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

[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

[TimTheEnchanter]

Why so much discussion of AAR here? :?

[Lucifer]

Revised is 5 years old, so why do we have any disagreements on the general AAR matters???
How high the bid should be in AAR can be discussed, but not the fact that a bid is needed, or else the allies will win almost all games against decent players, in a no tech 1vs1 setting. I don’t know why some n00bs still can’t accept the facts.
Maybe b/c they’re n00bs and can’t/won’t learn how to play AAR with efficient strats.

In AA50 41 with NOs, I think allies can/will win more than 5% with decent players, how strong is the axis bias is, is hard to say, but as I said before, against good players, if the axis player does not do the right first rnd moves, and/or got diced, a good player will take advantage of this, and thus will make the allied player win. Could be determined to the Egy attack G1 yes, but this is a 20% failure, and even if a Egy G1 failure will not decide the outcome of the game, it is very important.

[Lucifer]

@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

It’s not about arguments, it’s about empirical data, and statistics.

[squirecam]

The fact is, there is litle statistical difference between a 3-6 bid over a long game. One battle here or there provides the same infantry gain/loss. All a small bid does is make a first round attack easier/harder (or potentially dissuades that attack, in which case the attacker goes elsewhere).

As a basic example, we will purchase an inf/tank, one placed in UKR (to somewhat dissuade an attack there, or to aid in taking more tanks) and one in Lybia.

A Normal attack on Egypt can involve the transport, or not (should Germany decide to go west instead). W/o a bid, Germany can bring 1 inf 1 armor, 2 fighters (reason for UKR bid) and 1 bomber (14). Egypt has 9 Defense.

Germany should get 2-3 hits the first round. UK should only get 1-2. This is sufficient force to “guarantee” taking the fighter, but not the territory.

Adding a bid unit means you are more likely to take Egypt, but in “many” games Uk will only get 1 hit back. I’m sure everyone has also seen UK get three hits as well. So the bid unit could just as well be lost.

Now, as to the unit itself, an art or armor makes the attack force a 17. Still not quite a “guarantee” of 3 hits, but close. But the UK still can hit back, possibly with 3, and 50% at 2.

The point is this…

In 50% of the “w/o bid” games, UK may only get that 1 hit. In which case, Germany has 1 unit (armor) left.

In 50% of the “bid armor” games, UK gets 2 hits. Germany still has 1 armor left.

That bid unit actually left you in no better shape than you would have been in without any bid, but UK got one less hit in defense.

And certainly, there is no difference (from this point on) in the game to say that having the bid “won” it for you.

Bid units generally only make first round attacks a bit better or worse odds wise. The rest of the “effect” is largely inside people’s heads.

The secondary effect (dissuading a first round attack in UKR) may happen, but the result is USSR just attacks elsewhere (belo/WR) OR perhaps USSR wasnt going to attack UKR in the first place.

You are entitled to your opinion. Likewise I am to mine.

[Lucifer]

I can agree to disagree, I will add that in the old TripleA ladder the axis win % was 51% with $9 bid, one unit pr. TT. Less than $8 I would rather play allies.

I guess there is no way that I can prove it is the bid itself which makes the difference, and not only  psychology/mentality in the players heads.
I think it’s the units which makes the difference, but the most important is that no decent player in 1vs1 setting will play axis with less than $8, and the best players will not play against me w/o bids b/c they think they’d lose b/c of no bid setting.

[squirecam]

@Subotai:

I can agree to disagree

works for me

[Lucifer]

@squirecam:

You are entitled to your opinion. Likewise I am to mine.

Well, as an European liberal I agree to that. But I’m not quite finished yet, you will not will be close to winning 40% of axis no bid, no tech games against me. And I will repeat, I’m not a top player, even if I think (hope) I’m better than average.

There are very few, if any, players who have a snowballs chance in hell, to be close to beating me as axis, (I’m allies with no bid and no tech) 4 out of 10 games. That is a fact until proven otherwise. I will repeat the setting, 1vs1 TripleA (live) online with reasonable time limits, no tech and no bids. The best you can hope for, is to be a much better player, but not even that will help you to achieve close to 40%.

[questioneer]

@squirecam:

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.

I agree here, also, the question is what combination of optional rules with the base game will balance the game the best?  Only then should we add the bidding to the game to curb the rest if needed.  This may take another 12-18 months of game online and FTF by all of us.  It may be a long anaylsis.

You have 2 scenarios and 4+ optional rules- that’s a lot a combinations to comb through.  + the bid.

And yes the Allied bombing strategy messes things up a bit.
:-)

[panzer666]

@Subotai:

With “decent” players, and “effecient” strats, axis are favored. This “fact” could change, but very unlikely. When playing against good players, if axis fail to expand quickly, allies could/should win, but for the overall stats, Egy G1 is a win 4 of 5, and this is only one of several important aspect of the game balance issue. I’m not saying you can’t play, and I’m not saying saying allies can’t win, cause it’s not true, but for game balance purpose regardless of playing skills/experience, axis are favored!!!
Let there be no doubt. How high is the axis bias, it’s hard to say, as so much is dependent on the first rnd dice, but for more than 50% of all games, assuming decent players, equal amount of mistakes, the axis will win more than 50% in no tech +NOs games. It’s even possible that the allied bid needed for balance is less than $6 ipc, but AA50 is much more dependent on the dice outcomes in rnd1 than Revised.

[panzer666]

I do not see a G1 taking out egypt .Unless you use a bomber and i do not agree with that.
If you take the die roll and plus one for the unit you get
G inf2
  inf3
  art3
  tank 4
  tank 4  total 16            england has inf3    inf3 tank4 art 3  fighter5  total 18

G losses      italians must soften first

[General_D.Fox]

@panzer666:

I do not see a G1 taking out egypt .Unless you use a bomber and i do not agree with that.
If you take the die roll and plus one for the unit you get
G inf2
  inf3
  art3
   tank 4
   tank 4  total 16             england has inf3    inf3 tank4 art 3   fighter5  total 18

G losses      italians must soften first

But do the Italians really have enough to soften with? Then can attack with 3 inf, 1 arm/art, 1 ftr, 1 BB/CA. If the UK put their TJ inf into Egypt, that would mean there are now 4 or 5 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 ftr (maybe). But hey, that’s just me thinking the Italians need to be the ones to finish the job.

[Jennifer]

@Imperious:

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.

I dunno, 54% should be within the margin of error for perfectly balanced.  Remember, some of us have more skills than others and some of us have less skill than others.  On top of that, you do have the dice, but one would assume that the dice are balanced from game to game.

[Jennifer]

@The:

@panzer666:

I do not see a G1 taking out egypt .Unless you use a bomber and i do not agree with that.
If you take the die roll and plus one for the unit you get
G inf2
  inf3
  art3
   tank 4
   tank 4  total 16             england has inf3    inf3 tank4 art 3   fighter5  total 18

G losses      italians must soften first

But do the Italians really have enough to soften with? Then can attack with 3 inf, 1 arm/art, 1 ftr, 1 BB/CA. If the UK put their TJ inf into Egypt, that would mean there are now 4 or 5 inf, 1 art, 1 arm, 1 ftr (maybe). But hey, that’s just me thinking the Italians need to be the ones to finish the job.

Without the bomber you are most likely not getting the battleship in sz 2, which is fine.

Likewise, if Germany does not take out Egypt on the first round, then Italy cannot have Jordan on the first round for the trifecta and the second national objective!

[DarthMaximus]

I just did another count and here is what we have:

Thru 7/12:

Tournament (wins)
Allies - 15
Axis - 14

Allies Win % - 51.7%
Axis Win % - 48.3%

League (wins)
Allies - 48
Axis - 60

Allies Win % - 44.4%
Axis Win % - 55.6%

Overall (wins)

Allies - 63
Axis - 74

Allies Win % - 46%
Axis Win % - 54%

Note:
Since I last did the count on 6/2, in the League the Allies and Axis went 18-18 against each other.

[panzer666]

I do not favor the italians getting anything because if they fall (and i think they will fall before Germany)there lands will be in no mans land……I think the bomber is more effective in sinking hms hood in sz 2