Subo: That makes a lot of sense to me. The variability of the more complicated opening will generate a lot of noise.
It also means AA50 will have a greater difference between LL and normal play.
Subo: That makes a lot of sense to me. The variability of the more complicated opening will generate a lot of noise.
It also means AA50 will have a greater difference between LL and normal play.
Hey kids.
I saw Flying Tiger put out a fine poll, but I wanted to include the magnitude of imbalance (bid) with the poll.
We’ll see how things have changed. Here are the results from April:
Allies need a $10+ bid to win 50% of their games 4 (9.1%)
Allies need a $5+ bid to win 50% of their games 9 (20.5%)
Even - With no bid or a small bid it is 50% either way 27 (61.4%)
Axis need a $5+ bid to win 50% of their games 3 (6.8%)
Axis need a $10+ bid to win 50% of their games 1 (2.3%)
Hey DJensen.
Yeah, some sparks flew back in the day amongst a few folks in this forum, so we wanted to part ways :-D
Csub has closed shop, so if you want to post them here feel free to do so.
Peace
Howdy. Lynxes posted a decent thread about bidding for the game. Since we have enough playing experience to start thinking about fixing game problems, I wanted to post some info not about specific changes, but on principles that result in good changes.
Instead of just thinking up random thoughts to “fix” the game, first figure out what makes for a good fix. The full CSub article on rule fixes (Paper #03) has a long discussion about good fixes, but here’s the crux of it:
+++++
Here are the principles the renowned Caspian Sub uses [though we weren’t renowned when we wrote the paper :-D]. You will find that these rules are wise, elegant, judicious, and damn sexy.
Rule Changing Principles
1. The Minimalist Principle: The minimalist principle says “Make the least changes necessary to fix actual flaws in the game.” If someone who is good at the game with the out-of-the-box rules becomes bad at the game using the new rules, you’ve changed the game either too much, unnecessarily, or inappropriately. Part of this principle is that new rules should follow the ‘spirit of the rules’ and not change basic game concepts.
2. The Market Principle: A bid system is the most precise game-balancing tool; a good bidding market will result in a balancing remedy within 1 IPC of a perfect balance.
3. The Expertise Principle: Changes should encourage creativity and expertise, not just reward brute force or simplicity. A good game balancer will add quality dimensions of game play, not result in a Crane Kick* or empty rules with little strategic value.
*Crane Kick: If do right, no can defense. Mr. Miyagi said it, so it must be true.
+++++
I do have one specific thought with the bid. There tends to be “bid inertia” in games such that bids stay artificially low for a long time. People don’t like to give up big bids, so the balancing bid can take longer to find. Here’s one very simple way to accurately and quickly raise the bids: use a bid-down system instead of a bid-up system.
Say you know three things: Player Big thinks the balancing bid is $12, player Cheap thinks the balancing bid is $4, and the actual balance for the game is closer to $8.
If you use a bid-up system, the bid goes like this:
Cheap: I bid $1 given to the weak team so I can take the strong team.
Big: I bid $3 given to the weak team.
Cheap: $4
Big: $5
Cheap: I’ll take it.
So both players are happy with the $5 bid. Big thinks the bid is $7 low so he’s happy, Cheap got an extra buck so he’s happy. But the bid is artificially lower than the optimal balance and the cheaper players will hold the bid down.
Now look at a bid-down system:
Cheap: I’ll take $40 to play the weak team.
Big: I’ll take $30.
Cheap: $15
Big: $12
Cheap: $11
Big: You bought it.
So again both players are happy. Cheap got $7 extra, and Big thinks he stuck Cheap for an extra dollar. But notice that with the exact same set of preferences the bid increased from $5 to $11 just by changing the bid mechanism. The fastest way to overcome “bid inertia” is to use a bid-down system.
Have at it.
BB82: Have at it with the papers. Post them wherever you want.
Russian double with BEL/WRU: It was done on occasion, but the risk/reward isn’t all that great. No because the risk is huge, but because the reward was so small. WRu/Ukr was much more common.
German 1st purchase: We went through several phases. In a FTF venue, I’d buy 2 or 3 tra against any player who I suspected would be unfamiliar with it. Against each other, 1tra was very common, but the most common opening became the UnBaltic. Hard to say what the next iteration would have been because we had just started finding some counters to UnBaltic that we really liked.
Peace
Hey guys.
Thanks for the kind words; I’ll pass them on to the other editors.
bb82 - we had a few long discussions about the Russian openings in email threads but we never finished the paper about them. The paper was going to cover the Russian Double (UKR/WRU) vs the Russian Triple (UKR/WRU/BEL).
The upshot was that the Triple had a high risk/reward swing where it really was in the hands of the dice. Mighty Airforce preferred it; I preferred the Double. In LL I don’t know which I would prefer, but probably the Triple.
Ultimately it did not matter a lot because we began putting a bid unit in the European theater to break the Triple as a viable option.
Peace
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.
And the bid:
Caspian Sub Bid Rules
1. Roll for high roll to see who gets the first bid.
2. Conduct the bid like “Name that Tune”. The player with the first bid says “I can win with the Axis and X IPCs.”, where X is the number of IPCs the bidder receives to play the Axis. You are always bidding to play as the Axis.
3. The other player either lets the first player have the bid or counters with a bid that is smaller than the first bid such as, “I can win with the Axis and X-2 IPCs.” This is a bid-down system.
4. Keep going until a bid is accepted. If the bid ‘goes negative’, then the bid becomes “I will take the Axis and give the Allies X IPCs.” Counter-bids then become higher values given to the Allies.
5. Once the bid is accepted there is a pre-game bid placement turn. Whoever is getting the IPCs may buy units to place on the board.
a) Unit costs are normal
b) Land units can be placed in any territory a power controls
c) Naval units can be placed with other naval units or in territories adjacent to a power’s land
d) There is a limit of 1 bid piece per territory
e) Powers cannot put their units in another power’s territory (i.e. no German pieces start in Japanese territory)
f) IPCs do not have to be spent on units. IPCs not spent on units can be given to any of the team’s powers.
6. Play starts as normal with the Soviets.
Yeah, for FTF games you do have to have a limit. We went with a 4-hour, 6 round game.
I do have the CSub rules. Very simple for box-players or TripA players:
Rule Changes
1. Thou shalt have a new technology take effect at the end of the turn on which it was acquired.
2. Thou shalt not do more economic damage to an industrial complex than the income value of the territory under attack. This is a per-turn limit.
3. Thou shalt disallow any capital from being attacked with ground units until after that power’s first turn. Bombing raids and strafing with air power are permitted.
4. Thou shalt use the Caspian Sub bid system.
Rule Clarifications
1. AA guns fire at each plane individually.
2. Subs submerge before the decision to press a battle is made. You can not retreat from a sea battle if the only enemy units left are submerged subs.
3. If a fighter spends all its movement points going to a sea battle and the carrier designated as its landing zone retreats, then the fighter is lost because it has no landing place.
4. Sub abilities are operational any time an opposing destroyer is not on the battle board.
5. In regard to transports, strict distinctions between combat/non-combat must be observed. For instance, a unit cannot be loaded during combat movement if the unit does not attempt to engage in combat that round.
Oh, and as to your questions, yes:
FTF is very different from online play due to the inherrent time limit.
LL, common online, is very different from regular dice.
Tournament rules differ and have a large impact on the game.
That’s one of the problems that will plague the AA50 discussions. 41 or 42? LL or regular? SBRs or no SBRs or an SBR fix? Tech or no tech? NOs or basic rules?
I’m quite sure that although everyone is in the same forum, they aren’t really discussing the same game ;-)
That was one of the CSub goals: a simple set of rule fixes that everyone could use without having to read a book of rules or alter the core game much. All discussion was then based on those rules.
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.
Hah! Thanks for the kudos, BB82. I was the main CSub editor - themarvinmartian.
The core CSub guys have all gotten pretty busy in the last year or two. One’s a doctor, one’s a lawyer, two are computer guys, one’s a diplomat, etc. We weren’t putting the time into the game to keep the articles at a high level, so we decided it was time to pull the plug. Better to end the site cleanly than slide into obsolescence.
I have played online a little bit (forum games), but that’s pretty rare. If you’re in or near Detroit sometime, shoot me a line and we’ll see if we can line up a FTF game.
Peace
Quick check. For a while opinion was running strongly in favor of the Axis winning with no bid, but it usually takes a while to work out the Allied transport chain.
So where are we at? At what bid amount do you think both sides have an even chance of winning?
I’ll run another poll in a couple months to see how the community shifts.
Howdy.
The thing I have played with the least is a Japanese air rush to Europe. I’m guessing that is a major hinderance to Allied shipping. And given the massive air force Japan starts with, that should be big.
But there are a few things I’m sure of:
But here’s the thing: SBRs are the element of the game with the least skill and the most dicey outcomes. If SBRs are good then you should always do them, and then there is just a questions of who gets lucky.
That’s a lame strategy game.
The fixes I’ve heard just make SBRs more gimmicky. The escort rules detract from strategic game play because with expert play people will either park ftrs on an IC or they won’t. It won’t be an interesting strategic element.
SBRs should be disallowed.
To say Italy can be reinforced from France is not to say it is “easy” unless you consider weakening France to be a good thing :-D And that’s my point: there are 4 critical invasion zones in this version of the game: Italy, France, NW Eur, Berlin. That stretches the Axis mighty thin and wreaks havoc with NOs.
I’m expecting to be a KIF player. I haven’t played a lot, but that sure looks like the weak link in the Axis chain. You can SBR them into oblivion and threaten them with significant force round 3 or 4. That’s gonna be a problem for the Axis.
Spending US money against Japan is almost surely a waste. How much navy do you need to counter Japan? Certainly a lot. How much does it protect? Certainly very little. You can’t really stop Japan, and I don’t think that with a focused Japanese player you can even slow them down very much.
Like I said, I need a few more plays under my belt, but some issues are pretty clear. SBRs are bad, the US shouldn’t play in two theaters, and Italy is in a heap of trouble.
Peace
Hey kids.
Played '41 again, this time as the Allies. Assume no tech and NOs in play.
Here are a few random notes:
SBRs are simply broken. The fixes involving fighter escorts are silly. SBRs should just be eliminated.
In AA4 the common fleet shuck points with the US were between zones 1 & 2 (ECn to UK) and then anywhere east or south of UK to Europe or Africa. In AA5.41, I’m guessing the most common US shuck configuration will be between ECn and Morocco with the western fleet and from Morocco to France/NWEur/Italy.
It is just brutally bad for the Axis. Since Italy is not Adjacent to Berlin, it can’t be reinforced or liberated easily. So unlike AA4 where you really only had to defend WEU/Ber, in AA5.41 you have to defend France, Rome, Berlin, and NWEur. Oh, and you have to do it with a 10 unit cap on German production unless you build an IC in France. Rome should be under threat as early as round three; in many cases it should be under threat round two.
It looks very, very ugly to me.
You can still ignore Japan with impunity, and basically you should.
Russia is a monster in a KGF game.
The Italian fleet should get sacked early and hard, neutering Italy.
I’m not loving the game at this point. It seems that some gimmicky fix is going to be needed for the Axis to survive, like a Japanese ftr rush to Europe.
The splitting of Italy and Germany is crippling, and the splitting of France and NWEur is quite bad too.
I haven’t played a lot, but those were my early concerns and I found some evidence to support those concerns in the game I played yesterday.
Peace
@Subotai:
There are some who believes LL is part of the reason why axis have advantage in this setting, but this statement would only be true if one side gets more hits than the opponent.
Hey Subo.
It’s not just the number of hits, it’s risk management for strafes and allocation of offensive power (particularly airpower).
1. LL dice favors/allows precise strafing. Does one side benefit from strafing more than the other side? In AA4 the Axis gains a major strafing advantage in the managment of WEU/EEU. Often if you attempt a strafe out of Berlin but accidentally take the territory then Berlin falls. This means the Axis can gain one or two rounds by inflicting a maximum strafe without dropping Berlin. I suspect this accounts for bids being slightly lower in LL than I would expect them to be with normal dice.
The Allies theoretically should have a similar advantage coming out of Moscow, but functionally the stacks are different and LL favors the Axis in regards to large strafes.
2. LL gives precision attacks allowing near-complete knowledge of force needed to take a territory. For instance, both players know how much airpower to send in small battles to swap land. This would theoretically be a wash, but since Germany has more airpower than Russia the Axis gain a slight advantage here as well. You know if you send 1inf 2ftr at 1inf then you take the land 67% of the time and never lose a plane.
There are a few other risk dynamics that are negated by LL, but I’d say in general a LL bid will differ from a normal bid by several IPCs to reflect the leverage gained by more complete knowledge of the dice. Note in AA5 I’m not saying yet which side benefits more from LL, I’m merely pointing out that LL should have a slightly different bid than normal rules.
Peace
Here’s another complete system; very easy to use. If you have seen the game show “Name that Tune” then you’ll get the concept immediately.
Caspian Sub Bid Rules
1. Roll for high roll to see who gets the first bid.
2. Conduct the bid like “Name that Tune”. The player with the first bid says “I can win with the Axis and X IPCs.”, where X is the number of IPCs the bidder receives to play the Axis. You are always bidding to play as the Axis.
3. The other player either lets the first player have the bid or counters with a bid that is smaller than the first bid such as, “I can win with the Axis and X-2 IPCs.” This is a bid-down system.
4. Keep going until a bid is accepted. If the bid ‘goes negative’, then the bid becomes “I will take the Axis and give the Allies X IPCs.” Counter-bids then become higher values given to the Allies.
5. Once the bid is accepted there is a pre-game bid placement turn. Whoever is getting the IPCs may buy units to place on the board.
a) Unit costs are normal
b) Land units can be placed in any territory a power controls
c) Naval units can be placed with other naval units or in territories adjacent to a power’s land
d) There is a limit of 1 bid piece per territory
e) Powers cannot put their units in another power’s territory (i.e. no German pieces start in Japanese territory)
f) IPCs do not have to be spent on units. IPCs not spent on units can be given to any of the team’s powers.
6. Play starts as normal with the Soviets.
Howdy.
Just read this thread; thought I’d post a couple notes.
From Jen: England can chose to retreat before your submarines can chose to submerge thus pulling out of the danger zone of SZ 7.
Nope. In a Caspian Sub paper you must assume Caspian Sub rules which clearly state the decision to submerge comes before the decision to retreat. I believe that is also the rule for standard TripA, though it has been a long time since I checked.
The best tactic so far has been to hit it with 2 fighters, bomber, battleship for one round and retreat.
That is a very problematic response. How often do you lose the btl? Against 3 subs you lose the btl at least 26% of the time. That is a classic CDFR setup to try and eliminate a capital ship on the cheap.
I agree with a couple of points from Darth M about the resulting weakness on the Russian front being a potential problem, but of course that is the trade off of every German anti-KGF opening :-D How much can you afford to slow down the US/UK vs USSR or vice versa?
Hey F6.
If you want something fun and fast, check the puzzles. They are in the Files section.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/
Peace
Never! I will never abandon sarcasm just because it doesn’t work!
+1 karma to you to combat the evil clickers.