How to achieve balance

[axis_roll]

@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.

[Zhukov44]

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.

[Imperious Leader]

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.

[Omega]

"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

[Lucifer]

@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.

[Lucifer]

@Omega:

Real dices is different from any program.

Robert

ADS is also a program as LL, if you play a software version of A&A.

Many times when I read the arguments against LL, I get the impression that none of the players who are against LL have ever tried it, it seems they don’t know what it is. If some of you ever happen to try some LL games in a hypothetical future, you’d be amazed of how much luck there can be in some LL games. It removes the extreme wild swings, but it’s fully possible to win a LL game mostly based on luck, believe it or not. Just ask me, or better, ask some of my opponents if they have been very unlucky also in LL games.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

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.

Of all Axis and Allies games, zero of them have bids (or LL) as OOB rules, so both are house rules

I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system. Too few (6-8) is not enough). Too much (9+) can be … too much. I continue saying that China and her nasty combo of poor setup and poor rules are blame of it. Bids restricted to China can paliate the poor setup, but the only way of paliating the poor rules of page 10 is … house rules  :|

[axis_roll]

@Funcioneta:

I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system. Too few (6-8) is not enough). Too much (9+) can be … too much. I continue saying that China and her nasty combo of poor setup and poor rules are blame of it. Bids restricted to China can paliate the poor setup, but the only way of paliating the poor rules of page 10 is … house rules  :|

At a grander scale, there has to be a way to slow down Japan for the allies.

OOB, China is a mere speed bump.
India IC is sub optimal, and if Japan is played right, not even a realistic option EVER for UK.
Neither is Egpyt for that matter.  Australia… perhaps, but it very costly.

Same as a full out naval push by USA.  It is doable, but at such a cost that the european theatre may need to be sacrificed to do so.  Not a very pretty option for the allies.

[Lucifer]

@Funcioneta:

Of all Axis and Allies games, zero of them have bids (or LL) as OOB rules, so both are house rules

I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system.

Technically it can be argued that every single little change from OOB rules are house rules, but I think we should make different definitions on what is “general” house rules, like rules changes, and on the other side, units/cash bids to make an even game balance. I could also make this statement to IL, if he ever played revised w/o bids or w/o tech, it’s not A&A.

Every A&A game can be balanced as so both sides will have close to equal chance of winning, and both revised and AA50 can easily be balanced with unit bids or cash bids.
With balancing I define this as making changes, preferably units or cash bids, so that both sides have equal chance of winning. I think this should be the defition of the word balance, when discussing bias in A&A games.
If someone wants to make changes other than modifications which matters only to which side are favored to win, then it’s not (game) balancing, but other modifications which will affect other parts of the game, not only a (imo) slight axis advantage in 41 +NOs.

In AA50 41 China is only a speed bump, but if we don’t like it then we don’t like AA50. There are several factors in AA50 in which I disagree with the choices made by Larry Harris and the design team, but overall I think AA50 is much better than revised.

[Omega]

To slow down Japan : Remove NOs
That removes them the 10-15 IPC they gain from stupid undefended islands/territories
It’s already incredible they can take the two 4 IPC islands from UK that are undefended. Why should they earn 5 more?

"ADS is also a program as LL, if you play a software version of A&A. "
I don’t play software version of AA. I play it with 5 other real person in real life. Not saying program is worse or whatever. Just saying that I enjoy physical game more than online games.
Programs take into account probability, I guess. Like, you have 1/6 to roll a 1 with a dice, for example. But in real life, it isn’t a perfect 1/6. Depending on how one rolls the dice, it can be less, or it can be higher.
I play enough cards to know that physical shuffling is not the same as software shuffling. Physical shuffling is never perfect. Software shuffling can never perfectly imitate physical shuffling.

We have played several games now. Axis did won more games than the Allies. But the fact the Allies have won some games suggest us that there might be not any imbalancement yet. We think that we haven’t sufficiently developed strategies.
That said, we are pretty sure it is more balanced than revised (without the bid/tweaks, we were never aware of those changes). I mean, we haven’t won a game with Axis in revised, not that I remember of. In AA50, although Axis won more than Allies (4 to 2), the fact that we were able to win with both sides suggest that the game is more balanced than revised

Robert

[Zhukov44]

@Funcioneta:

@Subotai:

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.

Of all Axis and Allies games, zero of them have bids (or LL) as OOB rules, so both are house rules

I don’t think we can balance the game this time with a simple bidding system. Too few (6-8) is not enough). Too much (9+) can be … too much. I continue saying that China and her nasty combo of poor setup and poor rules are blame of it. Bids restricted to China can paliate the poor setup, but the only way of paliating the poor rules of page 10 is … house rules  :|

How about a standard bid of 3-6 Chinese infantry?  Not sure about the right number.  However, as Axis, I’d rather have 4 or possibly even 5 more Chinese than an extra unit on Egypt and Karelia.

[Flying Tiger]

If the game is played globally (USA fighting in pacific and atlantic) then IMO it is a toss up on who wins the game.

If game is played as KGIF then allies have about a 60/40 edge in victory. But thats just my opinion. My father-in-law tried the polar express move with Japan and he just couldn’t keep up the pressure and take asia so he lost.

Someone said the USA spent 20% of their income for the pacific war. In this game spending 20% on the pacific is like trying to put a band-aid on a severed arm. It may have worked in the real war but it does not simulate well in AA. You could probably go 20% into the Atlantic and secure africa and be a thorn to Italy. Putting 80% into the pacific would slow japan and make a dent(but you would have to be a perfect strategist).

I voted for NO tweaks because I feel to get the true global war you need to make all USA NOs in the pacific. This way they must fight Japan to be strong if they fight KGIF then they will only be collecting 38 ipcs a turn. Sure they could still do a KGIF but it would at least be a bit harder.

[Lynxes]

Right now the leading answers to the poll is 42% bids, 23% NO tweaks, 19% China Mod. I like axis_roll’s idea of tweaking NOs but also the flexibility of bids, in that you could have a change from game to game following how strategies change. Tech & opt rules change the game in many ways, but don’t strike as directly at balance as the other concepts (except Dardanelles-rule). Maybe bidding could be linked to NOs in some ways? My idea in my post earlier to bid for number of territory changes could be seen as too complex. What if bids are still in IPCs but go towards reducing NO-bonuses for the other side? An Allied bid of 6 IPCs would then mean that you could reduce 6 Axis NOs to 4 IPCs each. My 0.02$!  :-)

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

In AA50 41 China is only a speed bump

I would like a definition of “speed bump”. As english is not my mother language. I saw that word in various places and I’m not totally sure of its meaning

I could agree or disagree if the word means a thing or another  :-)

[Funcioneta]

@Zhukov44:

How about a standard bid of 3-6 Chinese infantry?  Not sure about the right number.  However, as Axis, I’d rather have 4 or possibly even 5 more Chinese than an extra unit on Egypt and Karelia.

Yep, I agree. It can solve the thing

[Lucifer]

It was Axis_roll who used the word “speed bump”, I think it’s a good description of China in AA50. It doesn’t stop Japan, only slows her down a bit.

If we want to change something other than which side are favored to win, then I don’t consider this balancing, as in game balance. It’s easy to change the game so that Pacific is more important, and mainland Asia. But this isn’t the discussion of the balance issue that I thought the OP meant when he started this thread.

If we don’t like the setup in AA50, it’s easy to make some modifications, i.e. China mod or similar. But I don’t see any big problems with AA50. For me, the only issues are the same as in revised, game balance, unit bids or cash bids, so that allies are not favored any more than the axis side. The other issue for me is randomness, this has nothing to do with game balance, or theater balance, but I prefer games in which there are little external factors which the players cannot control. So I prefer to nerf the impact of the dice gods, and let players have a greater influence of the outcome of a game.
Imo a strategy game which takes many hours to complete is not so fun if the players decisions isn’t the most important factor to decide who wins. But again, that is not game balancing, but rather balancing randomness and luck vs skills&experience.

[bugoo]

I have to agree with Sub here, China exists for the single purpose of slowing down and blocking Japan’s advance down the middle, the extra territories slow her down in the north forcing a showdown in south asia.  This is the way it is designed and we must accept that.  Not to mention giving china that many inf can screw with that theater of the war much more than an inf in egypt and/or kar do, those just remove a small number of options from the axis on turn 1.  China having 4-7 inf plus a plane on there first turn would really change the pacific and impact the game for many turns, it is not a balancing it is a restructuring of the game.  There are alot of changes I personally would love to see in the setup and I may make a mod someday with my vision, but that would not be AA50.

And honestly, first time I did a KGF it failed, the more I do it the better I get at it and the more it works.  Someday we will see a pacific first strat that works, I hope.

[Funcioneta]

@bugoo:

I have to agree with Sub here, China exists for the single purpose of slowing down and blocking Japan’s advance down the middle, the extra territories slow her down in the north forcing a showdown in south asia.

In fact, vanilla China doesn’t slow down Japan. It gives Japan even more speed: easy IPCs, no oposition, more buffer from soviets in case of Polar Express … China simply cannot slown down Japan because there is no real China in this game since Japan should kill them round 1 all games. It’s enough for Japan keep the starting surviving units at nin-sik, some forces to Siberia (6-8 would be enough) and focus their income in the other 2 fronts: Indian ocean (India/Africa) and Pacific ocean (islands, or America if allies suicide and try ignore Japan)

[bugoo]

Typically in the end Japan has around 5-6 units in china, and china has 2-4 inf left in Ching, along with a small russian force Japan is bottle necked along the center route, which I believe was the original intention of china.

Also, as far as stating Japan is the problem, why is it that Russia is about as pathetic as China without US/UK help?  The entire setup and typical axis turn 1 movements force the KGF tactic, which works, it works very well.  Until that changes, axis turn 1 that is, the game will continue along this pattern.  Perhaps more baltic fleets, or japan taking away the 2nd US NO on turn 1, or Egypt not getting hit on G1, etc etc would lead to a different playstyle among the allies as well.  But as long as G typically pumps out armor going for russia’s throat, and Japan tries to make herself money and setup on India instead of Hawawi / Australia, this trend will continue.  I’m confident that in time allied strats will be shown to work against these typical openings, I’ve gotten very good with a KGF style beating players on TripleA who I believe are better players than I (note: I never did win a game of revised on TripleA lol).  I feel in another month the bid for allies on TripleA will be as low as 3, even in LL.

[Funcioneta]

@bugoo:

Typically in the end Japan has around 5-6 units in china, and china has 2-4 inf left in Ching, along with a small russian force Japan is bottle necked along the center route, which I believe was the original intention of china.

Also, as far as stating Japan is the problem, why is it that Russia is about as pathetic as China without US/UK help?  The entire setup and typical axis turn 1 movements force the KGF tactic, which works, it works very well.

China should not have more than 1 inf in Ching unless crappy dices J1. Soviets usually cannot spare enough units to make a hold in Ching

Soviets are not as pathetic as China even in crazy dreams. Soviets usually can resist at least 5-6 turns (again, unless crappy dices). China simply doesn’t exist because the only thing they can do is pop one inf at Chingai round 1. End of chinese actions. Well, they give Japan many free IPCs. “Puppet” China is a good addition to axis  :-P

And KGF simply doesn’t can be even done if Japan plays Polar Express, that is ridiculously easy in 1941 scenario. USA must face the japaneses, and it’s far better fighting them in Pacific ocean, with 48 IPCs, than in America, with 40 IPCs