THE AUSTRALIAN BALANCE SYSTEM (ABS)

If using the ABS each scenario will have eight levels of handicap bidding -- Axis 1-3, Allied 1-3, and level 0 (no handicap) for each side. Note that the levels of bidding are typically cumulative. So a bid of G3 would include G2 and G1.

These are handicaps-- the higher the level, the more that side gives up. To use the ABS, players may:

Freely agree among themselves which side and at what handicap levels they will play,
Freely agree what handicap levels the Axis and Allied sides need to make the scenario balanced, and then dice to decide who plays which side at those levels,
Using the level 1 handicaps as Balance Provisions, follow the A26.5 procedure (note that the Axis handicap becomes the Allied Balance and vice versa), or
Secretly bid on which side and at what handicap level they wish to play.

The results of the bidding are as follows:

If Players bid different sides, each plays the side and the handicap level bid.
If both players bid the same side, the player bidding the higher handicap level plays the side and level he bid, and the other player plays the opposite side at handicap level 0.
If players bid the same side and handicap level, low DR plays the side and level he bid; high DR plays the other side at level 0.

Dave Ripton responded to my queries (>>>) below:

>I have some questions about the ABS, too. Does it work like this:
>G3: Sure Russian win.
>G2: Good Russian advantage.
>G1: Slight Russian advantage.
>G0: The German null bid.
>R0: The Russian null bid.
>R1: Slight German advantage.
>R2: Good German advantage.
>R3: Sure German win.

But, you should only bid 3 if you think one side has a severe advantage, and you really, really want that side, even with all you have to give up.

>>>What happens with the following bid? Me: R3 Bad guys: G0. It doesn't seem fair to give away victory when the bad guys have given a null bid.

Yeah, I know, this is what Game Theory is all about.

>>>Some scenarios seem to lend themselves to subtle increases in balance provisions where you add a squad, then a leader, then a tank, or some such. But finely balanced games could easily be unbalanced by making buildings stone, increasing SAN, or even just changing the bore of an ATG.

Sure. But that's why you bid. You choose to give your opponents these advantages, and if you really don't want to do that you can always bid either side at 0. With the old system you don't have the option of categorically refusing to give up balance pr ovisions like you do now.

I don't think any of the suggestions you make would drastically unbalance a scenario (unless the change of ATG bore was from 37L to 88LL. The kind of balance provision that unbalances a scenario is making a whole large victory building fortified, or addi ng a 9-2 or better leader, or dramatically raising or reducing VP requirements. Not too many scenarios do this kind of thing in my experience. And the ones that do are annoying. At least with three grades of balance there's a better chance of relegatin g the heavy sledgehammer stuff to level 3, where it shouldn't come up often.