I wanted to discuss the 1 v 1 choice scenario for A&A.  First, are all country vs country scenarios fair?  Second, if not, should the scenario be modified or eliminated?

1. I will assert the premise that Russia has an advantage versus any other country.  The reasons are listed below:

     a. Geography - Russia is centrally located and can gain territories faster than any other country except Germany.  Also, they are in a great postition to reach the other capitols which have 1/2 the neutral armies protecting them compared to other countries.  

     b. Turn order - They are first in turn order which allows them to go first whenever they wish.

     c. Initial setup - Having two starting countries and nearby sea zones allows Russia to also go last when they wish in the opening moves.  Each country can stack orders to delay a critical attack until their opponent has made all their attacks.  The ability to delay is a function of movements that can be made from any of your territories to other territories.   Lets assume you dont want to sacrifice armies by attacking neutrals, if you have 3 countries that can each move to 3 other countries you can make 9 orders to delay your real attack.  This is at the expense of some attacking armies, but it is usually worth it. 

     d.  The combination of b and c means Russia can attack when they wish in the opening moves, first or last or both, which is a powerful advantage.

I am not sure if my assumptions are correct.  Let me know what everyone else thinks.  If Russia vs any other country is a strong advantage then I think the scenario should be modified, perhaps allowing only certain country vs country options.  I am willing to give back any points I have won playing Russia in 2p games testing this theory.

What if player seats were randomly assigned? That way every player would, on average, get the advantageous seats for an equal proportion of games.

SquintGnome wrote:

I wanted to discuss the 1 v 1 choice scenario for A&A.  First, are all country vs country scenarios fair?  Second, if not, should the scenario be modified or eliminated?

1. I will assert the premise that Russia has an advantage versus any other country.  The reasons are listed below:

     a. Geography - Russia is centrally located and can gain territories faster than any other country except Germany.  Also, they are in a great postition to reach the other capitols which have 1/2 the neutral armies protecting them compared to other countries.  

     b. Turn order - They are first in turn order which allows them to go first whenever they wish.

     c. Initial setup - Having two starting countries and nearby sea zones allows Russia to also go last when they wish in the opening moves.  Each country can stack orders to delay a critical attack until their opponent has made all their attacks.  The ability to delay is a function of movements that can be made from any of your territories to other territories.   Lets assume you dont want to sacrifice armies by attacking neutrals, if you have 3 countries that can each move to 3 other countries you can make 9 orders to delay your real attack.  This is at the expense of some attacking armies, but it is usually worth it. 

     d.  The combination of b and c means Russia can attack when they wish in the opening moves, first or last or both, which is a powerful advantage.

 

I am not sure if my assumptions are correct.  Let me know what everyone else thinks.  If Russia vs any other country is a strong advantage then I think the scenario should be modified, perhaps allowing only certain country vs country options.  I am willing to give back any points I have won playing Russia in 2p games testing this theory.

 

 

Squint -

You are absolutely correct in saying the A&A 2p scenario is unbalanced.  In fact the entire FFA scenario is unbalanced because the map was balanced according to Teamplay.  Of the FFA options, the Random seat assignment is of course the most fair.  Personally I never play the FFA choice scenario except as private games for testing out openings to be used in the Random scenario.

I won't speculate on whether Russia or Germany is strongest since they are both very strong positions but I will agree that Russia vs. everybody other than Germany is most likely to win.  Not sure what the split would be if both sides always chose Russia and Germany.

I don't think you should give any points back...it is your right and privelege as a smart player to choose the position you feel is the strongest in the FFA choice scenario.  Just as it is the right and privelege of other smart players to never join your games if they think it's unfair :)

In the end what I'm trying to say is:

- the FFA choice scenario is unbalanced but should remain. 

- Russia may or may not be the strongest FFA position.

- keep your points, but don't expect a lot of others to join your FFA choice games when you've chosen Russia.

~ATH

The scenario should not have been allowed to go live unbalanced as it is, and should be fixed.

 I would recommend allowing only certain country pairings for 2P games, perhaps US v Japn, UK vs US, Japan v UK, Russia v Germany and then making the turn order random and country seat selection random.

I am not sure of what 'fair' pairings are for sure but I put some guesses above.

SquintGnome wrote:

 I would recommend allowing only certain country pairings for 2P games, perhaps US v Japn, UK vs US, Japan v UK, Russia v Germany and then making the turn order random and country seat selection random.

I don't think that's possible on a random basis with the current designer options. There could be a whole host of separate scenarios with the different pairings, but that's about it.

How about the allowance of aliasing for the purposes of playing all or multiple roles on an A&A side?  I'm not a big fan of multiple accounts due to the cheating possibilities, but perhaps some type of aliasing ability (allowing 1 or 2 aliases per account) would allow.  It would be very cool to play a 1-vs-1 A&A tournament methinks.

Yes, that would be cool.  Or if maybe the duplicate account is created only internally to the site, so that when you join a game it creates your 'teammate' that you control so you could play Axis v Allies for a 1 v 1 game.  After the game the teammate account gets deleted.

It might be easier/simpler to just let a single player fill multiple seats in a game.  Maybe a gameplay setting - "players can join N times", or maybe "Teams are filled by a single player".

First, yeah USSR totally has it... ask Falker1976 where his points and stats come from! you won't find him in anything else! They never have to attack islands, cross oceans and have plenty of attainable bonuses nearby.

Some simple fixes I'd suggested would really help. Japan can't even take a bonus on turn 1. It needs to start on the mainland, or start in sea zones around other island bonuses. Also a boost in troops tio compensate for the higher casualties would be good too.

UK has SAfrica, which looks nice, but as is, they can only conquer a single +1 in first order. They should start with 2 +1s that allow more access to more bonuses.

Maybe USA should start with one of the Chinas or something. Though I dont think they are as bad as the other 2 if you send 1 unit across the oceans early enough.

I love the idea of playing a team game on my own... there are lots of players who I am glad for a teammate, who make excellent suggestions and have good board vision... but sometimes I wish I could just do it all myself!

I hope all of you in favour mentioned this in the suggestion forums!

As for the inbalance, lobby the board author. it's pretty significant.

Gimli, to say my points/stats have come from Russia on A&A FFA is a false statement.  Most of my points/stats have come from 2 boards (A&A and Fallout).  Most of my A&A points have come from 2p ffa, but not just Russia.  I have won many points from each starting area.  Mainly because a lot of people that have joined my game do not know the board.  If you do not know the board and the basic strategy concepts, you will not beat me.  If you know the board well, then it comes down to starting position.  I will use Attila as an example.  Whenever I play him it ALWAYS comes to starting area, except for a couple scenarios which I will list below.

A&A has many imbalances.  Squintgnome is correct on Russia's imbalance.  I will win 99.9% of the time in Russia vs US/Japan/UK and 90% of the time in Russia vs Germany.  Even against another experienced player.  Russia is way too powerful for the very reasons Squintgnome has stated. But it is not the only imbalance.

I will beat any experienced player if I get UK/Germany/Russia and they get US or Japan.  I will also lose to any experienced player if the reverse happens.  Why?  Way too many bonuses to be had quickly in Europe/mainland Asia that US/Japan can't reach in time.

In my opinion there are only 2 balanced 2p FFA options.  US vs Japan and UK vs Germany.

I defiantly like the FFA option of controlling either the Axis or Allies.  I think that would add balance and enjoyment to this board.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply/say you aren't top notch outside of that. It was more the point that given the choice, knowing the board very well, from what I had seen, you always took Russia. So I meant you won't find him anywhere else when you have a choice. Wasn't explicit enough, truly didn't mean to say that was all the types of games you are in, cuz I have seen you in random placements.