Thanks so much for the input everyone.
What to do with the bid?
-
In some triplea live games, I played against a guy who gave his bid to Russia. Art to Amur and than tanks to the 2 other siberians territores. On R1 he crushed Korea and got fair dice. Than he defended with fair dice in Korea. Along with that he did a KJF all out effort stacking Yunnan with UK and China; just shoving everything everywhere.
Mainly my poor game abilities; but Japan was overwhelmed quickly and fell apart. UK got the right amount of fighters to Moscow in time for the US to switch to building in the Atlantic side.
Maybe not in a PBEM game where you have the ability to study the board and battle calc out several countries’ turns, but in live play I think there is something to be said about Russia using a bid to attack Japan.
-
The problem with bidding 6 infantry for Moscow is that it’s passive, long-term, and dice-dependent. In some games, Moscow will hold just fine even without the 6 infantry. In some games, Moscow is doomed even with 6 extra infantry. In some games, adding 6 infantry will give you an extra 30% chance to hold Moscow, but you will still get diced. It’s actually pretty rare that putting 6 infantry in Moscow will swing the outcome of the game. Even when the infantry are decisive, they usually don’t result in a change in who controls what territories in the early game. If you put subs up Italy’s butt, then you drop Italy’s middle-game income from ~25 IPCs all the way down to 5 IPCs, and you probably also boost the UK’s income. If you put infantry in Moscow, then you don’t drop Germany’s middle-game income at all, and you probably don’t boost the USSR’s income.
If you hold Moscow but do not otherwise stop the growth of at least one Axis power, then you lose the economic race in the endgame. If Germany is earning 80 IPCs (easy enough with Norway, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Caucasus), Italy is earning 30 IPCs (Egypt, Greece, Med, Iraq, Persia), and Japan is earning 65 IPCs (China, India, money islands), then the Axis are at 175 IPCs, and the Allies just can’t match that. You get maybe 15 IPCs from Russia, 15 from ANZAC, 30 from UK, and 80 from USA = 140 IPCs total. So it’s not enough to hold Moscow; you also have to shut down the Axis growth somewhere.
Maybe America can contain Japan and roll back Italy while UK flies fighters to Moscow…but that’s risky; you make a mistake or you lose a 50-50 battle, and then you lose the game.
If you’ve got a 20 IPC bid to play with, better to use it on something more certain, like 2 subs and a DD for Taranto (Kill Italy First), or artillery & tank in Siberia, infantry in Yunnan, artillery in Szechuan, and infantry in New Guinea (Kill Japan First). Those purchases start paying dividends from the very first turn, and they decisively swing a lot of small but important battles for high-value territories.
I have never seen the point of bids that are meant for a turn 1 attack on Tobruk. If you can win control of the Mediterranean (and with 2 subs for Taranto, you definitely can), then the Italian forces in Libya are no threat at all to Egypt. If they don’t win through to Cairo, they’re not going to do anything important. At most, they conquer 3 IPCs in French North Africa for a couple of turns before getting wiped out by Americans who would want to stop over in Morocco anyway on their way to Rome. Similarly, gaining British control of Libya doesn’t do anything exciting for you – it’s 1 IPC. People freak out over the north African campaign, but it’s just a bunch of yawning, empty desert. It’s not strategically important.
Same thing with bidding an artillery in Sudan – yes, if you really want to, you can take out Ethiopia early, but it’s only worth 1 IPC. Italy only has 4 units in East Africa, and if you keep control of the Mediterranean and Cairo, then Italy has no way of getting any reinforcements down there. The French infantry in West Africa and the British infantry in South Africa have nothing better to do than contain the Italians in East Africa, and you can build more units in South Africa as needed, and/or send the tank from Alexandria south to help out. You can pick off the Italians in East Africa any time you like – there’s really no need to rush that attack. You will collect your UK Europe on turn 1 no matter what you do, and you will miss your UK Europe NO on turn 2 no matter what you do, and you will wipe out the Italians in East Africa and collect your UK Europe NO on turn 4 no matter what you do, so taking Ethiopia early flips your NO for, at best, one turn. This is not the kind of high-priority target that justifies a bid.
-
The problem with bidding 6 infantry for Moscow is that it’s passive, long-term, and dice-dependent.
I haven’t seen anyone give an 18 IPCs bid to Russia in the form of infantry to be used against Russia. I guess Russia could be free for aggressive purchases than.
The allies would have to come for Germany for a few rounds in the beginning I guess to make this bid useful.
-
Let’s see… Russia starts with 24 inf on the Western Front, and another 3 in Moscow/Caucaus that can join the battle easily.
Giving them 5+ inf would mean by G2 that Russia can stack 18 inf in Belarus with another 5 or 6 inf and 2 mechs, 1 tank, 2 fighters, 1 tactical in range of E. Poland or Baltic States.
The indirect benefit there might be that Germany has to either do a G1 Barbarossa buy, thus freeing UK’s round 1 buy up, or get slowed down a round while they gather more men.
-
Stating this as more of a game test than a challenge.
Next game Weddingsinger that I’m axis against you (could be a non-league game), you can have 18 IPCs (6 infantry for Russia, league placement rules).
I think Germany will stack Baltic on G2, occupy Leningrad on G3, and then build on Leningrad G4 (my usual Barbarossa route).
However, if you also simultaneously send over lots of US transports and enough fleet to protect…start doing landings, than Germany might run into trouble when deep into Russia or lose key positions like Normandy / Norway.
-
In order to shape what the bid is intended to do, but retain it, I think that Russia should simply get 4 infantry and 1 armor anywhere, and 1 extra fighter on Moscow. Because the bid is hard to apply and understand for new players and interferes with team selection, and Russia is the primary point of imbalance in the game, it should probably be a preset tweak to Russia, then, if desired, you bid. I don’t really think the above alone goes far enough, if it went a bit farther, you could bid from that starting point and in theory the axis might get a small bid to counterbalance a tenably defensible russia.
We’ve tried some different modding but the most direct and simple way to make sense of the imbalance at this point is to
Reduce all the Axis territory capture bonuses from 5 to 3
Add BM air interception
Add some Russian units (28 bid) -
Stating this as more of a game test than a challenge.
Next game Weddingsinger that I’m axis against you (could be a non-league game), you can have 18 IPCs (6 infantry for Russia, league placement rules).
I think Germany will stack Belarus on G2, occupy Leningrad on G3, and then build on Leningrad G4 (my usual Barbarossa route).
However, if you also simultaneously send over lots of US transports and enough fleet to protect…start doing landings, than Germany might run into trouble when deep into Russia or lose key positions like Normandy / Norway.
I’m always game for some theory testing games, league or not.
Though I suspect you misspoke and meant stack Baltic States on G2.
-
I think Germany will stack Belarus on G2, occupy Leningrad on G3, and then build on Leningrad G4 (my usual Barbarossa route).
However, if you also simultaneously send over lots of US transports and enough fleet to protect…start doing landings, than Germany might run into trouble when deep into Russia or lose key positions like Normandy / Norway.
Fwiw, I agree with your analysis…and my point is that a US foothold in Normandy and Norway isn’t enough compensation for a runaway Italy and Japan. Normandy, Norway, and the iron ore NO are a regional swing of 15 IPCs (+5 for USA, -10 for Germany). If you figure that having a strong US force in northern Atlantic puts pressure on Germany to buy more infantry for the Western front in ways that cost Germany progress in the east, you can give Germany another -10 IPCs, for a total swing of 25 IPCs.
Meanwhile, Italy owns the Med, is collecting New Roman Empire, and is not getting convoyed – that right there is a swing of +20 IPCs for Italy and probably about -2 IPCs for Allies. Japan takes and holds the money islands, which is +19 IPCs for Japan and -14 IPCs for Allies, even without counting New Guinea. So the Axis are down 25 IPCs for Germany, but they’re up about 55 IPCs for Italy and Japan relative to where they would be if you bid a pair of British subs in the Med and some infantry for Yunnan and New Guinea.
Taamvan, I think your proposed “standard bid” would get you an interesting historical simulation, but it wouldn’t make for very exciting gameplay…by protecting Moscow, reducing the German income, and reducing the German ability to bomb out the Russian income, you make it nearly impossible for Germany to conquer or even neutralize Russia, even if Germany focuses 100% on Barbarossa. Without the possibility of a dead-or-crippled Russia, I think Global loses most of its spark. The UK can afford to surrender Cairo and stockpile infantry in London, Persia, Iraq, and South Africa. The USA can put 100% of its assets into the Pacific and grind Japan down. Meanwhile, Russia casually shrugs off German assaults, holds Moscow + Archangel + Stalingrad, and makes almost the same trades every turn until Tokyo falls on turn 9 or 10.
-
Argo,
USA KJF Japan 100% is the only way I play at this point, so variety is already lost to the general imbalance.
I think that there is some “standard bid” that could be given to Russia to counteract what a blowout that side of the war is, every game. 6 units actually seem like too little to counteract the overwhelming force that the Axis can bring, especially all 3.
The money doesn’t truly flop until later in the game–we’re getting incomes for 1 Axis of 80+ and once that flop happens, the game is over. My proposal reduces it some at first, and more later, so its not just a money grab for those $5 bonuses.
Russia is simply so weak against a dedicated Axis crush that it alone is what is distorting the bids above 40-50, my proposal is to focus the tweak on the point of greatest imbalance. I don’t think that even the 28 bid would do much, if anything, to increase Russia’s survival, which is why I proposed the other two ideas.
-
Russia is simply so weak against a dedicated Axis crush that it alone is what is distorting the bids above 40-50, my proposal is to focus the tweak on the point of greatest imbalance. I don’t think that even the 28 bid would do much, if anything, to increase Russia’s survival, which is why I proposed the other two ideas.
Sound logic, Taamvan, and I take your point – if Germany, Italy, and Japan all focus on killing Russia, then Russia will die, even with $28 of extra units.
I guess I’m confused because I don’t see why that’s a problem. On the European board, killing Russia alone can’t get you victory without either London or Cairo – and if Germany and Italy team up for a Russia crush, then nobody is left to take London or Cairo in the early game. You can get to Cairo by driving south from Moscow through the Caucasus to Persia, Iraq, and Jordan – but it’s a long trip, and I think it’s challenging to get from Moscow to Cairo before Tokyo falls.
It might be interesting to see where our assumptions or predictions are actually different. I assume that with just 2 extra British subs in the Med, the UK can shut down Italy hard in 90% of games…skip the scramble out of London on G1, hit Taranto and Malta hard on UK1, use UK1 build on 2 inf, 1 ftr for London and 1 minor factory in Egypt, and then build 3 subs per turn in the Egypt factory on turn 2 and turn 3, and, if needed, turn 4. Sink what remains of the Italian fleet on turn 2, send a modest American fleet (e.g. 2 transports + 1 carrier group) to secure Gibraltar with infantry, and the Italian Mediterranean economy gets convoyed into non-existence before it ever gets rolling.
If you have a bid of 40 IPCs, that leaves 28 IPCs for the Pacific – 2 inf + 2 art for China, 1 inf for New Guinea, and 1 art + 1 tank for Siberia means that China will never lose the Burma Road, ANZAC will always have a healthy economy, and India will never be in danger of falling unless Japan wants to trade Manchuria and Shanghai and Korea for it. By turn 6 or so, the Japanese main battle fleet has been crushed, USA is earning 80 IPCs that can go 100% to Pacific, ANZAC is at 20 IPCs, UK Pacific is at 20 IPCs, China is at 15 IPCs – so you’re pulling in 135 Allied IPCs just for the Pacific against, at most, 40 IPCs for Japan. The USA starts building nothing but loaded transports; the other Pacific Allies finish wiping out Japan’s economy, and by turn 9 or so, the loaded transports (with air support from the carriers) sack Tokyo because Japan isn’t even earning enough money to max-place infantry in Tokyo.
Meanwhile, Italy is earning maybe 10 IPCs dripping wet, mostly from Ukraine, Bulgaria, etc., so they can send a couple of mechanized infantry per turn clockwise through the Caucasus, but it’s not enough to can-open against a serious British blocking force, so Germany is usually only advancing one space per turn. A very aggressive timetable might put them in Moscow on turn 5, Stalingrad on turn 6, northwest Persia on turn 7, Iraq on turn 8, Jordan on turn 9, and Cairo on turn 10. So you’ve got a race. Japan might be able to hold on turn 9, so a perfect German game and an excellent Japanese defense can still lead to an Axis win, but it’s very unlikely; usually the Allies will win that race.
What am I missing?
-
For those who prefer using the bid to help UK, I’m going with…
transport in S. Africa - gives you two more infantry on turn 1, so its possible to hit Iraq, Ethiopia, and Tobruk on UK1
sub in sz 91 - can hit Malta ships or go North if Germany is going fleet. If you use it on Malta, your cruiser can go north or use the Gibraltor fighter for Taranto and the UK tactical to hit Tobruk
art in Alexandria - means you don’t need a transport to kill Tobruk.Now UK has 3 transports in the Indian ocean and 3 fighters in London (if you don’t scramble on G1). Another sub in sz 98 would let you keep another London fighter, too, or free up Gibraltor’s fighter again.
-
Besides the Scottish fighter/SZ98 sub, the only other strong bid I can think of is two more fighters reaching Yunnan by J1, perhaps with another inf/art. Slows Japan’s advance quite significantly.
-
Besides the Scottish fighter/SZ98 sub, the only other strong bid I can think of is two more fighters reaching Yunnan by J1, perhaps with another inf/art. Slows Japan’s advance quite significantly.
Russians?
Or could we spend 20 ipcs on Chinese units like artillery and a fighter?
Maybe one of these games I’ll buy Russia 5 artillery or 3 tanks, just to see what happens.
-
At least one has to be a Russian. A lot of players will allow another flying tiger but I’m unsure if this is a good thing for the allies.
-
At least one has to be a Russian. A lot of players will allow another flying tiger but I’m unsure if this is a good thing for the allies.
So, as I think about this… is it best to give the bid units to ONE power with an immediate chance at effect?
The single biggest …er… victim, I guess, is usually Russia getting steamrolled by Germany. The other tends to be China/UKPac
Most players give to the UK, but to what effect? They shut down Italy quickly and then… Moscow still falls.
Either power can go nuts if the U.S. doesn’t get involved, so maybe giving to Russia or China/UKPac is the answer. You get to slow down the Axis on your side of the board, even if its just one or two rounds while the U.S. can devote itself to the other side of the board for 3 rounds or so.
Russia can gather 5 art in Belarus its 1st turn. China can make use of 4 artillery. UKPac would benefit from an extra transport if your opponent doesn’t do a J1 (if they do, maybe something odd like extra inf at Yunnan, Philippines, etc that would gobble up some of the precious early Japanese troops would be a big benefit).
Otherwise, something to gut the German airforce early… extra UK fighter, destroyer, etc up by London.
-
I guess giving to UK increases the probability of Taranto succeeding from about 85% to well into the 90s.
If I had a 30 bid, I’d do 3 fighters: Scotland, Moscow, Volgograd.
The only real danger with the Yunnan stack is losing India anyway via the naval route. If that happens, normally China is pretty purple rather than yellow but it can’t really last.
-
I try to have bids that amplify the TUV changes during turn 1. There is no point in worrying about the affects during Turns 3+ since you could just change your distribution of spending to accomplish those goals.
Priority 1: sub in Med to help in Taranto (great benefit for 6 bucks)
Priority 2: fighter in Scotland (makes it very difficult to do SZ 110 and SZ111 attacks without risking failure)
Priority 3: extra infantry in Yunnan (reduces forces left in territory after initial attack, allowing you counter with fewer Chinese infantry)
Priority 4: extra UK units in Africa to easily control the land by the end of UK2After that, there are many options that have similar amplification factors, such as:
5) 1 art in Siberia or China to tie up multiple Japanese land units
6) extra UK sub or destroyer in Atlantic to guard fleet during G1 attacks
7) extra transport in Pacific to grab more money during first round
8) extra fighter in London to protect fleet, allow counterattack in UK1, and reduce London infantry purchases on UK1From League play, I feel that a bid of approximately 40 is required to balance the game. That should have an impact of at least an additional 40 TUV swing during the first couple rounds of play. Just keeping one of the Atlantic fleet alive is a relatively large benefit.
-
At least one has to be a Russian. A lot of players will allow another flying tiger but I’m unsure if this is a good thing for the allies.
So, as I think about this… is it best to give the bid units to ONE power with an immediate chance at effect?Â
If the bid was 23:
Yunnan stack is very viable. 2 fighters go to Russia, and 1 infantry goes to China. Before J1, there could 3 fighters, 1 tac. bomber and 5 infantry in Yunnan. Most players would not attack Yunnan on turn 1. That automatically creates a problem that Japan has to negotiate.Or if the bid was 20: A Yunnan stack is still viable. The bid is going to one country with an immediate effect.
Russia just has to remember to declare war on Japan in order to fly their planes to Yunnan.
The problem with this of course is that now Russia’s air force is out of position…which causes other issues for a turn or 2 against Germany.
-
@Arthur:
From League play, I feel that a bid of approximately 40 is required to balance the game. That should have an impact of at least an additional 40 TUV swing during the first couple rounds of play. Just keeping one of the Atlantic fleet alive is a relatively large benefit.Â
ABH, I’ll play you with a bid of 40. It could be a league game or just for fun. Your choice for that. I learn more from players with your level of experience. I have 4 league games going on right now…I’d need to finish one up before starting another. So, maybe I PM you in about two weeks?
-
Abh, there is no amount of bid that you would do a yunnan stack?
I think it’s a real problem for the axis.
Suggested Topics
