripleA lobby is not regarded as “lightning chess”, but for players who have never played live games I think they must think faster than in PBM/PBF games.
I also suspect that in some games that is not part of a league or is recorded in a series of games, maybe some players will be too cautious with axis b/c it is seen as a single game. The axis must be very aggressive, and this will pay off usually, but in a single game, it can be more tempting to do Egy and/or Kalia G2 instead of G1. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, but compared to Revised, it is easier to win as allies in a no bid (+NO) game in AA50 b/c it is much more likely that battles go wrong for axis during the first rnd. This doesn’t change the fact that axis are favored, imo.
Also note, the mostly armor buys by germany can be countered, with a full force KGF using the US.
Exactly, KGF is the most efficient strat even if some players likes more action in the pacific.
The core issue here is that neither a pac strat nor a KGF strat is very powerful in a no bid game.
The only powerful allied strat in a no bid game is bad dice for axis :-)