1941: Bid 0 for China unless you are the President of the We love china club. :-D
Serious: 41 currently seems to favour the Axis, but when the Allies start 110% KGF I feel sorry for the Axis cuz it seems too powerfull to sustain.
@LT04:
I forgot who on this site said it but it was brought up that most A&A games start out in favor of the Axis until a Allied revolutionary event takes place (like the shuck-shuck in classic). Then the Allies have the upper hand and that’s when the bidding starts.
LT
What is this? What am I missing out on?? :-o
CPT Jack I will PM you so we don’t derail this topic.
LT
Thanks LT.
Most people are in the ‘too early to say’ category, and I would agree. Give it a few months and we’ll start to see what the win/loss record is, and that will help decide what, if any, bid is needed.
I agree - the game has only been out for 2 1/2 weeks - and most of us haven’t had it that long. Let’s give it a while before we start talking bids. :wink:
Thanks.
Sorry to answer such a naive question. I’m new to A&A.
What does “bidding” mean in the context of these games ?
Sorry to answer such a naive question. I’m new to A&A.
What does “bidding” mean in the context of these games ?
An auction-style way to decide wheater you play axis or allies and to level out imbalances of a game. The “bid” is an extra amount of IPC that can sometimes be placed in extra units pre-game (i.e. you add units to the starting setup).
In previous editions of A&A (2nd Ed and Revised) it has been shown that the Allies generally have a bit of an advantage given the original setups.
In these games “bidding” was introduced to give the Axis a little help in being more competitve. The bid itself is either extra cash or extra units that go to the Axis and they can disperse as they like. For example a Bid of 8 may mean 2 inf to Germany and 2 IPC to Japan.
Usually the lower bid would get the Axis and get to spend its IPC however they like. So if one team bid 12 and one team bid 10 the team that bid 10 would get the Axis then get to spend its 10 extra ipcs however they liked.
In the early stages of AA50 some people already feel the game is overweighted for the Axis and the Allies may need extra units or cash for more balanced play. While others think it is too early to tell whether there is an imbalance in the setup and we just need more time to refine some Allied strategies.
1941: Bid 0 for China unless you are the President of the We love china club. :-D
Serious: 41 currently seems to favour the Axis, but when the Allies start 110% KGF I feel sorry for the Axis cuz it seems too powerfull to sustain.
I’ll forget China stuff for once and examine KGF stuff:
Revised:
Germany + Japan (midgame) usually 80-90 IPCs, some time less than 80
Allies (midgame) usually more than 90 IPCs
Anniversary (assuming JTDTM):
Ger+Jap+Ita (midgame) 25-30 for GER + 9 for ITA + 65-70 for JAP = AXIS 100-110
Allies (midgame) 20-25 soviets + 30 for UK + 40-45 for USA = ALLIES 90 - 100, and I gave allies all Africa saving Madagascar
I’d say as much the game is balanced, but probably axis has economic advantage. I have some doubts about KGF being powerful in AA50, but I’m sure it’s less powerful in AA50 than in Revised
Bids in 41 will certainly go to the allies. It is also likely the bid will go towards a KGF strategy since it has a better chance of winning the war over a global strategy(fighting Japan too)
You could give a bid to the allies and mandate that it goes in the Pacific theater. But really it would have to be a large bid to compete with the Japanese expansion. Do we really want to do that?
I see no strategy evolving that includes fighting Japan with a large enough effort that simulates the real war. It will be KGIF. I do think KGIF can be defeated by Japan buying large quantities of bombers and using them to blast Russian ICs. This would give the Germans an opening to crush Russia.
-If the game is unbalanced in favor of the Axis, then my favorite solution would be a starting factory for the British in India or Australia.
-If its unbalanced in favor of Allies, then we should give Germany a starting factory in Poland or Romania.
Or maybe try both, and see if that balances out so we don’t need a bid anymore. You never know right?
Just a thought :-D
I much prefer a solution like that to the pre-placement bid.
-If the game is unbalanced in favor of the Axis, then my favorite solution would be a starting factory for the British in India or Australia.
-If its unbalanced in favor of Allies, then we should give Germany a starting factory in Poland or Romania.
Or maybe try both, and see if that balances out so we don’t need a bid anymore. You never know right?
Just a thought :-DI much prefer a solution like that to the pre-placement bid.
I agree. Instead of a bid to fix a lopsided setup, why haven’t people just fixed the stup itself?
Then you have the option of deciding before the game begins whether to play OOB Setup or the “Fixed” Setup. Then there would be no wasted time of bidding, seeing who got the bid, then deciding what to buy and where to place the bid. By that time, a non-bidding game may already be finished with the first turn or two!
I also feel that E Canada, Australia, and Czech-Hungary should all start with ICs. Not only would it help to balance the game, but it would also be more historical.
Well, er, how do you do that? How do you fix the set-up everywhere in the same way to the point that it’s balanced?
Bidding is universal (used in all competitive A&A), and allows for a perfectly balanced match. If you’re gonna start changing the set-up, you’ll loose these 2 advantages (is 2 inf in Lib balanced? Or 1 inf 1 rtl?, maybe siteA is differing from siteB, resulting in a less universal game).
-If the game is unbalanced in favor of the Axis, then my favorite solution would be a starting factory for the British in India or Australia.
-If its unbalanced in favor of Allies, then we should give Germany a starting factory in Poland or Romania.
Or maybe try both, and see if that balances out so we don’t need a bid anymore. You never know right?
Just a thought :-DI much prefer a solution like that to the pre-placement bid.
I agree. Instead of a bid to fix a lopsided setup, why haven’t people just fixed the stup itself?
Then you have the option of deciding before the game begins whether to play OOB Setup or the “Fixed” Setup. Then there would be no wasted time of bidding, seeing who got the bid, then deciding what to buy and where to place the bid. By that time, a non-bidding game may already be finished with the first turn or two!I also feel that E Canada, Australia, and Czech-Hungary should all start with ICs. Not only would it help to balance the game, but it would also be more historical.
Bidding is not aimed to fix the setup, that could be a really difficult thing to do.
Bidding is a way to select the side with wich play the game, instead of random assignment.
Bidding is based on the player self-confidence in is ability to lead the Axis or the Allies compared with the abiliy of the opponent/s.
Bidding is a way to introduce some variability in the initial set-up of the game giving a degree of alternatives to the same initial moves.
Bidding fix the set up in a subjective way basing on the players will.
Try to start a discussion for balancing the initial set up… .and you will discover how many different opinion there are, which one should be the one to be used for fixing the set up?
Bidding is a way to introduce some variability in the initial set-up of the game giving a degree of alternatives to the same initial moves.
Try to start a discussion for balancing the initial set up… .and you will discover how many different opinion there are, which one should be the one to be used for fixing the set up?
I don’t like bid system, but the first reason is the only really good thing I see in this.
The second is sadly true, unless Larry appears with a fixed setup as he did in AAPacific
I agree! :)
@LT04:
I forgot who on this site said it but it was brought up that most A&A games start out in favor of the Axis until a Allied revolutionary event takes place (like the shuck-shuck in classic). Then the Allies have the upper hand and that’s when the bidding starts.
I know I’ll sound stupid, but: what’s shuck-shuck in classic?
I know I’ll sound stupid, but: what’s shuck-shuck in classic?
Well there are actually a couple different uses of the phrase “shuck-shuck.” I’m more familiar with the Revised version, but its essentially the same principle at work.
Usually a “shuck-shuck” refers to setting up a logistics scheme with transports and ground units, so that you can quickly transfer troops from one end of the board to the other. Basically, its when you leave a sea zone, pick up troops, and then return to that same sea zone to unload, all in a single move. In Revised, if you stick a definite article in front of it, “The shuck-shuck” move, then most assume that you’re talking about the troop train that ends in sz 4 (where you end up unloading 8+ units a round into Archangel or Karelia.)
Other popular shuck spots are sz 12 to E. Canada or UK, and back to Africa in one move. Sz 2 or sz 8, to E. Canada and back to UK in one move etc. All these spots can be used together in conjunction, especially once the USA gets set up. So what you end up with is a long series of “1 move to pick up troops and then return to unload” that leads from the Atlantic coast of America, to London, and then onward either to Northern Russia, or Fortress Europa itself.
Some people will also use the term “shuck”, to describe any situation where infantry stacks are being maneuvered in a coordinated/sequential way. So some will people talk about shucking troops from W. USA, to W. Canada, to E. Canada for example (“the troop train out of Western”) even though no transports would be involved until they actually arrived in E. Canada.
I don’t know who coined the term, but I’ve been using it for about as long as I can remember. :)
Thanks :-)
now I realize that I didn’t know the term but I did know the tactic
Try to start a discussion for balancing the initial set up… .and you will discover how many different opinions there are, which one should be the one to be used for fixing the setup?
Well, after a few months of play, if it is obvious that there will be bidding, then we could petition Larry Harris to release a re-balanced setup. (Just like after one buys a new set of tires, it is recommended that he get the tires re-balanced occasionally.)
I don’t know if I’m repeating old news but in the old days we used to do a ‘build-up round’ where everone got so many number of rounds to do nothing but non-combat, puchase and deployment. usually one or two rounds.
I’m sure it’s been mentioned somewhere around here but if there’s anyone who hasn’t thought or heard of it I thought I’d mention it.
