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

Why so much discussion of AAR here? :?

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@Subotai:

I can agree to disagree

works for me

@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%.

@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.
:-)

@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

@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.

@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:

@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!

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

@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

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.