Is there currently an average bid(or even a bid) in G40 2nd edition

[zooooma]

Makes it hard for the Axis to harass NA though.

[variance]

@zooooma:

Makes it hard for the Axis to harass NA though.

Does this EVER happen??

[Caesar-Seriona]

It is possible for Germany to fake Sea Lion and then go for DC but that assumes that US thinks Japan is the larger threat and builds on that side over the Atlantic.

[Ichabod]

@variance:

@zooooma:

Makes it hard for the Axis to harass NA though.

Does this EVER happen??

Yes, but only to a noob like me.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=39672.0

[oysteilo]

@Arthur:

I am not teasing about a 100 bid for the Allies if they are less skilled. You will see so many opportunities for battles that have a +10-40 TUV as the opponent miscalculates the movement options.  Fleets can get sunk with minimal losses.  Armies can get steamrolled after an Italian canopener… etc.  After a few of those battles, the initial material advantage is gone.  I would much rather have a game where I think that I have a 50% chance of winning rather than a match where I know I will eventually win.  Take the gamble and give a big advantage when you are more experienced.Â

In face-to-face games, there is such a range of skill levels that it is hard to figure out which side is more powerful.  In the league matches where people are much more experienced, it is crystal clear that there is a major Axis advantage that must be countered with either a bid or a mod.  There is absolutely no debating the data from so many games between good players. Without a bid, the chance of the Axis winning is approximately 70-80%. Things can go horribly wrong for the Axis on the initial round, but after there are several rounds before the fickleness of the dice can change your initial game plan.  Â

I have lost to ABH (axis) with a 100 bid (oysteilo was allies). I have also won with the allies with 0 in bid against a good opponent (Shadowhawk). In general if you play live and dont play often no bid is resommended. If you play by triple a and two “unskilled” players meet no bid is required. If two skilled players play by forum I think about 40-50 is required if you play “100 games”

For the record, I consider myself a decent player ;)

[zooooma]

@variance:

@zooooma:

Makes it hard for the Axis to harass NA though.

Does this EVER happen??

I’ve yet to play 2nd edition.

But if we are talking about new players it could very well come up.

[Hunter Jones]

Ive seen new players do some crazy things.

Bought nothing but Infantry for Russia and left 1 Infantry on each territory up to Moscow. Safe to say, I wasnt taking Moscow. Ive also had new players harass the American Fleet on G1 with a sub. He sank it.

Best advise: Be Prepared for anything, even the worst.

[Ichabod]

Karl said 100 US infantry, not $100 which means a $300 bid.

This would be a tremendous bid that would have a long term impact; not an initial one. So, if the allies’ player was less skilled, in theory it would mean that a much more skilled Axis player would have the chance to get a head start. Even if the bid was $100 as in 33 infantry, that would be a big boost.

[taamvan]

I’m working on a (house) rule to address the  “D-Day does’t work” and “America pays for everything from scratch” problems with KGF.

“French/Italian Resistance”

For every US infantry landing (surviving?) in battle at Normandy, Southern France, Holland, Southern Italy, add one French Infantry at the beginning (after?) battle.

Which is a different version of an unlimited pool of men.  Have to find a way to avoid an infinite recursion (that you can duplicate men over and over turn after turn)

[taamvan]

All good points, forget the Italian part of this.

The idea it to just make it desirable to KGF/D-Day at all, its too easy to push the Allies off Europe, such that they never attempt it.  It seems too powerful to give this power to all the Allies, it should be an incentive to drive USA behavior, and the US wants to lose its infantry first.  So consider a more restricted version sirs,

Game Start;  Place 12 French infantry on the Resistance Stack

For each US infantry surviving an amphibious assault on Normandy, Southern France, or Holland Belgium, place 1 resistance fighter with them, with a maximum of 3(2?) per landing.

There has to be some limiter that keeps them from simply picking up the same infantry and moving them over.  Work in progress.

[Hunter Jones]

Maybe add the UK into the mix? They can become a viable landing threat.

I have a different idea. 2 French Infantry appear upon a successful Allied Amphibious Assault on mainland France and Holland/Belgium. So a max of 6.

The French resistance gets 1 infantry every turn on London. They can depart from an operational airbase into Occupied mainland France. This dude does 1 damage to a facility of your choice. The Germans have to roll a 3 or higher to discover it, and battle ensues. If the resistance member wins, it does not take the territory. As long as your other one is in mainland France, you cannot produce another one.

Any thoughts?

[Ichabod]

taamvan,

I think you might be on to a good bid alternative.

12 infantry is worth 36 IPCs, but it’s a bid that’s spread out.

I’d imagine that other bid placements would still continue, but they might be a lot lower like, just a UK sub placed in SZ 98 along with 1 infantry in Yunnan.

[taamvan]

I laid this out last night, maphead was skeptical, of course.

His version was more like yours, where you get the # of infantry on the territory first time it is captured–2 Normandy, 3 Holland and SouthFrance, 4 for Paris.  Also rolling sabotage rolls on the 3 factories (in G40, in G42 there is just 1) starting with Paris being captured, to show the partisans destroying the Axis production.    But he would also probably argue for an offsetting Axis advantage…as a compromise.

I think a good rule always goes “if someone does X in a certain way, then Y happens”.  It should never be an “X always or usually occurs, so Y always or usually flows from that”.    Rules need to be conditional, and influence player behavior.

I’ve fixed on this one recently because it doesn’t simply “make USA more powerful” because if that’s the perception, its vetoed by maphead.  It makes the ALLIES more powerful, yes, by giving power to their weakest member and trying to make what I consider non-viable play (KGF) viable.

[Hunter Jones]

Just asking, dont follow strategy here too often.

How is KGF not viable? Its viable in 42.2, but thats a completly different game. Just curious why.

[simon33]

Short answer: Japan rages and the victory conditions state that the game can be won by 6 victory cities on the Pacific map.

@taamvan:

I laid this out last night, maphead was skeptical, of course.

His version was more like yours, where you get the # of infantry on the territory first time it is captured–2 Normandy, 3 Holland and SouthFrance, 4 for Paris.

Hmm, I’ve been leaving Normandy French recently so the USA can’t take it. Does this mean the Allies never get the 2 inf for that territory?

[Hunter Jones]

Ah, makes sense. I usually go for Japan anyways. But I dont play with OOB victory conditions. Makes sense though.

I think that yes you dont get those 2. Its a little bending of the rules. Its smart for the Germans to do that.

[Caesar-Seriona]

I prefer KGF because even though Axis Europe needs two more cities, they can reach all of them easier because they don’t have to rely on a navy to get the easiest ones which would be France, USSR, and then Egypt. Japan needs a navy.

[simon33]

@Caesar:

I prefer KGF because even though Axis Europe needs two more cities, they can reach all of them easier because they don’t have to rely on a navy to get the easiest ones which would be France, USSR, and then Egypt. Japan needs a navy.

:?

Japan can sink the entire allied navy in the Pacific even if it combines around an 3 scramble airbase with its starting navy and do that without any land based plane support, at least most probably.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@simon33:

@Caesar:

I prefer KGF because even though Axis Europe needs two more cities, they can reach all of them easier because they don’t have to rely on a navy to get the easiest ones which would be France, USSR, and then Egypt. Japan needs a navy.

:?

Japan can sink the entire allied navy in the Pacific even if it combines around an 3 scramble airbase with its starting navy and do that without any land based plane support, at least most probably.

Not in long games where USA is hammering the Japanese with bombers and island hoping on top of being reinforced by ANZAC and maybe UK as needed to boost defensive numbers. Germany can focus on a straight shot for there cites, move west into France, move east into USSR, go south into the middle east, go west into Egypt.

Japan can’t exact straight shot there cities due to the complex nature in the Pacific. Thus requires a turtle invasion of taking each city at a time or try to engage their cities on different fronts.

[Karl7]

I need to rethink KGF.  I usually go heavy against Japan and just try to contain Germany.  Germany is just so darn easy to defend with two 10 factories back to back.

But, reality is Japan, even if it has India and the DEI, doesn’t make necessarily any more money than the USA.  So when it comes time for the showdown, the USA should, even if it has heavily invested in Europe, be able build up quickly to block Japan for the last VC.