Allied Bids - What are the common rules on placement?

[Panther]

@Xlome_00

From the current League Rules:

4b Bidding - Bidding is normally used to ensure that both players are satisfied with the side they are playing. Bidding is not required - whatever the players agree to, for mutually satisfactory rules and starting conditions, is allowed.

Default settings for bidding:

1. Limit one bid unit in a territory or sea zone.

2. The nation placing a unit in a territory or sea zone must have started with a unit in said territory or sea zone prior to placing the bid.

3. China is limited to bid units of: Infantry, Artillery and/or Fighters (the units China is legally able to purchase or start the game with.) These units are still limited to movement/placement restrictions of Chinese units.

[Xlome_00]

Appreciate the quick reply.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

Always try to put one Anzac infantry in New Guinea. Such a placement is totally against the default settings, but for some reason you can get away with it about half the time. If they call you out for violating the settings, ask for additional 7 IPCs for your bid to make up for your inability to put a soldier in Port Moresby.

[Bung]

Just going to bump this thread since it’s one of the ones that comes up on Google…

There’s some question about what “units” are sometimes, and a lot of variations from different players and different clubs. Specifically in Global 2nd, the bids are now high enough that people can buy buildings.

In my mind I wanted to get an answer about if I generally felt OK about people buying buildings.

I was looking at the League’s rules mentioned above, as well as my old rules from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160810212318/http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/comp/rules.php?lid=6

And in both cases it doesnt explicitly state what “unit” means. Furthermore, the old rules I linked were from a time when bids weren’t high enough to even bother making the distinction.

Anyway, I took a look at a 1940 2nd edition rulebook. All purchase-able units: Facilities, Land Units, Naval Units, and Air Units are listed under a section called “Unit Profiles”. To my surprise, Facilities is listed under “Unit Profiles” rather than two sections, say, “Buildings” and “Unit Profiles”.

I havn’t been around as much the last few years, but I do recall people generally not allowing Buildings. I know there also seems to be players now who allow units to be placed anywhere, and they don’t seem to care what bids are used for.

For me, I think I would not want players putting buildings down, I feel like the ability to place new units on UK1 around Egypt for example, is pretty far beyond adding a few units here and there to help the battles on the board, and the general strategies which the board was designed for.

Let me know what you think, maybe if the League is still active you should consider being explicit in your rules. Hopefully for others this serves as a reference place that in my opinion Factory bids should not be allowed. (FWIW if you even know me lol.)

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

It is rare to have an Egypt factory make sense compared to extra UK units as produced troops wouldn’t be able to attack until UK2, taking away most of the benefits.

At some bid point the strategy switches to supporting China through additional Russian and Chinese units. It isn’t hard to keep Yunnan on J1, and with enough forces the key territory can be held for a few rounds and even advance towards the eastern Chinese provinces. Japan can be defeated without any American spend in the Pacific.

[Bung]

@arthur-bomber-harris I am not really trying to discuss the merits of any specific building, was just provided as an example. Rules should be determined based on more than one example, or perhaps how they can change the starting position of the board. In this case in a way that might be considered “against the spirit” of the map design. I’m not trying to sound dramatic or something, but this is the thinking behind the bid rules from earlier editions. I just think a consensus might be a good thing to reach. I don’t really know if “I can handle any placement they make, so whatever” is the right way to look at it, but I could be wrong. Are you specifically for or against a clarification?

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

I am perfectly fine with the current default League rules for bidding. I have yet to see an issue arise in a game

I don’t think you will meet any resistance from opponents if you request a “no factory bids” addendum in your own games if that scenario keeps you up at night.

[taamvan]

@arthur-bomber-harris @Bung

the live bidding rule is that you can only buy units, where there are units of the same team, with no cash or change returned. Seems pretty logical to me, bidding for bases could alter the open by extending ranges.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@taamvan

The Captain’s bidding rules (not official but what I think of) place the IPCs that can be split any way to any treasury on the same side. I wonder what would happen when an Allied bid of 100 can’t decide how things will be split (at which point the Axis player decides) and it all goes to France. An Axis win just got a lot more likely.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36945/axis-allies-global-1940-house-rules-expansion

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

I think the game would be about balanced with a France+100 bid. They will likely have five additional planes to protect Egypt and Western Europe forces. Additionally one of the UK fleets will be saved on G1. A SZ72 carrier placement would be able to support the push to reclaim the Med. Quite a fun scenario!

[taamvan]

@arthur-bomber-harris

There are plenty of easy ways to avoid counting the french out, like letting them produce units and income, without a capital.

Still wouldn’t balance the game.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@arthur-bomber-harris

Only based on your bidding rules. My bids puts them in a power’s treasury (so they have to be spent later).