(Probably) All versions of Axis and Allies are Imbalanced (yes, even Anniversary)

[The_Good_Captain]

@Narvik Nice. we might have more in common than we think then. I was also in the military. I did four years active duty and then four more in the reserves.

Just between you and me, I know the five versions of which I speak are imbalanced (unless and until someone comes along and shows me a strategy that was missed). I also know that Pacific 1940 is imbalanced, Global 1940 is imbalanced, Guadalcanal appears to be imbalanced and Pacific (2000) is imbalanced. I just don’t have series done on them yet. I also have it on good authority that 1942 is imbalanced. If you listen to the community at large, you’ll hear that Anniversary is balanced when it just isn’t (at least the 1941 setup - but if you bring in the National Objectives, then both are imbalanced).

I only have about 20 or so games under my belt of the above list where I have at least 30-40 of the versions I have a series for. To mention all these and the caveats is to lose the attention span of most audience members and so it is left out. Those games will be rated when their series’ are complete. This has a lot to do with a thoroughness and attention to detail that I’ve learned in the military. I grant that the thumbnail was “over my skis” but that has been/ will be fixed.

In which version of axis and allies can submarines shoot down planes?

[barnee]

@The_Good_Captain

Hi Captain

My opinion is the balance is dependent on experience/skill level. Using the G 40 game as an example, the best most experienced players have proven Axis to have the advantage in an OOB game.

However, with novice players, the game is much less one sided. Bidding is a proven an effective way to adjust the game if it begins to favor one side more than the other.

Also think that certain levels of play could hardwire in certain changes as another alternative. Could be the addition of extra units for certain players at certain game rounds. Additional income etc …

Similar to the old Avalon Hill “Russian Campaign” where they had “What If” scenarios. Although putting the Bulge on the Russians with 2 extra Panzer divisions didn’t really make a big difference even as historically accurate as it was :)

At any rate, more options to the original games are what I’d like to see. There is a “Commanders” option/addition that has recently come out that is supposed to be used in all AA games.

This sounds a Great idea but I have basically no experience with it and haven’t seen a lot of feedback from it.

Enjoy your stuff. Keep up the Good work :)

Edit
Different Victory conditions is another way to adjust the game. The main thing is to try and leave multiple options to win, so there is not just one preferred strategy.

Easier said than done :)

[The_Good_Captain]

@barnee said in (Probably) All versions of Axis and Allies are Imbalanced (yes, even Anniversary):

@The_Good_Captain

Hi Captain

My opinion is the balance is dependent on experience/skill level.

For anyone that may not know (not @barnee but anyone reading this). I am a huge proponent of this concept and have said this repeatedly on my channel: Experience is the single biggest influencing factor when it comes to balance.

I’ve won many games of out-of-box 1914 as the CP against far less experienced opponents. That’s why in the most recent video, I removed that as a factor and assume both sides are being played by ‘grandmasters’.

Great comment - I especially like that you’ve played “Russian Campaign”. That is on my bucket list. So is Ritchtofen’s War and 1776 (if were talking old avalon hill). Those three titles are apparently the most popular of the old hex/counter board games.

[CentralCommando]

I’ve won many games of out-of-box 1914 as the CP against far less experienced opponents. That’s why in the most recent video, I removed that as a factor and assume both sides are being played by ‘grandmasters’.

@The_Good_Captain Hence is why the best way (imo) to test out a game’s balance is soloplay. It helps to eliminate experience curves as there’s no better opponent than yourself. You’ll make a similar amount of genius moves and mistakes no matter the side, which allows you to figure out the general imbalancing and how to improve.

Using A&A 1914 and a relevant YouTuber as an example, The Hilltop Pillbox has a long series of solo play games of A&A 1914 (as well as others), and yet nine out of ten times the Entente win. Main point is, no matter your skill, you are the greatest (and worst) person playing.

Despite the hiccup with the title, great & informative video! Content like yours almost makes me want to make my own A&A videos!

[barnee]

@The_Good_Captain

heh heh I had a half dozen or more AH games as a young teenager. Started with Tactics Two lol

But Russian campaign we played the most. I think Germany only won 2 or 3 times out of 30 games or so but you got the fun of kicking ass early on, especially with the Stukas, until those Russian Guards started showing up every turn lol

[barnee]

@CentralCommando

Hi CentralC

Yep solo play is a good for some stuff. I think one of the best ways is to use the online version of triplea if possible, which most games are, to some degree of accuracy.

You can set it to “LowLuck” to hard crunch battles when testing. That and just the time factor that allows so much more testing than using a physical board.

And yea solo play is how I used to do it for years until some fellow gamers decided to join my preferred game, which I didn’t create, just modded for triplea :)

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36945/axis-allies-global-1940-house-rules-expansion

[CentralCommando]

@barnee Hi Barnee

I personally use Tabletop Simulator to avoid printing, but TripleA definitely streamlines the process of already existing games. I’m glad you enjoy that app!

[The_Good_Captain]

@CentralCommando I love this discussion. This is a lot of fun so please don’t take this the wrong way anybody, but my opinion is that solo play is not very helpful. In the fewest words, I never see anything new if I play myself.

In contrast, if it weren’t for @VictoryFirst I don’t think anyone would have found the “Finnish Fork” in Europe. Gamerman seems to have found a (perhaps) functional Pacific strategy in Classic that nobody has seen. Some of the best use and manipulation of the revolution rule in 1914 came from @DoManMacgee and on and on.

Just to take Hilltop as an example. I saw him play all those solo games of 1914 and then asked if he wanted to play a game. He obliged which was awesome. I took CP out of box and defeated him. I feel strongly I was able to do this thanks to experience (and can say more about this if needs be). Here is the file: O18.tsvg (BTW, Hilltop is a great human being on and offline)

Interested to hear other’s thoughts on that though. My mind isn’t completely made up on solo play.

[CentralCommando]

@The_Good_Captain I understand your perspective, but as you said in your video (and this topic), It mostly comes down to a skill difference. Soloplay is good when testing balance as you are in the same headspace as your opponent, which means you’ll be fighting at the same skill level. Games “seeming the same” is actually a good tell on how balanced a game is. For example, if the Axis win more often than not, even if you change up your strategies, then the game is Axis-biased. Get rid of/move a couple Axis units or add Allied ones and see if it changes the outcome. You keep doing this until either the Allies win roughly half of time or if they greatly surpass the Axis. If the latter is true, reverse the trend. Also, make sure to ever so slightly change your strategy every playthrough, and then have games where you measure the impact of responding to that strategy or not as the enemy.

I mostly only do Solo play if I’m playtesting/balancing a game, or if I’m lonely. It’s almost always better to play with other people when you can, but for solely balance purposes Solo play is the way to go in my book. Also, no offense taken!

[barnee]

@CentralCommando said in (Probably) All versions of Axis and Allies are Imbalanced (yes, even Anniversary):

or if I’m lonely. It’s almost always better to play with other people when you can

Only time I play solo is when I have no one to play with :)

[VictoryFirst]

@CentralCommando I think a mix of both is better. You can’t discover true balance with only solo play, as you will not get exposed to strategies you did not think of. @The_Good_Captain gave some good examples of this.

However, solo play can be good for discovering new strategies yourself, as you can quickly play a large number of games, try out something new each game, and easily make small changes to the strategies until you’ve fine-tuned them. This is harder against opponents because opponents will play differently and you’d also have to wait for them to do their turn.

[The_Good_Captain]

@VictoryFirst …that is a good point. To be frank, I have repeatedly played out the UK dual IC build in classic by myself to get it to work right / find out when or when not to do it. That can/should be considered solo play.

Yeah, good point.