Axis vs. Allies Records (League and Tournament - 137 games) - updated 7/12

[Imperious Leader]

54% is just about perfect balance as can be. Probably nothing needs to be done, but perhaps just letting China play before japan would fix it perfectly.

[Lucifer]

I’ll invite you all to the new TripleA unstable 1.0.3.3. The worst thing that could happen is that I become a better (allied) player. Maybe I lose the 1 out of 5 games I lose Egy G1, who knows? I play against anyone, I’m axis with no bids, +NOs, no tech, dice. No other optional rules. I prefer LL, but this is about the original design, and AA50 was designed and playtested with regular dice not LL, so dice it is. Live games are different from PBF/PBM games, I’m not waiting 10 mins (or longer) for every move. If your brains can’t think quick enough, you can’t think at all.

Compare it to chess, there are time limits. In real WW2 there was the time elements, if you waited too long, the enemy got stronger b/c you didn’t make any decisions. I’m not expecting “lightning AA50” in the same sense as lightning chess though.

[Lucifer]

@squirecam:

The better way is to have 100 “without NO” games to compare it to.

Without NOs allies are favored. How much I’m not sure, I think for all 4 main setups, 41-42, +/- NOs, that AA50 is close to, or better balanced than Revised, meaning, any unit bid should probably be $9 or less.

I don’t have much experience with no NO games , although, I will win more than 50% of such games, as allies.  AA50 is so much more different than Revised, that any unit bids will affect the game more, and in other ways than Revised. But even in Revised, a very high bid will result in close to 100% axis victories, if the bid is too high. I have actually lost 2 games as allies w/o NOs in 41, and I also won more than I lost overall. But I doubt very much that I will lose more games from now, if the premise is 41, no NOs, no tech, and I’m allies. Maybe very bad dice will be a factor, but with NOs, LL will favore axis, and why shouldn’t this also be true in no NO games.

[squirecam]

@Subotai:

@squirecam:

The better way is to have 100 “without NO” games to compare it to.

Without NOs allies are favored. How much I’m not sure, I think for all 4 main setups, 41-42, +/- NOs, that AA50 is close to, or better balanced than Revised, meaning, any unit bid should probably be $9 or less.

I agree that in 1941 or 1942 games, without NO’s, the allies are favored. This is not only due to setup/VC changes, but the overpowered bombing campaign.

What I would like to know, though, is by what %.

I also want to know if the CAP escort rule makes a difference in the basic game (i.e. no tech and no NO’s).

It is my guesstimate that the CAP rule alone should result in a more “even” 1942 game (without NO). But this is just based upon my play results.

I just wish we had 100 games of no NO’s to compare these results to.

[General_D.Fox]

I’m pretty sure not a lot of people use the CAP rule, SC. I haven’t heard of anyone or haven’t seen anyone use it, and I’ve only been approached about using it once. You might want to post a poll or something and get everyone’s opinion or similar thoughts.

[Lucifer]

@squirecam:

I just wish we had 100 games of no NO’s to compare these results to.

That would give us some info, but remember that you also said that in Revised, axis would win about 40% with no bids, that is only true if AAR is played with less than decent players, and/or inefficient game strats.
You would lose more than 90% against me, probably between 95% and 99% of all games. And this is not b/c I’m a better player than you, it’s b/c AAR is not balanced, not at all with efficient players, but I should add that the playing balance of Revised is not too bad, with $8-$9 unit bid the best player will often win.

Most AA50 games I’ve played, have been with NOs, so I’m not sure about 41 -NOs, I guess that I could possible lose some games from now, either b/c of mistakes, and/or bad dice, but even if the bid level of AA50 41 -NO will be lower than in Revised, I doubt that I will lose (as allies) more than 5% of such (AA50 41 -NOs, no other rules) games.

[axis_roll]

@The:

I’m pretty sure not a lot of people use the CAP rule, SC. I haven’t heard of anyone or haven’t seen anyone use it, and I’ve only been approached about using it once. You might want to post a poll or something and get everyone’s opinion or similar thoughts.

We use the CAP ftr escort rule (modified to not allow the aa shots to hit the ftrs) as a standard in our ftf group and I’ve played one online game with them as well.

I think a poll is a good idea.

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

But even in Revised, a very high bid will result in close to 100% axis victories, if the bid is too high

Agreed. I guess 16 (2 trannies sz5 or sz14) is enough to make allies really sweat. But I think even 12 is a too gross advantage (2 guys to lyb and 2 guys to ukr … ugh!)

[squirecam]

@Subotai:

@squirecam:

I just wish we had 100 games of no NO’s to compare these results to.

That would give us some info, but remember that you also said that in Revised, axis would win about 40% with no bids, that is only true if AAR is played with less than decent players, and/or inefficient game strats.
You would lose more than 90% against me, probably between 95% and 99% of all games. And this is not b/c I’m a better player than you, it’s b/c AAR is not balanced, not at all with efficient players, but I should add that the playing balance of Revised is not too bad, with $8-$9 unit bid the best player will often win.

Most AA50 games I’ve played, have been with NOs, so I’m not sure about 41 -NOs, I guess that I could possible lose some games from now, either b/c of mistakes, and/or bad dice, but even if the bid level of AA50 41 -NO will be lower than in Revised, I doubt that I will lose (as allies) more than 5% of such (AA50 41 -NOs, no other rules) games.

In AAR, the axis can win 40% without a bid. It just comes down to first round dice results in the applicable bid territories (Egypt, UKR, Belo, etc).

As for obj/no obj, that is an issue. But the bigger concern is the allied bombing strategy. I dont think the no-obj game is as unbalanced with the CAP rule.

It looks as if Origins/Gencon tournaments WILL use the CAP rule. So that should give out some good playtest results.

[Lucifer]

@squirecam:

In AAR, the axis can win 40% without a bid.

No, not against me, and I’m not a top player. So axis will not win 40% of all no bid games against decent (!) players. I think you could win 5% of all no bid games against me, or any decent, average player.
I assume no tech games. If you really think that axis can/will win 40% with no bids, it’s b/c the allied player is inferior, or a n00b! And that is not a question of balance, you make it a question of the allied player not trying/wanting to win.

If you claim the bid level should/could be $6 instead of $8 or $9, I can see your argument, but this about a NO BID GAME!

Plz stop lying… :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[squirecam]

@Subotai:

@squirecam:

In AAR, the axis can win 40% without a bid.

No, not against me, and I’m not a top player. So axis will not win 40% of all no bid games against decent (!) players. I think you could win 5% of all no bid games against me, or any decent, average player.
I assume no tech games. If you really think that axis can/will win 40% with no bids, it’s b/c the allied player is inferior, or a n00b! And that is not a question of balance, you make it a question of the allied player not trying/wanting to win.

If you claim the bid level should/could be $6 instead of $8 or $9, I can see your argument, but this about a NO BID GAME!

Plz stop lying… :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

If you can understand that a “proper” bid could be $6, then you should understand exactly where that bid can be placed.

If so, you know exactly what the general odds are for a first round attack against that bid-enhanced territory or by Germany (in Africa).

Tranlation: The $6 2 Inf bid doesnt do that much. It makes a first round atack against a terriitory a bit harder, or an attack by germany a bit easier. But that’s it.

The dice can do the exact same thing, given several R1 variations. The bid units may be useful (or the dice swings make them unnecessary).

In any event, believe what you want.

[Lucifer]

@ Squire, you’re delusional if you think you can win more than 5%-10% of all AAR no bid games against me. I’m talking about reality, not theory! But stay in your delusions if it makes you happy… :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[axis_roll]

@Subotai:

@ Squire, you’re delusional if you think you can win more than 5%-10% of all AAR no bid games against me. I’m talking about reality, not theory! But stay in your delusions if it makes you happy… :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I don’t know, 5-10% seems a little low to me (Meaning the axis probably have a better chance than 10%)  , DICE do happen, and amongst players of comparable skill level, most players felt that DICE would determine the game more than player skill.

I know, I conducted a poll asking this question a while back on three different A&A sites.

I think this was the point that Squire was trying to make.

[Funcioneta]

In fact, 5% of victories seems nearer to AA50, 1941 scenario (allies) than Revised (axis). At least to me. I also think 40 % of axis victories with axis, no bid, in Revised. The arguments given by squirecam are solid

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

@ Squire, you’re delusional if you think you can win more than 5%-10% of all AAR no bid games against me. I’m talking about reality, not theory! But stay in your delusions if it makes you happy… :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Wait, wait! Are you saying normal A&A or A&A using the house rule known as LL? If using LL, it could be different, because the triple (nor, wrus, ukr) is much more easy, and also the doubles or even Egypt counter, UK attack on z5 etc …

LL alters game dinamic in a radical way (under LHR 2.0., much more than using no-tech house rule). If that’s your argument to say axis can only win Revised 5 % of times, is invalid, because you are using a house rule (well, 2 if playing without tech, but that affect much less)

[Lucifer]

In this matter I’m not only stating my personal opinion, I’m telling you the facts. You will not win more than 5% of all AAR no bid games, as axis, against me, or any decent players, playing allies. If anyone still has not learned, in AAR LL or reg dice will not matter. Maybe LL or dice could mean 5% victories instead of 10%, but that is not the issue in this discussion. Func, tech is as competive as yahtzee, you can make choices, even if most games are decided by dice, not players.
I will repeat, this discussion is not about if a 3 ipc or 6 ipc bid is more appropriate than a 8-9 ipc bid, but we’re talking NO BIDS whatsoever!!

Plz stop lying about randomness, or start listening to math professors… :roll: :roll: :roll:

Internet trolls are everywhere these days… :roll: :roll: :roll:

[squirecam]

@Subotai:

In this matter I’m not only stating my personal opinion, I’m telling you the facts. You will not win more than 5% of all AAR no bid games, as axis, against me, or any decent players, playing allies. If anyone still has not learned, in AAR LL or reg dice will not matter. Maybe LL or dice could mean 5% victories instead of 10%, but that is not the issue in this discussion. Func, tech is as competive as yahtzee, you can make choices, even if most games are decided by dice, not players.
I will repeat, this discussion is not about if a 3 ipc or 6 ipc bid is more appropriate than a 8-9 ipc bid, but we’re talking NO BIDS whatsoever!!

Plz stop lying about randomness, or start listening to math professors… :roll: :roll: :roll:

Internet trolls are everywhere these days… :roll: :roll: :roll:

You’ve stated your opinion. I and others, including axis Roll have ours.

The only one acting trollish now is you.

[Flying Tiger]

I wonder how many of the 45 Allied victories involved a KGIF strategy with zero to minimum pacific investment by America? Maybe 40?

[Lucifer]

@squirecam:

You’ve stated your opinion. I and others, including axis Roll have ours.

If the premise is a 5 player game, and the players are not experienced, then a bid would not be needed, necessarily. I’m talking about a 1vs1 game when both players try to win, not having fun with US BB strat in the pacific. In a 1vs1 game when players knows what they’re doing, a bid is needed, or allies will almost always win. I.e., if you play against me, you could possibly win some of the first games, b/c of very bad dice rolls, b/c I haven’t played much Revised the last year, but you will not win more than 5%, in a hypothetical 100 games scenario. After the first 10 games, if you win any of those, maybe one out of the first 10 games you can win b/c of extremely bad luck, but you would not win a single game against me after the first 10 games. Only with a dice cheat you could win.
And obviously, within my premise is the no tech setting.

If you claim that axis can/will win 40%, you’re saying that many players are n00bs, and maybe you’re right, but in a 1vs1 with decent players trying to win, the number of axis victory will be closer to 1% or 5%, or zero, than 40%.
Also, in Revised, LL or ADS is totally unimportant. It does not affect game balance or strats whatsoever.
Maybe your claim has a slight relevance in general, but for 1vs1 with decent players it is pure fantasy.

[Lucifer]

" The problem is, that once you have the Allied strategy of battle of attrition down pat, there is nothing the Axis can do to stop it (barring insanely good luck over at least a 3 turn period). The Allies have the luxury of having several battles go bad for them, but the Axis are practically doomed by just 1 unlucky big battle. The other problem of course is that the battle of attrition strategy is BORING!!! That is why the real life win % for Axis is higher, not because of balance, but because many players just won’t stick with the plodding, slow, boring process of wearing down the Axis. Who wants to play a 4-6 hour game where the eventual outcome is pretty much decided and the few lucky battles for the Axis dont actually turn the tide, but just delay it a few more turns."

This is from a post on another forum, english is not my first language, he explains this better than I do.

With effecient strats and decent players, there is no chance that axis can or will win 40% of no bids, no tech games.

If the axis do not get a strong position pretty early, axis are doomed against decent players. That’s why axis need a bid.

What we seem to be discussing, rather than what strats, and/or balance, seems like we’re discussing how good/bad skills the average player have when playing Revised.

There is no player, among the one I believe is good players who will play against me as axis w/o any bids, b/c they would proably lose against a weaker player (me) just b/c they choose to play axis w/o any bids…

Just for the record, I’m not talking about f2f games with beer and pretzels, I’m stating facts in the software version (TripleA) of 1vs1 online AAR live games with sensible time limits…which is also AAR, it’s just much more efficient when trying/playing different strats, it doesn’t matter if you prefer this environment, or f2f social games, I’m talking about the 2 sides in 1vs1 setting both players really trying to win, and w/o dice cheats…:-) :-D :-) :-P