An alternative to bidding

[rockrobinoff]

I play most of my A&A online, and the tradition is to bid for the right to play Allies in the A&A 41 setup. Bids in my experience range from 6-10 (which I consider rather high) and as such I more often then not find myself playing Allies with a 8-10 bid. That said, I want to offer an alternative to bidding that I a) think more fun and b) more challenging

One side suggests a setup, the other chooses which side they wan’t.

For instance, lets say I am playing on TripleA and I am hosting the game. I might say something like:

Standard setup except Germany has 17 IPCs to start and a carrier in SZ 5. Pick a side.

The variations are endless, and in my opinion, completely and totally fair (with the exception of one side studying certain types of setups and offerings those, which is unavoidable with bids too)

Thoughts?

[calvinhobbesliker]

hmm. It’s similar to “One person cuts the cake and the other person picks which piece he wants.”

[Guest]

@calvinhobbesliker:

hmm. It’s similar to “One person cuts the cake and the other person picks which piece he wants.”

Like Tax and Spend….i see your point.

Rockrobinoff: I suggest just tell people who they play until someone objects. People wanting to be polite, will just say “ok”.

[rockrobinoff]

@AA_fourlife:

Rockrobinoff: I suggest just tell people who they play until someone objects. People wanting to be polite, will just say “ok”.

i am not interested in “getting my way” or “telling people what to do.” i am interested in a fair and fun system to determine sides.

[rockrobinoff]

@AA_fourlife:

Then stick to bidding. :x

i think you have failed to grasp my point.

[Zhukov44]

There are a couple of alternate set-ups out there (thanks to Veqyrn–if you see him in the lobby ask him).  There’s one where UK gets to place an IC at the start of the game.  There’s another (China_Mod) where China’s turn goes along with USSR’s, plus some additional modifications for balance.

Re. bidding, the bids seem high because TripleA players are accustomed to low luck games, where you need around 11 for a fair game.  However I want at least 8 even in dice, preferably 9.  Hopefully the ladder competition (bid set at 8) will help hash out whether 8 is a fair number…

[rockrobinoff]

@Zhukov44:

There are a couple of alternate set-ups out there (thanks to Veqyrn–if you see him in the lobby ask him).  There’s one where UK gets to place an IC at the start of the game.  There’s another (China_Mod) where China’s turn goes along with USSR’s, plus some additional modifications for balance.

Re. bidding, the bids seem high because TripleA players are accustomed to low luck games, where you need around 11 for a fair game.  However I want at least 8 even in dice, preferably 9.  Hopefully the ladder competition (bid set at 8) will help hash out whether 8 is a fair number…

you havent really responded as to whether you think proposing setups and offering sides is a good/ superior to bidding.

[axis_roll]

I don’t think there is ONE superior way to pick sides or even the game.  As Zhukov pointed out, there are several ideas out there.

Bidding is just the most universal.

Your system does offer the chance to greatly change the start of a game, and therefor, more strategic options.  So in that sense, the novelty aspect makes it attractive.

One downfall to this sytem is that usually when a scenario is proposed, the player proposing it has THOUGHT about the scenario a bit.  In other words, they have a plan (for either side), while the opponent probably has not.  I don’t think this is a great disadvantage, in fact, I like it when my friend does this sort of thing to me, as I like playing the underdog sometimes, or being able to prove his plan was not good enough to beat me.

[rockrobinoff]

@axis_roll:

One downfall to this sytem is that usually when a scenario is proposed, the player proposing it has THOUGHT about the scenario a bit.  In other words, they have a plan (for either side), while the opponent probably has not.  I don’t think this is a great disadvantage, in fact, I like it when my friend does this sort of thing to me, as I like playing the underdog sometimes, or being able to prove his plan was not good enough to beat me.

I pointed this out in my original post no?

[calvinhobbesliker]

@AA_fourlife:

@calvinhobbesliker:

hmm. It’s similar to “One person cuts the cake and the other person picks which piece he wants.”

Like Tax and Spend….i see your point.

Rockrobinoff: I suggest just tell people who they play until someone objects. People wanting to be polite, will just say “ok”.

Okay, how is it like tax an spend?

[Guest]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@AA_fourlife:

@calvinhobbesliker:

hmm. It’s similar to “One person cuts the cake and the other person picks which piece he wants.”

Like Tax and Spend….i see your point.

Rockrobinoff: I suggest just tell people who they play until someone objects. People wanting to be polite, will just say “ok”.

Okay, how is it like tax an spend?

One person …like i don’t know…FDR cuts the money cake out of the hands of taxpayers, and then Unions pick which piece he/she wants :mrgreen:

[axis_roll]

@rockrobinoff:

@axis_roll:

One downfall to this sytem is that usually when a scenario is proposed, the player proposing it has THOUGHT about the scenario a bit.  In other words, they have a plan (for either side), while the opponent probably has not.  I don’t think this is a great disadvantage, in fact, I like it when my friend does this sort of thing to me, as I like playing the underdog sometimes, or being able to prove his plan was not good enough to beat me.

I pointed this out in my original post no?

yep, I guess I missed it.    :oops:

My mistake