A Bid For Allies

[cannon fodder]

I thought that is what you meant?  US buys the fighter and flies it to China?

Maybe I misunderstood?

@Butcher:

@rockrobinoff:

i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?

Why didn’t I think of that?

@Butcher:

I think it makes sense. The U.S. can provide support to China, but they have to actually get the fig there.

Maybe both options could be included. Pay 15 to have it placed with China’s new infantry, or pay 10 and have to move it there. Limit one Flying Tiger at a time.

[Butcher]

Yeah, that’s what I meant. It would function as a limited lend-lease. However, it would probably take about 4 turns to get there unless you have a strong naval presence in the Pacific. In the 42 scenario, that might be ok, but it’s too late in 41.

The best option may be to move the Flying Tiger to Sikang in the setup. Then it will actually have a decent impact on the game.

[critmonster]

All Chinese terretories should be worth zero. Does not effect allies and makes it less appealing for Japan.

[Funcioneta]

Just give the chineses a real army - not some random frontier garrison with Flying Sparrings laid to die - and also give them a IC as all the other powers!

[Zhukov44]

The more I play aa50 the more I am satisfied with a unit bid to Egypt/Karelia to balance out the game.  Strictly speaking, a China bid would be more historically accurate.  But allowing Germany to knock over Egypt isn’t very historical either.  A bid to Egypt makes North Africa a contest.

The common bid (1 unit to Karelia, 1 to Egypt) allows the Allies to shore up 2 spots that were historical battlefields but which will fall easily to Axis in a game w/o a bid.

[critmonster]

I go back and forth, but I see your point about better allied defense in the west, it might encourage allied presence in the pacific and others have posted that more units in Asia will just encourage more KGF because one can stall Japan with existing units. The problem I have is that Europe is pretty balanced if decent USSR and UK play (with USA help) and if we give them more then do we encourage the KGF strat even more? Also, Italy really needs to be able to get African $ or its NO’s to be viable and Egypt bids curtail that. Hmmm

[Funcioneta]

@critmonster:

Also, Italy really needs to be able to get African $ or its NO’s to be viable and Egypt bids curtail that. Hmmm

1 or 2 inf to Egypt are not enough. It will prevent early conquest of Egypt, as you say, but round 2 Egypt will be lost anyway, and the problem is that Germany can still attack z2 BB. The kar/egy bid will aid a bit, of course, but will not solve the main problem: Asia/Pacific mess

[Lucifer]

The “standard” bid for allies in 41 +NOs are from $6 to $9, one unit pr. TT.
It seems that this applies for regular dice games as well as LL games.
Usually the units are put in Egy and Kalia.

[critmonster]

@Subotai:

The “standard” bid for allies in 41 +NOs are from $6 to $9, one unit pr. TT.
It seems that this applies for regular dice games as well as LL games.
Usually the units are put in Egy and Kalia.

From your experience does this encourage more Pacific interaction or less?

[Zhukov44]

The bid doesn’t seem to make a big difference on whether USA goes Pacific. Having Russia better off in Kar and Uk better off in Egypt is a boon for pretty much any Allied strategy.  It makes KGF easier; it also makes it easier to play a USA Pacific offensive without losing in  North Africa and Northern Europe.

[Lucifer]

@critmonster:

From your experience does this encourage more Pacific interaction or less?

Regardless of bids, good players will fight for the money :-)

And this means that as long as there are more money in Europe, (Classic, Revised, AA42, AA50) it doesn’t pay off to build and send stuff to TTs and regions which aren’t worth a lot.

[Joe Cold]

Why is there still a discussion of bids? This is a rock star, totally balanced game. The only lack of balance I’ve ever seen is poor strategy, bad moves, or tough dice.

[Lucifer]

@Joe:

Why is there still a discussion of bids? This is a rock star, totally balanced game. The only lack of balance I’ve ever seen is poor strategy, bad moves, or tough dice.

You will only get the advantage of good dice rolls so many times……

An axis player who knows what he’s doing will win against you much more than 50% of all games, and that’s not balanced!

[a44bigdog]

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

[Lucifer]

@a44bigdog:

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

How bout Egy and Kalia G1 w/o bids…?
Anyone who knows what happens 65% of all games shouldn’t claim AA50-41 +NOs is balanced, but there’s no need for a bid that is higher than in Revised either.

Or maybe the (TripleA) live players are different from the PBM/PBF players…?

[Funcioneta]

@Subotai:

And this means that as long as there are more money in Europe, (Classic, Revised, AA42, AA50) it doesn’t pay off to build and send stuff to TTs and regions which aren’t worth a lot

Unless Japan decides there is more money in America and Asia than only in Asia  :wink: In Revised, Japan can make a very powerful assault against America if done enough quickly (bid of tra to z50 can work marvels). Even in AA50 41, Japan can at least annoy USA’s rear and there are plenty of NOs and islands that can aid allied cause in Pacific. In AA50-42, there is a big fat IC at India that you should buy and protect

And AA42 … well, let’s say buying trannies early is not going to aid allied cause too much with so much kriegsmarine and luftwaffe in play … if at least we had not that stupid Perry Channel icecap …

I cannot say nothing about Classic, I started playing with Revised  :wink:

[Funcioneta]

@a44bigdog:

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

Some people need better axis strats, I’d say. I’ll agree with Subo this time. Just check first rounds of tourney: many axis players simply played horrible, thinking still in Revised terms. Others surrendered due time issues. I think this is not representative, and I still have to read a convincing allied strat article that works. All many say is “KGF will save us again!”, but economic balance makes me doubt it even if axis let allies do a KGF (passive Atlantic, ignore America). Also, many ignore the exploit of killing China J1 for some reason and let China grow when clearly there is not a strong reason to allow it

[Zhukov44]

@a44bigdog:

That is not what the stats from the Tournaments and League have shown. They have shown AA50-41 to be balanced. Maybe some peoples Allied strategies need some work.

Hmm I’d theorize either the sample is too small or playing with tech skewed the sample (tech helps Allies because they have more money to spend on it early).  I think the potential for skewed samples is high given how dicey G1 can be and/or the effects of hitting a good tech early.  There is almost always a bid of 6-9 on TripleA and lots more games have been played there.

If there’s a way to win w/o a bid, I haven’t seen it yet.  In a tourney/league format, I wouldn’t take Allies for less than 8, tech or no tech.  Mistakes tend to devastate Allies while Axis can recover from them easily.  And the long game favors Axis.

Allies are doubtless harder to master, so maybe the bid will come down as people get better, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

[Funcioneta]

@Zhukov44:

Hmm I’d theorize either the sample is too small or playing with tech skewed the sample (tech helps Allies because they have more money to spend on it early)

Agreed with sample too small. Not agreed with tech skews the sample. First, you simply don’t play the same with tech that without tech (you have to take into account much more variables); second, allies will have more money as much 2 rounds and from 3 axis will have more. In those 2 first rounds, USSR cannot afford tech (it needs a airfleet and some tanks to work), UK will struggle to buy even 1 researcher (they need IC, navy or expensive air) and USA could spare as much one or 2 because they have to fight a 2 front war without cash for all places. On the other hand, Japan and Germany can spare easily at least 2 tech teams each one and I guess even Italy could buy one if axis pursues a tech race

More than that, a G1 tech can be crippling for allies (LRA or HBs are big, but even jet fig, super subs and super shipyards can be used, and radar would cancel allied SBRs), while a round 1 tech for allies is going to be good but not crippling for axis (I guess the betters are paras for UK or HBs for USA, but HBs is not going to make the mess german HBs can create against allied fleets in Atlantic, and Germany can absorb HB SBRs if done right)

As much, tech could be irrelevant for game balance, but is not going to give advantage to allies

[a44bigdog]

The first tournament was no tech. I seem to recall that coming out almost dead even. Plenty of the league games have been no tech and some of the early ones even had Axis bids. I think the last results Darth posted from the League were around even.

I don’t play using TripleA so I can not say if the payers there are better or worse than here. I do know that here one can face anyone form a relative newbie to players that have been playing Axis and Allies for years. I have also noticed that Subotai seems to advocate a KGF and I am making an assumption that this is the Allied strategy that is most common at TripleA. I have noticed here that I see more balanced and KJF strategies from Allied opponents. I use a balanced approach with the Allies and that has been an evolving strategy since I got the game last December until about a month ago.

Myself I have no qualms about taking the Allies without a bid. Besides the dice server is going to rape me more than any imbalance in the game.  :-D