@Subotai:
I can agree to disagree
works for me
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%.
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.
:-)
@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.
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
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 18G 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.
@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.
@The:
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 18G 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!
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.
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
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
also i don’t playwith teck and no’s why because i think all that stuff just takes away from the skill of the gameboard.does italy have enough to soften?well they have support shots of 7 so lets say they kill an inf for sure.they have attack power of 14 against egyptian defence of 20.england will have the fighter left and maybe the tank.A good battle for G2.This is why i think it’s always better to send over reinforcements form india if the british transport survives J1.or just send them all to russia
If egypt is reinforced with indian and trans jorda troops Axis powers must call of the attack and send their troops to russia
the thing about this game is it’s a 1st round game.the axis need to take a big risk 1st round(im talking about germany mostly).If they lose too many fighters G1 there doomed.with the americans pulling out of the pacific ,british building the fleet axis have no chance.DO not fight the japs.all that matters is how many of the luftwaffe are left.build the british fleet accordingly.Russia needs to build some tanks each round to counter nazi movements.britan needs the factory in sa in a worst case senario.all american troops must be situated in eastern canada for a two fold attack.to hell with the italian fleet,when the allies are landing everywhere they mean nothing
the axis only play a gambit move
The thing about these stats is
1. There is huge skill difference in alot of these games. There are about 3 or 4 very solid good players and alot of average players. I think i can predict alot of games by who plays which side and if you reverse the sides you get the same result. For example DY vs alot of players DY would win as axis and as allies or dutchman or KGB once he gets a few games under his belt. So It’s like asking random dudes off the street if white or black is better in chess. Kasparov would say white is but would still crush 99% of all players as black.
The point is that randomness is assumed here… I am just as often allies as I am axis and it makes no difference.
that being said I think the game sides are equal. The stats show that.
Any decent A&A player wont care what side he plays.
If you ate truelly concerned about the skill issue, just review the tournies from R3 to the finish. every player from that point knows how to play the game.
