@Arthur-Bomber-Harris
Yep - that Yunnan stack can be a pain.
How to use your bid?
-
Hi everyone,
Last weekend i’ve played my first two tripleA games. I’ve played the board game 8 times now so i know all the rules and the basic strategy. However, i never played the allies. In the online games i had a bid (12 up to 18). I lost all games so i’m wondering: what’s the best way to use the bid? (assuming max 1 unit per teritory/SZ).
I’m thinking:
- UK sub in sz. 98
- UK tank in Egypt
- UK art. in Alexandria
- UK art. in Anglo Egypt Sud.
- ANZAC inf/art. in New Guinea
More idea’s?
-
I like to safeguard the Med, so would go for two Subs: one in 91 and the other in 98. Then put an Art in Alex or have two Inf (one in Alex, the other in Sudan).
-
Though the rules vary, none of the bidding methods I’ve heard laid out let you place the bid where you didn’t have any units to begin with. The Gencon format states 1 unit per territory with like unit (1 more land with land and 1 more sea with sea).
Your UK ideas seem standard and solid. The bid is usually used to end Italian ambitions early, but this doesn’t always affect the outcome of the game.
Tirano suggested a destroyer to protect the cruisers or destroyers already present in the atlantic. He and I ran the odds for various bids and playouts defending the UK SZs and by bringing the Germany BB in, the axis could squash both fleet zones regardless of what bids we had or where I put them.
-
23 is getting to be a common bid for the Allies so try to get all 5 units that the OP mentioned (if the opponent lets you do the NG infantry). If that is not allowed, I would consider putting an extra infantry in Yunnan. That should kill 1 Japanese infantry on average. The benefit is magnified because the Chinese will need fewer infantry when they retake Yunnan on Ch1. Here are some common Ch1 scenarios based on the results of the invasion
4 Japanese ground troops: China retreats and Asia is often lost for the next 6+ rounds
3 Japanese ground troops: 5 Chinese ground troops required to have a high likelihood of capturing Yunnan
2 Japanese ground troops: 3 or 4 Chinese ground troops
1 Japanese ground troop: 2 Chinese ground troops
Japan didn’t take Yunnan on J1: Celebration time!Chinese liberators in Yunnan will all die on J2 so there is a huge difference in eliminating another pesky Japanese land unit. Further adding to the game changing nature of slightly better Yunnan J1 results, a smaller stack of Chinese infantry + planes in Szechwan draws possible strafing attack from the Japanese airforce on J2.
13 Ch infantry + 1 fighter: 6.0 destroyed Japanese planes from J2 strafe
12 Ch infantry + 1 fighter: 5.4 destroyed Japanese planes
11 Ch infantry + 1 fighter: 4.8 destroyed Japanese planes
10 Ch infantry + 1 fighter: 4.3 destroyed Japanese planes
9 Ch infantry + 1 fighter: 3.8 destroyed Japanese planesI would eagerly trade 4 planes to eliminate virtually all of the Chinese land troops, but would unlikely trade 6.
If the bid rises to 26+, I would start considering a destroyer to protect the lone UK cruiser. That would also deter Sea Lion and significantly help out on UK1 counterattacks.
-
My first 10$ would be for a fighter in Scotland.
Given your bid range it’s hard to afford much else. I’m also a fan of inf NG and ss 98. That’s 19……
Realistically, you need a bigger bid. If the bid is 18$ you’d probably get more wins taking Axis.
-
One thing I noted about our last game was that the bid of +18 plus is only necessary if you are facing a vanilla, critical path Axis strategy. If the Axis do anything (or plan to do anything) other than demolish Russia part and parcel and beginning on I1 or J1 from both West and East sides, using 1) dark skies 2) nemestia gambit 3) Romania factory 4) Italian mobility can-opening, then the bid isn’t actually necessary at all, and the Axis will likely lose.
If the Axis dogpile Russia, then the bid should go to Russia (IMO). The rest of the theatres/opening moves (except in the med.) seem to be pretty fairly balanced, and the haywire strategies (like invading America) are definitely suboptimal (low chance Axis of success, even without a bid).
The bid is being used to imbalance an imbalance. the UK smashing Italy doesn’t affect the Russian game it stops an Italy rampage from making the Axis rich…
Our opponent used the bid to drop a UK destroyer (off Canada) and a US sub. These weren’t earth shaking placements, IMO, but in the end, I used every German plane to hold off the UK and though I repeatedly cleared the seas, (killing at one time or another, every extra transport he had and every fleet), once my airforce was gone, the game was over.
In sum, if the axis chooses a sub-optimal strategy (anything other than Crushsa Russia) the bid (when over 12-18) is only going to bias the game further.
-
Taamvan, there are several valid Axis openings in the European and Pacific theaters. They all get used to varying extents by top people in the G40 League. Dark skies, Sea lion (feint or real), Egpyt push, Australia Attacks, Barbarossa, Russia crush and other strategies are all options depending on the die roles of the first couple of rounds and placement of Allied purchases.
The data from 460 matches is very convincing that the game is not fair. Even with a 20 to 25+ point bid for the Allies, the Axis still managed to win 54% of the matches in 2015. Those number are for some of the most experienced people in the country, many with 100+ games played in their career. The bids hardly are unbalancing a “balanced” game. I would expect that a 25-28 bid would be necessary to balance out the win percentages in League matches.
This being stated, I can easily defeat bad players 100% of the time as either Axis or Allies. They tend to turtle down, unwilling to risk potential close battles but willing to allow economic victory by the opponent.
-
I like to use my bid to put pressure on the Japanese as Italy is usually not as major of a threat.
That means infantries for China (as many as you can) and 3 Artillery for the Soviet Far East to make that stack a more potent offensive force (not mentioning the addition to defense)
-
Also where most people place the bid is in the med, a location where even without a bid italy is screwed big time. The bid is used to unbalance a little bit of the board even further iso fixing the spots on the board that are unbalanced. Because it is easier and taking out italy round 1 basicaly makes europe a game of moscow or bust.
How many of those 100+ games had any meaningfull Italy? or even some competition in the med or afrika?
Everybody puts their bid in the med or afrika and is complaining that russia cannot hold out against germany. But they dont give russia more units.
To some extent, depriving the Axis of a theater of war is very sound strategically. While Russia may not directly benefit from the bid, it benefits from the increased UK emphasis on pressuring Germany because it has to do less in the Med. In short, the threat against the Allies goes from three dimensions (Pacifc, Med/Middle East, and Russia) to two dimensions. Depriving your enemy of options is usually a sound strategy, and when Germany’s practical options go from three (Sea Lion, Barbarossa, and emphasis on the Med) it’s a lot easier to predict what your enemy is going to do.
That being said, if the complaint is that Russia is too weak then the bid should be used to fix Russia, not nerf Italy. From the sportsmanship perspective, that’s far better.
Marsh
-
@Arthur:
Taamvan, there are several valid Axis openings in the European and Pacific theaters. They all get used to varying extents by top people in the G40 League. Dark skies, Sea lion (feint or real), Egpyt push, Australia Attacks, Barbarossa, Russia crush and other strategies are all options depending on the die roles of the first couple of rounds and placement of Allied purchases.
The data from 460 matches is very convincing that the game is not fair. Even with a 20 to 25+ point bid for the Allies, the Axis still managed to win 54% of the matches in 2015. Those number are for some of the most experienced people in the country, many with 100+ games played in their career. The bids hardly are unbalancing a “balanced” game. I would expect that a 25-28 bid would be necessary to balance out the win percentages in League matches.
This being stated, I can easily defeat bad players 100% of the time as either Axis or Allies. They tend to turtle down, unwilling to risk potential close battles but willing to allow economic victory by the opponent.
That only shows that most players are better at playing the axis or that the axis playstyle suits them better.
It is always easier to Act then to react especialy in the first few rounds, when i started playing this game with a friend we could not win at all as axis. And allies always got an easy win, so based on that data you could argue that allies are favored.
Also where most people place the bid is in the med, a location where even without a bid italy is screwed big time. The bid is used to unbalance a little bit of the board even further iso fixing the spots on the board that are unbalanced. Because it is easier and taking out italy round 1 basicaly makes europe a game of moscow or bust.
How many of those 100+ games had any meaningfull Italy? or even some competition in the med or afrika?
Everybody puts their bid in the med or afrika and is complaining that russia cannot hold out against germany. But they dont give russia more units.
Thanks everybody for the comments, it’s an interesting subject in my opinion:)
ShadowHAwk posted that nobody uses their bid in Russia instead of the Med. I’m wondering: would 15 IPC for Russia make any difference against Germany’s “bowling ball” strategy? how would you use it?
In my opinion it’s better to balance the game with NO’s instead of a bid. I’m using YG’s card for the NO’s, i think using the additional NO cards for the allies can balance the game.
-
A bid should either be used for profit, or to stop the enemy from profiting. There are two places that usually bursts in europe. 1, sealion, 2, moscow.
UK will be able to kill Italy without a bid, at least when US comes in. it is the busting of russia that kills the game.
One thing that one should ask is; what is the most costeffective way of preventing sealion?
5-8 extra russian infs should really help.
A small analysis; 1 sub in med, saves one UK ftr
1 fighter in scotland kills 1.5 german fighter/prevents sealion.
5-7 infs extra in russia gives at least one extra round of ussr production, which means about 30 IPC extra.
1 inf in china should pay triple.A bid of 24 could therefore be used on
5 inf in russia, 1 inf in yunan, 1/2 inf in uk25 could be used on
1 ftr in scotland
5 inf in ussr.If you are not afraid of sealion at all, you could just buy 7 inf on ussr and 1 inf with china. That would make a HUGE difference
-
No one else seems to like this move but I will also add an art in Kweichow if I can afford it. If you hit defending in Hunnan J1 and they don’t strip the Yunnan attack to strengthen Hunnan (like I would), you can normally take both Hunnan and Yunnan back C1 which makes it a little harder for Japan and generally slows them down that small bit.
I agree with Zhukov about the fighter in Scotland. That really makes the G1 attacks tough on Scotland - Germany normally needs to concentrate its attacks which it doesn’t want to do. Haven’t done it until recently though. As Axis I might be inclined to still attack SZ111 under strength. Not 100% sure though. Might be better to reapply the planes to Normandy.
-
It would seem odd to allow China to buy artillery with the bid because they can only buy artillery if the conditions are fulfilled (1) is road open yes (2) is it your purchase phase no
Even without an industrial complex, China can purchase and
mobilize artillery, but only if the road is open during China’s
Purchase and Repair Units phase. These artillery units will
be supplied by the United States player (because China does
not have any of its own), but are considered to be Chinese
units in all respects.You can house rule it any way you want but I don’t like the idea because getting Chinese artillery is something you have to fight for…otherwise why not bid/buy as many as you can (4)?
-
Road is open - therefore artillery are available to be purchased.
No one has ever argued the point. Certainly it’s a real step up and arguably against the spirit of the China rules but it could still be better to spend most of the bid in/for the med.
-
Yes Mr. Simon, but you are not purchasing anything. You are placing bid units outside the turn order that expressly violates what the China Artillery rule literally says.
Nonetheless, its all house rules. This means that with a bid of 27+ you should probably place 9 (or more) infantry on Paris to start the game, which alters the SZ110/111 attack odds and gives the UK a navy to start the game. Since they can use their UK 1 money to buy more, blocking the channel against Sea Lion shouldn’t be a problem if you permit this bid placement.
also, you could place ships in empty sea zones like SZ 112 or SZ 25 to block the German or Japanese openers. If you allow anything during the bid with out additional limitations, it is a totally different beast. But what limits are observed are totally up to you, since the bid rules are house rules.
-
Yes Mr. Simon, but you are not purchasing anything. You are placing bid units outside the turn order that expressly violates what the China Artillery rule literally says.
I don’t see how it expressly violates any rule. As you go on to say, it’s all house rules but nothing in the league default bid rules prohibits China from bidding artillery, for example.
Putting 9 inf in Paris does expressly violate a league bid rule - the one that you may only put a single unit in any given territory. Bidding an ANZAC inf on New Guinea also violates a rule which states there must already be a unit of that nation in the territory.
Bidding inf in Paris is an interesting idea but I doubt it’s a good use of resources. Germany would ignore SZ110 and bring in a bunch of planes and smash it still as easily. The 2 subs I normally send there would take out the SZ91 cruiser. The 1 extra UK BB + one french ship are unlikely to make much difference. Possibly, you’d need to buy a CV to do the SZ111 retreat move.
-
one curios question is: Should the placement of the bid be made clear before or after the bid?
If it is made clear before it avoid gamyness and you can have completely free placement, if placement is made after, then you could limit to either 1 unit for maximum on 9 ipc, in a single terr.
The least gamy bid is to bid extra IPC to the starthands of one side, with or without limits on distribution.
-
from what I can see when running sims, I test with germany attacking with every landunit that can reach (7 I , 4 M, 3 A, 6 T ) V (1 AAA, 6 I, 2 A, , 2T , 1 Ftr) it gives germany 99.9% chance of winning about 24 IPC of loss
If you compare that too
(7 I , 4 M, 3 A, 6 T, 2 F, 2Tac ) V (1 AAA, 12 I, 2 A, , 2T , 1 Ftr) , it gives about 99% chance of winning with 46 IPC lossSo, those 18 IPC used, gives immidiatly about 22 IPC lost for germany, and keeps 2 ftrs and 2 tacs away from the brit.
(if germany brings less planes to france, the chance of winning for the defender goes up fast, and the losses goes upp really fast)
Suggested Topics
