However, this game is trying to recreate history
this game is not trying to recreate history, it is using history to inform a boardgame, to provide a backdrop and a theme, not to as accurately model WW2 as possible. far from it.
However, this game is trying to recreate history
this game is not trying to recreate history, it is using history to inform a boardgame, to provide a backdrop and a theme, not to as accurately model WW2 as possible. far from it.
the americans didnt have a second wave, and japan was on it’s way. so allies surrendered.
The problem is that there is no one on earth who will play the game even close to perfectly. That is probably the source of most concerns
you seem to be misunderstanding me, so perhaps i am being unclear. so, simply put, the ability of the players involved is irrelevant to the discussion of how well a game has been balanced. how can you take issue with that?
Global is Better: more dynamic, political rules are fascinating, china is a fixed, and the two hit ship rules are better.
AA50 is Better: faster to play, better tech rules, and is a much better multiplayer game if you like that sort of thing.
the jury is still out on whether Global is well balanced/ has a lot of replayability. if i had my guess, i would bet on Global becoming the game of choice amongst all true afficiandos in the years to come (assuming it is the last game)
Well, it may be 50-50, but is only that way with very obscure strategies. With common strats, it will of course always depend on the experience of the player, the dice, and the inexperience of another player to your strat
when speaking of game balance we are always assuming perfect play and perfectly average dice. and it would be an absolute miracle to make a incongruous game (the map of the world in this case) and wide variety of differing numbers of units and types, and have it turn out perfectly balanced. even with years of toil. chess is balanced because of geometric and force equality, and even that it is not perfect, for the slight pull white gets because of the right to move first.
this brings up an interesting point: how close does the game have to be to be acceptably balanced?
obviously, a perfect 50-50 chance with ideal play would be a miracle of design. so, 60-40? 70-30?
replayability is a big factor as well. one could develop a slightly less than optimal strategy that is nonetheless difficult to cope with - perhaps making the “unsound” strat have an even greater chance of success than an objectively better one. if a design lends itself to many such innovations, then talk of objective balance might be an almost moot point.
finally, i agree with the basic premise of the original post: i.e. anyone who thinks they have this version figured out is deluded.
Very short summary/impression of my third game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PegIGzQ46HM&feature=player_profilepage
having played two global 1940 multis (rather silly games involving new players and kids, but useful for getting familiar with the setup and map) i sat down to play allies in a proper 1v1 match with a fellow experienced A&A aficionado (you might know him as ZOOOOMA).
germany went for sea-lion, and dutifully took UK on G3. on UK1, england went after italy, sunk some navy, captured greece (gaining 4 free infantry there) and pulled back from india towards africa to further the basic anti-italy strat (italy was nerfed for the whole game). russia built infantry (more on that later), and america left a force just a bit bigger than token sized in the pacific, and pulled the rest back to the atlantic. japan did its normal japan stuff, and eventually attacked UK on J4 (which brought america into the war, but since America was not poised to retake england on USA four, did not accelerate USA into the war against germany, and nor did america make any extra money)
in a nutshell, russia was massive on R4, but could have been much larger. as it stood, the russia force that wound up attacking berlin was a marginal favourite, but could have been much bigger. the problem, is that any inf bought in moscow does not reach germany until round 6, and russia wants berlin on turn 5 (against sea lion). so, while you can purchase 3inf in leningrad on turn 1(and 2) and make the berlin battle, the rest of the russian ground unit buy must be mech inf, and then on R2, tanks+mech inf. so there you have the basic russian infantry push mechanic.
in the end, this game was an axis victory partially due to two rounds of poor luck for allies when the americans invaded west germany (bypassing nazi england and cutting off the troops there - a very cool move) and then the russians losing in berlin. germany could have no doubt defended better, but perhaps more importantly, russia could have bought better - for that reason, i think it highly likely that a dedicated sea lion is a non starter against a competent russia. japan was still a couple of turns away from knocking on the russian door as well, and played about as speedily as japan can (without attacking UK straight away).
thoughts ZOOOOMA?
Axis and Allies is not a WW2 simulator. A&A is a boardgame with a WW2 theme. Any cries for lack of realism or lack of historicity, are neither here nor there. The only factors relevant to game design are balance and replayablility.
anyone have a link, or could maybe post a high quality (i.e. zoomable) photo of the complete map with units, or failing that a graphic of same?
None of this discussion is really worth anything IF YOU DO NOT WIN A MAJORITY OF THE BATTLES YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO WIN. You can have the best strategy in the world, but the dice might not let you win.
I am afraid what is written above is sophistry. What matters most in dice (or in other words, A&A) is winning the important battles, and minimizing risk. The G1 attack is very important to a type of axis plan, but far from an absolute necessity, and what such a plan contributes to is “high variance” i.e. risk.
You could quite easily win a game where most of the favourable battles went against you, if the very important ones went very well. In fact, if you set about taking on a plan where you must win say, five 90% battles for it to succeed, or else you lose the game, I would call you a big gambler.
The chances of five 90% battles panning out is: 59%
If you fought egypt G1 against an average player, i would call that a big blunder. Against an expert (that you would plan on losing a long game to) its probably worth it.
One downfall to this sytem is that usually when a scenario is proposed, the player proposing it has THOUGHT about the scenario a bit. In other words, they have a plan (for either side), while the opponent probably has not. I don’t think this is a great disadvantage, in fact, I like it when my friend does this sort of thing to me, as I like playing the underdog sometimes, or being able to prove his plan was not good enough to beat me.
I pointed this out in my original post no?
There are a couple of alternate set-ups out there (thanks to Veqyrn–if you see him in the lobby ask him). There’s one where UK gets to place an IC at the start of the game. There’s another (China_Mod) where China’s turn goes along with USSR’s, plus some additional modifications for balance.
Re. bidding, the bids seem high because TripleA players are accustomed to low luck games, where you need around 11 for a fair game. However I want at least 8 even in dice, preferably 9. Hopefully the ladder competition (bid set at 8) will help hash out whether 8 is a fair number…
you havent really responded as to whether you think proposing setups and offering sides is a good/ superior to bidding.
@AA_fourlife:
Then stick to bidding. :x
i think you have failed to grasp my point.
@AA_fourlife:
Rockrobinoff: I suggest just tell people who they play until someone objects. People wanting to be polite, will just say “ok”.
i am not interested in “getting my way” or “telling people what to do.” i am interested in a fair and fun system to determine sides.
I play most of my A&A online, and the tradition is to bid for the right to play Allies in the A&A 41 setup. Bids in my experience range from 6-10 (which I consider rather high) and as such I more often then not find myself playing Allies with a 8-10 bid. That said, I want to offer an alternative to bidding that I a) think more fun and b) more challenging
One side suggests a setup, the other chooses which side they wan’t.
For instance, lets say I am playing on TripleA and I am hosting the game. I might say something like:
Standard setup except Germany has 17 IPCs to start and a carrier in SZ 5. Pick a side.
The variations are endless, and in my opinion, completely and totally fair (with the exception of one side studying certain types of setups and offerings those, which is unavoidable with bids too)
Thoughts?
whether to attack egypt or not defines G1 like no other decision. perhaps a (foolish) G1 karelia attack is also similar.
i am with you, and i think most experts, in agreeing that egypt G1 is a poor move. that said, i have a couple of points.
1. securing the italian navy and winning the battle in SZ 12 are not one in the same. all that is absolutely necessary is killing a destroyer.
2. securing the italian navy might not be such high priority. its only about 55% to win outright for UK (the bomber surviving only) and it totally blows for UK when it goes wrong. It might be even more of a gamble to attack the ITL navy on UK 1 than it is to attack Egypt on G1. If UK simply retreats the SZ 12 ships, then UK can pressure Germany faster by not having to build as many boats to defend its transports, and can get on with building transports and guys.
I suppose in both scenarios (G1 egpyt and UK1 italian navy) that if i was up against a true expert who was likely to outplay me in a long game, I would do both attacks. Otherwise, I would pick safer options, that are also good.
A 6-8 bid for the allies is acceptable only if it was an asian / pacific bid
I’d agree to a 6 bid, units east of transjordan and south of caucasas.