AARe: Setup Changes?

[Stephen]

To get a feel for what the AARe playing community thinks:

Should setup changes be considered as a means of balancing the game & reducing bids in AARe?

Or put in other terms:

If a setup change can be shown to reduce the axis bid, should it be considered?

(setup changes can include addition or swapping of units)

[series]

My vote: No

[axis_roll]

The bid serves two purposes at once:

Allows sides to be choosen, and helps equalize the game.

Each player has a specific number that they feel they need to win if they choose the axis.

I prefer the bid to equalize a game over game start up modifications.

[pagan]

I think a bid is the result of a broken game.

fix the game, remove the bid.

[DocD]

Wrong roll. The bid has only one purpose. It equalizes playing field if players are unequally skilled.

No other reason for it. Same as placing PC game AI on EASY.

While I'm not for setup changes, I think giving the German player a chance to switch art and arm in Africa before the game starts would be ok.

0 bid should always be gold standard, and ruleset should search out such as best and as simple as possible.

[axis_roll]

Wrong roll. The bid has only one purpose. It equalizes playing field if players are unequally skilled.
Sorry! but the bid DOES facilitate the choosing of sides. PERIOD.

What if I like to play only the allies, or the axis? Guess what? I can bid to get the side I like.

=================================

Would you say all players are equal in ability/skill?
I highly doubt that. So you would almost ALWAYS then need a way to balance their abilities.

Who would best know a players skill level?
The player themself
(even if it were merely their own perception of their skill level, e.g. series)

The bid then balance these differences in player ability.

[pagan]

Without a bid it would be a random number selection for sides.
With a tied bid then it comes down to a variety of things (ladder-level, chance, want)
Ladders would use Priority of level if there was no bid.
These things are nothing more than a method of selection.
Nothing special there.

Because of bidding, the selection of sides became intertwined with it, but it should not be confused as THE selection process. The bid is for balancing the game. The selection process is necessary and just happens to be attached to the bidding system.

Catering to 'poor' players is not for the good of the game.

Leaving in a bid does not mean that the game can't still be adjusted to remove the NEED for one. So in the case of a normal bid of ZERO (a balanced game) with good players, the selction process is by want, and if both want the same thing then it's by chance.

So in clarification:
-balancing the game removes the NEED for a bid
-bidding could still be in the game
-side-selection could still be tied with a bid, and then by chance

[Defiance]

To give a short reply on this matter: I fully agree with Pagan.

The art/arm switch in north africa is a fine way to easily increase german odds in africa: the bid system should be there only for side-selection, not as an extra african unit for germany.

[axis_roll]

Without a bid it would be a random number selection for sides.
The bid allows me to select the side I would like to play... isn't that a GOOD thing?
Ladders would use Priority of level if there was no bid.
please elaborate. I've never heard of such a thing.

These things are nothing more than a method of selection.
Nothing special there.
It's selection with a prejudice, so it's NOT the same thing. I get to influence WHICH SIDE I get to play by how I bid... Is that the same as a coin toss? NO.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Because of bidding, the selection of sides became intertwined with it, but it should not be confused as THE selection process.
One more time, bidding and selection of sides are NOT the same.

The bid is for balancing the game.
In theory, it is possible to create a balanced game....
sure I agree. BUT in whose eyes is it balanced?

Look at the discussions we are having know regarding is the game balanced or not? Some say no bid is even needed (hence the game is balanced) others say 12-15 is needed for the axis (Not very balanced!)

Who is more correct?

I don't know... and the KEY point is that I don't need to know!

The game doesn't have to be perfectly balanced. That's what the bid is all about.... to balance the two players PERCEPTIONS of game imbalance.

Catering to 'poor' players is not for the good of the game.Please define a poor player.

Also, how is a 'poor' player supposed to get any better if they never play a 'top' player? They need to learn somehow... and a bid allows a top player to play a 'poor' player on an even playing field.

So in clarification:
-balancing the game removes the NEED for a bid
-bidding could still be in the game
-side-selection could still be tied with a bid, and then by chance
well in your conclusion, I agree with #2 and #3, and I already explained how a game can never truely be balanced as it really depends on a players perception of the game.

[Stephen]

What a bid accomplishes is similar to what a setup change accomplishes. Perhaps the biggest difference for me is the fact that bids are a form of variable startup, whereas standardizing a setup change enforces a singular, specific setup on all players.

If one should say that bids allow the purity of the original setup to remain unviolated, I would disagree, since bids often allow for pre-placement, effectively changing the original setup. (Granted, I don't think anyone has made this connection, but I want to highlight the contradiction I see between the two).

To reiterate, my problem is with CJ's assertion that no setup changes should be made, yet a tank in Libya is required before he will agree to play the Axis. To me, this amounts to a setup change, albeit in a variable sense (others are free not to place an ARM in Libya). Since an opening attack on Egypt is seen by many as a key component of G1, I can't figure out how CJ's argument can coincide with a belief that no setup changes should occur. Demanding an arm in Libya prior to game-start is a setup change!

[Vollick1979]

Stephen you're absolutely correct in your assessment of CJ's wanting a tank in Libya is essentially a setup change disguised as the end result of a bid.


The bid has only one purpose. It equalizes playing field if players are unequally skilled.

So if you consider yourself the same skill as someone you'll play someone as the axis with no bid. If you then lose more than you win would you then consider yourself less-skilled than the opponent and demand a bid? Now i'm not saying you're not a skilled player, because I truly believe you are, but bids are used for a variety of purposes.

Pagan was right in saying that bids aren't necessary to create a balanced game (it just happens that this game isn't balanced) and can be used as part of a selection process. But right now I would say bids are used for a multitude of reasons all intertwined. If I really want to play the Axis and I want a bid of 6 I may be willing to go down to a 4 in order to play the Axis. So essentially the bid for balancing was a +6 and the bid for playing who i wanted was a -2.

But like i've said in another post bidding needs to be revamped IMO.

[DocD]

OK, I admit to a mis-step here. Let me explain.Sorry! but the bid DOES facilitate the choosing of sides. PERIOD.

What if I like to play only the allies, or the axis? Guess what? I can bid to get the side I like.
Ok, the bid facilitates choosing of sides. So what. It doesn't have to!
=================================

Would you say all players are equal in ability/skill?no.

I highly doubt that. So you would almost ALWAYS then need a way to balance their abilities.I think you are agreeing with me here. Though I wouldn't say ALWAYS. That's going to be a guess by anybody's standard

The bid then balance these differences in player ability.. That's pretty much what I said.
Who would best know a players skill level?
The player themself
(even if it were merely their own perception of their skill level, e.g. series)
The most interesting thing about this, is that people (ie CJ) demand bids even though most of the time they know nothing or little of their opponent's skill level.

As far as balanced....let's not get into fantasy world here ok. Few things in the universe are completely balanced. I'm talking with in reason. Game should balance among "equally skilled players"... (use your own imagination of what equally skilled players mean) regardless of which side is being played.

[pagan]

Axis_Roll , or anyone else for that matter...

Does Chess need a bid?

Is removing your Knights when playing poor-players 'in-effect' a bid?

If you say yes to a bid for Chess, then what happens to grandmasters playing each other? Is there still a NEED for a bid?

What is the defintion of a grandmaster to you?

When learning a game like Chess, do you learn more by playing people better than yourself and studying them?

Would learning the game of chess be the same with peices removed from your opponent?

Would the game of chess be the same with a Second White-Queen?

Is it possible to balance A&A among ALL of its viable strategic flows , including NAs, to start the game?

If it is not possible, then how does a bid accomplish this?

[Vollick1979]

I learned how to play chess by playing my dad and him "giving" me a rook, so essentially he played without 1 rook. This was a great way to play until I learned enough to play him without the need for that rook.

But to answer your question, no chess doesn't need a bid to make the game fair. The slight advantage there is in the game occurs simply due to the fact white goes first.

And I think it's possible to balance A&A, or so close to balanced that it would be almost impossible for any mere mortal to tell the difference.

[cousin_joe]

I learned how to play chess by playing my dad and him "giving" me a rook, so essentially he played without 1 rook. This was a great way to play until I learned enough to play him without the need for that rook.

But to answer your question, no chess doesn't need a bid to make the game fair. The slight advantage there is in the game occurs simply due to the fact white goes first.

And I think it's possible to balance A&A, or so close to balanced that it would be almost impossible for any mere mortal to tell the difference.

Same, although my dad started with a queen, and eventually moved down to a pawn, and then straight up. You actually get a chance to learn instead of being torched mercilessly.

I disagree with what you say about White though. Playing White in Chess is a HUGE advantage and at high level play, the goal of Black is typically to just try and get the tie. Often what you'll see is players playing a series of games, playing White and Black an even number of times. With Axis and Allies, there is no such luxury, and what you get is a one game deal. If you could only play one game, I would definitely take Allies (or White in Chess), as they have the obvious advantage.

True, A&A could probably be balanced to the point of near perfection, such that equally highly skilled players would have an equal chance of winning playing either side. Problems: Not Enough Highly Skilled Players, Not Enough Games, Not Enough Time. Solution: Incorporate a bid which provides a rough balancing mechanism and is adaptable to rule changes.

The problem here is that people are asking to remove the bid, when the game's actual balance point has not even yet been determined. This is absolutely silly!!! :rolleyes:

[axis_roll]

Axis_Roll , or anyone else for that matter...

Does Chess need a bid?

My God Pagan!

Chess is the best example you could come up with?
Chess is the total opposite of A&A.
In fact,when people complain about the dice in A&A, we tell them to go play chess.

WHY?

There are no random events in chess. A&A is riddled with them.

I have played A&A for 20+ years, and I have played many opponents in rated games who thought the base MB second edition rules (or 3rd edition CD rom) needed anywhere from a bid of 12 to 23 to balance the game. This is from great Axis (only need 12) to great Allied (I can still win giving 23) players.

With a large disparity of $11 in the bid, doesn't seem like you could EVER balance the game... again, I ask:

"BALANCED IN WHOSE EYES?"

[newaxis]

Once again <Tsssshh Tssssh Tsssshhh> That's the sound of a fire extinguisher putting out the dangerous sparks of a discussion gotten out of hand.


When I say "I would like to have a version of Axis & Allies in which, player skill being equal, there is no need for a bid.", read that closely. There are a few camps concerning the need for a bid on a given game of Axis & Allies

1) The game itself is imbalanced, necessitating a bid.
2) Player skill is imbalanced, therefore a bid helps to equalize the situation. Think of this like a handicap in golf.
3) If player skill is imbalanced, there should not be a bid. The only way to learn is to play and get creamed, gradually improving with each defeat.
4) Both the game and player skills are imbalanced.

Now, we should strive to eliminate #1 as much as possible. If players desire to play a particular side, feel they need help vs their opponent, or want to ease someone into the game, then a bid may remain. However, the goal of all revisions should be to make the game itself balanced. This is so fundamental that trying to revise the game without the goal of game balance in mind is a fruitless exercise.

Therefore, the need for a bid may always remain, as a measure to balance player skill, but the need for a bid will hopefully disappear for game balance reasons. I highly encourage viewers to think about these statements before posting a response. Thank you.

[DocD]

Good points newaxis.

I personally believe the game is only slightly imbalanced toward Allies. Their advantage in money will win out over time period.
Now, can this be balanced with more starting units for the Axis, a different setup with the Axis perched on the verge of victory, etc.....of course.

But right now I'm against further changes (unless they are small tweaks) unless the entire game is going to be remade....and I think LH is currently working on that.

I hate this ole time thinking from the past. A bid is needed because the other game needed a bid is crap, period. AARe is the most balanced AA game I've ever played.
Now, I don't make a majority, but people should be willing to view a new animal in a different light and it's the stubbornness I see on the board that upsets me.

Roll, CJ, this isn't rated play we are talking about at the moment. Sides have been chosen. Players don't know their opponents true skill level from a hole in the ground. This is what I'm talking about. Why place a multiple unit bid where all things being equal are fairly even?

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

in aare it is good not to have to implement setup changes to keep uniformity and exceptance by a wider audiance(hopfully club play).

i think setup changes is a very easy way to balance axis and allies but if there is not going to be setup changes there are other ways to balance aare. balance should definetly be goal of aare.

bidding should also be a part of aare as it has three game benifits
picks sides
adds variability
elimanates any percieved game imbalances(if you think that the allies are so much stronger than the axis then just have a larger bid for the axis and you have EXACTLY PERFECT balance)

i think aare should strive to have a bid range between +3axis to +3allies. yes thats right a bid where you actually have to specify axis or allies to recieve the bid.

with bilateral non agresion and a toned down d-day, aare is moving in the right direction. if aare made 1 or 2 small tweaks game balance could be were i would like it.

allowing nas to be delayed would be another good way to benifit the axis, bringing the bid farther down.

*post #200, im catching up to series

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

Why place a multiple unit bid where all things being equal are fairly even?
if you really think things are even doc then i would be glad to play you with axis and me allies with no bid.

if you still want to dodge me i understand.

[cousin_joe]

Whether intentional or not, DocD has raised an important point about this whole debate, and that is whether or not the game is being played in a competitive environment.

The poll lines are obviously drawn between those who play competitively and those who do not.

For casual players, it's quite easy to say the game does not require a bid. They know the Axis goes in as the underdog and fully accept that. I remember at one point, MS or LH stated the game was designed that way as they didn't like the idea of Axis winning half the time. That's fine, all the more glory in winning when the Axis do win.

For competitive players, playing in tourneys and for ranking points, an uneven playing field is unacceptable, and thus the game does require a bid.

For those that are interested, the AAMC is offering Ranked Play for A&A: Enhanced, as well as a tournament, likely in April. In order to maintain similarity with the LHTR ruleset, the main ruleset at AAMC, some changes will NEVER happen... eg. map changes, setup changes, bid changes, and basic rule changes.

I'd like to see Enhanced become the Ultimate Strategy Showcase. AH/LHTR is an incredibly WEAK game, in terms of showcasing strategy, as strategy is generally dictated to the player (ie. As Axis, you MUST take Moscow). There are very few straetgic decisions to actually make, a majority of your purchases will be INF, and the game revolves primarily around stacks. If you look at Enhanced, everything is decisions... "what units should I purchase, what NAs should I pick, what theaters should I focus on, what Techs should I go for, what VCs should I target???"

Basically what I'm trying to do with Enhanced, is take the game out of the dice's hands, and put it in the player's hands. That means providing choice, which I think we've done a good job with. In Enhanced, you become the General/Admiral/Political Leader, and it's your choices that will dictate who wins or loses the game (-- ie. NOT who gets more hits in the Eastern Front Stack War)

While Enhanced may be fun for the casual player, it is designed primarily with the competitive player in mind. Again, I wanna see Enhanced be the Ultimate Strategy Showcase, wheretournament winners will be the smartest, rather than the luckiest. Once you understand this, you will understand my reasoning for my various views and decisions :)

[DocD]

if you really think things are even doc then i would be glad to play you with axis and me allies with no bid.

if you still want to dodge me i understand.
LOL :D funny love.

If you remember I said "multiple unit bid". So I accept your offer of taking the Allies, but I want Axis with a bid of 5.

I have to play CJ first, but remember..you are on MY LIST. :)

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

LOL :D funny love.

If you remember I said "multiple unit bid". So I accept your offer of taking the Allies, but I want Axis with a bid of 5.

I have to play CJ first, but remember..you are on MY LIST. :)
yeah doc, i was being funny. i am just trying to goad you into playing me quicker. we have had our game on the back burner for such a long time i thought some trash talking would speed things up.

we can do a proper bid when we do play, or you with axis+5, either is fine with me.

i am just looking for a high level opponent to keep my ego in check by giving me a good beating. i have not lost since dy beat me in daak tourney aar-ll game in a very close allies victory.

then again in the 3rd round of aamc aar tourney i have drawn AxisRoll so i will probably get that good thumping i was looking for.

[cousin_joe]

yeah doc, i was being funny. i am just trying to goad you into playing me quicker. we have had our game on the back burner for such a long time i thought some trash talking would speed things up.

we can do a proper bid when we do play, or you with axis+5, either is fine with me.

i am just looking for a high level opponent to keep my ego in check by giving me a good beating. i have not lost since dy beat me in daak tourney aar-ll game in a very close allies victory.

then again in the 3rd round of aamc aar tourney i have drawn AxisRoll so i will probably get that good thumping i was looking for.

Stop ducking him DocD and just play!!! :D

Don't worry, we'll get on our game soon enough :)

[axis_roll]

...then again in the 3rd round of aamc aar tourney i have drawn AxisRoll so i will probably get that good thumping i was looking for.

AxisRoll has shown me what's transpired to this point. It's his game, not ours... so he's done this all on his own.

Japan has some MAJORLY difficult turn1 decisions to be made AND executed.

[AxisRoll]

FIC has fallen B1...Japs have a rough road ahead.