Grasshopper's G40 Card Deck (video added)

Got it. That’s what I thought. Thanks Panther

We played with dice, not low luck.

I’m curious which statements here are differing from what you’ve seen in the league? Do you feel that this NO is playing differently or is more relevant in the league?

I suppose its important to realize that any statements you read here on the boards are largely anecdotal. It comes down to how much of what you read accords with your own experience. And of course results will differ depending on what conditions you typically play with. For example, I noticed just now you mentioned the Russian bomber in another thread. In G40, and in other prior A&A games, many people have used additional Russian aircraft as an expedient alternative to the open pre-placement bid. An Extra Russian fighter in AA50 for example, or a Bomber in G40. In G40 specifically, that option is preferable to me, than an open bid for UK. Its the sort of set up change you really have to force though, because given the option most people would take that same bid amount and instead throw down 4 infantry or 3 art units in separate territories to spread the advantage, or a pair of subs to break a naval battle. Anyway, the point being that if you are using a Russian bomber in your games regularly, then chances our you’ll be seeing different results from people who try other balancing options. Beyond this, there is also the No Tech aspect, or things like whether or not players are using standard dice rules or low luck rules. All this stuff can skew the results in a given set of games, or provide somewhat different play-balance results from the games of people who play other ways.

I will say this about G40, if you play standard dice, there is a fairly substantial swing potential on sz 110 and sz 111, not to mention with casualties in France. This can be a pretty big deal for an opening battle that sets the stage for the whole game. The results there can be a lot more consequential than say Classic/Revised when a transport hit, or a destroyer dudded out was in the opening round. The old German battleship headache comes to mind. Or take for example how in Revised the swing on the W. Russia battle could really effect the whole game in a massive way, such that some players would just quit outright in the opening round, if the dice didn’t go their way. Something similar can occur here (though perhaps not quite as extreme) with sz 110 and 111. If the Luftwaffe trades well in those battles it can be a huge boon for Axis. If they trade poorly it can be a small nightmare for G. Low Luck can control for that to a certain extent, but what you gain in consistency by using LL during the opening round, you lose out on in dynamism during the endgame. This is why I tend to prefer dice since they are so unpredictable for the endgame, though I appreciate the place for LL and understand why so many are fond of it. Still even a small bid disrupting either of those battles, or the battles in the med, can take it from a risky swing to a clear and obvious choice, especially under LL conditions.

So all that is just to say that the conventions in your playgroup, the typical bid, what sort of rules you option in or out, can really affect the patterns that emerge.

You’ll probably have noticed as well, that because A&A uses a very fixed set up and involves a number of scripted first round battles, that players often use a technique that you might call mirroring. Where players tend to model their strategies and opening moves, on things that they’ve seen stronger opponents do. Adopting the strategies that beat you last time, we might call it. This happens a lot after a board first comes out, or especially with players who are new to the game. So what happens is a kind of gameplay evolution, that selects for the best opening plays and weeds out the poorer ones over time. So right after a new board comes out everyone is excited, since the playing field is leveled, and nobody really knows how to exploit the map. Very quickly though, players start adopting standard buys and standard openings, until at some point (after a year say) someone hits on a strategy that is very dominant, which never remains secret very long. Soon variations in it get more popular, until eventually it becomes a scripted move (something everyone does.) Its usually at this point, if the advantage is clearly going one way, to one side over the other, that people start seriously examining bid solutions.

Whats interesting about all this, is that if you are playing with someone who is inexperienced, and does something totally batshit crazy, that you wouldn’t expect anyone to do ever, sometimes that sort of game can actually get entertaining as well as challenging. Since you really don’t know how to predict the erratic behavior of the newb. These games can be fun, since they force all sorts of weird decisions on you. Like wow, he built that? I guess I have to go destroy it now, and do something I wouldn’t usually do haha.

I agree though, from an archival standpoint, its nice to have a league and a way to track what sorts of things are happening in games (what sort of bids are being used for example, and what opening moves.) The overall tally Axis wins to Allied wins. But even there, the nature of the dice can be pretty nuts in providing different experiences.

All this is just to clarify something that it might have been worth saying at the outset. When I talk about game “Balance” or “Balance by Sides” what I am really referring to is the ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’ among both players that the starting conditions provide a roughly even shot for either to prevail. There’s no way to be really absolute about this, since as soon as you roll the dice in a single round of combat, you shoot off into so many different variables that its probably impossible to say anything with certainty… eg. whether a bad roll somewhere can be recovered by an amazing one somewhere else, later on. So really what we a striving for is the sweet spot, where the feeling of balance is the same for both players at the outset. Where one person isn’t constantly grumbling about how the odds are totally stacked against them from the get go, or how if they don’t win battle X, “its basically all over!” I’m not sure how much you could learn from seeing my games in an after action, since I’m perhaps not as cut throat as others, and I like to experiment a lot (often with game mechanics.) I don’t mind losses and haven’t bothered to keep a running tally on anything.

If I’m in the lobby and I have more time to play, I also almost never concede defeat, at least until I see the deep endgame ;) Since that’s the one that fascinates me most in A&A games! The deep endgame, for those unfamiliar with how I use the term in A&A, is how things play after capitals have already fallen. So in Classic or Revised or 1942.2 the Deep Endgame is when you are down to just 4 nations. In AA50 when you are down to 5 etc. Another way to think about it is the gameplay when W. Allies can take over Russian land directly because the capital has fallen.

Pretty good at grinding it out, since even a losing game can be entertaining, and it teaches you about the production spread and the importance of the center ;) But now I’m just rambling.

Is it the general premise of this thread (that Russia’s NOs are too weak, and virtually pointless) that you find problematic? Or the proposed solution as a bid alternative? I guess I’m just a little confused where you think we’re running off track. Most of the results posted in that league forum for g40 games (at least for the last several months) show Allies being bid out consistently, often at above +10 ipc. So I feel that it supports the general position of game unbalance in favor of Axis. I’m not sure what bearing any of those games would have on my proposed solution right now, since those games are virtually all using pre-placement bids. What I have suggested here is a standard income modification for an NO as an alternative to what people are currently doing, which is bidding pre-placement. Does that make more sense from the perspective of a bid replacement/balance perspective?

All the rule changes were done to benefit the allies. If you are playing OOB the allies are garbage.
~

taking calcutta is much easier. How is it even possible to defend India?

Even if you are not calcutta oriented and you are just a crazy guy who does whatever, on round 1 you can take anzac if you win a 1 infantry vs 1 infantry battle.

even if you are none of the above drop minors round 2 or 3 and wam bam shazam you have the ground forces necessary to secure all of asia.

J3 anzac is 100% as well. TO do this you have to DoW J1 take west australia. Then J2 fly 13 air units on it. Then J3 bam anzac dead, thanks for playing. (you can get the rest of your air if you feel like dropping an airbase on kwangsi instead of doing the caroline thing).

~

As far as Europe goes. Look at how empty london is. So you defend london. Say bye to Egypt, just give Italy a few rounds.

~

Round 1 hit sz 110, sz 111, sz 112. 1 sub vs 1 destroyer in sz 109. buy dd sub carrier.

You sink a bunch of naval and place sz 112. He can only hit with 6 units, 3 fighter tactical carrier and dd vs sub dd cruiser bship carrier 2 fighter. You are 1 up. Can UK defend itself? Not with Naval.

So he buys 9 infantry.  Flies his stuff in gets the canada dudes in and yet Germany still has 50-61% to defend UK. OK ignore it and go for Russia. Simple.

So what stops Italy from taking Egypt? Unless you pull India air to somaliland and then fly it to Egypt (or pull it to transjordan) you don’t stand a chance. Even if you do, you got like a 1/3 chance of holding.
~

Sure USA makes 30 when at war (25 in 2nd edition), but the only other allied power making NO money is ANZAC.

**Point is OOB can get super stupid super fast or end up being super boring super stalemate. Generally speaking yeah I J1 DOW and yeah I J3 ANZAC or I wait and take calcutta. I prefer ANZAC, easy to defend and it is easier to work to India than to push out later. At first global was super boring and I generally played three rounds (sea lion / calcutta and was done) then when I developed other strategies it was fun for the first couple games, but then I realized OOB pacific was just stupid.

OOB had few strategies and you were almost always better off just going gun ho for the quick win.**

I will also add that if you do not do some sort of all in play as the axis you will lose the game in the long run.

southern france is easier than normandy g1. you can get one of those fighters in east europe somewhere (you know the one that is out of range from naval and you usually send to yugoslavia than italy). 3 mech fighter good to go.

I prefer to just do france. Though I like the southern france move when I am doing some kind of sea lion play. Prevents uk from merging fleet off gibraltar.

In this instance I prefer to take yugoslavia.

However if I am undecided… yeah I like the strafe. Shove east poland g2 no prob, start advancing sooner. It is really good if you plan on going all in on russia G5. It super all in, all the allies have to do is figure out a way to save russia. That is the whole game right there.

Might not have been the wildest game , but my best friend has not recovered and still talks about how ridiculous it is, so he is the wildest part of the story!
Won D-Day with 1Art in St Lo(my only unit), when he probably had 15-20 units left all poised to conquer a vacant Normandy.
Might ring him tonight and remind him of it:
I love Axis favoured games.

I’ve got a more offensive posture to take if Japan masses in Carolines.  Move the fleet to z30, including the fighter from Philippines and 2 loaded transports.  Land 3 fighters, 1 tac and 1 bomber on Johnston Island and build an airbase there, with 2 more carriers in z10. Leave a destroyer in z25 and maybe z31 to block a landing on Hawaii. Now if Japan attacks anything J2 you can smoke that fleet off carolines and maybe even take the island if they don’t leave a blocker.  Planes that take off from Johnston island will land on the carriers from z10 when they NCM to z30.  ANZAC can help too.

France surviving the first round attack by Germany puts up a very interesting rest of the game. Various things can happen.

1. Italy takes France on their turn making Italy a very rich country. 30+ IPCS gives them a strong I2 purchase letting them destroy the British navy in the Mediterranean Sea, fulfil their NO’s, take over Africa and the Middle East and most importantly open a new front for Russia and survive whatever America can throw at them. This makes Italy more powerful than Germany so there should be Italian intervention going on in Russia and the French coast.

2. The French open a land campaign against Germany and Italy causing trouble. Creates an opening for British and eventually American troops to land and land fighters. More importantly it takes Germany’s attention off of Russia and Italy’s off of Africa and the Mediterranean Sea. This almost gaurentees that America will invest in Japan.

3. France can build a fleet with England to land troops early in the game. This can in turn put more heat on England as Germany may build a navy as well. Puts alot of heat west and off of Russia. The Navy can later help Germany and attack Russia in two places. This navy that France and England builds may make America fully invest in Japan as well.

The last 2 of these these seem to ask for a German capture of London as a German capture of Moscow doesn’t seem possible at that point. The first looks like America will invest in the Europe side. This begs for the capture of Moscow.

In conclusion I think that the French surviving the first attack doesn’t make the Axis lose but it limits their choices.