The Axis Advantage is Bigger Than You Think.

[WILD BILL]

Does anyone do a bid, but just add it to a powers starting income instead of plopping down units to the set-up before the game starts.

Say allies get a bid of 10 IPCs (maybe allow a split between to powers or econs in case of UK). Decide what power(s) will get it, then when their turn comes up, add it to their starting income to purchase units as normal. That way it doesn’t effect the first turn so much.

[Karl7]

Hmm, that just isn’t how its done, but you raise a good point.

Traditionally all bids are placed on the board pre-start.

Yet, not sure an extra 10ipcs would really do anything.  Round 1 is the critical move for G40. After that the value of that money goes way down.  I think you need a long term solution – an extra NO for the UK and more units for the USSR.

[WILD BILL]

I know that units added to the set-up can really screw things up. If the bid was added to the starting income, then units would be mobilized at the end of the powers turn that gets the bid. It would be helpful, but not overwhelming. Say UK see’s a Sea Lion threat, they could use the allies bid (10 IPCs) when their turn comes up to add another fighter to England. If that ftr was added to say Scotland before the game starts, the Germans would need to account for it when attacking the sz111 fleet.

UK could also use the extra income towards an air base for Gibraltar, or an IC for Egypt. So it could have a lasting effect.

**Would need to stipulate the bid must be used in the first round of play.

[Zhukov44]

@Karl7:

Bids are problematic for G40.  So many critical battles happen in the first round that a strong bid could really screw up the game dynamic.  If Germany fails to kill the UK fleets round 1, they will be severely set back.  Imagine a 20+ bid used to beef up sz110 or France for that matter.

If bids make an opening too risky or impossible, then try another opening.  Bid variation keeps things interesting.

[Cow]

Bids are problematic for G40.  So many critical battles happen in the first round that a strong bid could really screw up the game dynamic.  If Germany fails to kill the UK fleets round 1, they will be severely set back.  Imagine a 20+ bid used to beef up sz110 or France for that matter.

If bids make an opening too risky or impossible, then try another opening.  Bid variation keeps things interesting.

Yeps. That is why I do not do 12 bids for dice games.

[theROCmonster]

Do the standard rules apply where you can only place bid units in a place where you start with a unit? Also only 1 unit per territory?

[Karl7]

Check the G40 league rules.

My understanding is that you can place bid units only in zones with preexisting units of the power to which you are giving units.

[gamerman01]

Great topic, Karl, just found this when doing a search for a rules question, and have read every post.

It’s interesting that a year later, you are 10/10 as Axis and 20/18 as Allies in league play.
Probably the vast majority of these games involved a bid of 6-12 of units placed on the board immediately.

So you have had more success with the Allies than the Axis even without the Gibraltar airbase, an infantry taken away from Egypt (since Alpha2), and no additional Russians……

Just mentioning a few indisputable facts…  :-D

Allied win pct in the league this year is below .450 and Axis is above .550, even with these 6-12 bids.
The advantage exists at all levels of skill, as well.
Top players have completed 250 games and these are the win %
With Axis, .813
With Allies, .717

Tier 2 in the league, 273 games played
With Axis, .651
With Allies, .537

Tier 3, 310 games
Axis, .394
Allies, .316

Tier 4, 122 games
Axis, .118
Allies, .113

Almost all of these games had an Allied bid between 6-13.
Apparently that’s not enough, as Karl could see a whole year ago.  Maybe he’s right about that 15.
And yes, I agree the UK should have the no subs NO, but instead of Russian infantry, I would submit that the Russian lend-lease NO should be easier to get.  Or, they could have 1 NO for No allies in Russia and a 2nd NO for no warships in 125 and Archangel is Russian

[ghr2]

Gamerman01  I suggested, a while ago, a russian NO for allied control of persia.

[Young Grasshopper]

We have just started a house rule that allows the choice of 4 different Allied booster packages that change the initial setup, they are all worth 15$ in units. You can view them in the House Rules forum. I’m considering making it 6 and the allies roll a dice to decide which one they must take.

[gamerman01]

@Young:

We have just started a house rule that allows the choice of 4 different Allied booster packages that change the initial setup, they are all worth 15$ in units. You can view them in the House Rules forum. I’m considering making it 6 and the allies roll a dice to decide which one they must take.

Cool

[Young Grasshopper]

@Gamerman01:

@Young:

We have just started a house rule that allows the choice of 4 different Allied booster packages that change the initial setup, they are all worth 15$ in units. You can view them in the House Rules forum. I’m considering making it 6 and the allies roll a dice to decide which one they must take.

Cool

This is what I came up with…

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31981.msg1190605#new

[gamerman01]

Neat -
I commented on your thread with my ideas (so others reading this may know)

[Karl7]

@Gamerman01:

Great topic, Karl, just found this when doing a search for a rules question, and have read every post.

It’s interesting that a year later, you are 10/10 as Axis and 20/18 as Allies in league play.
Probably the vast majority of these games involved a bid of 6-12 of units placed on the board immediately.

So you have had more success with the Allies than the Axis even without the Gibraltar airbase, an infantry taken away from Egypt (since Alpha2), and no additional Russians……

Just mentioning a few indisputable facts…  :-D

Allied win pct in the league this year is below .450 and Axis is above .550, even with these 6-12 bids.
The advantage exists at all levels of skill, as well.
Top players have completed 250 games and these are the win %
With Axis, .813
With Allies, .717

Tier 2 in the league, 273 games played
With Axis, .651
With Allies, .537

Tier 3, 310 games
Axis, .394
Allies, .316

Tier 4, 122 games
Axis, .118
Allies, .113

Almost all of these games had an Allied bid between 6-13.
Apparently that’s not enough, as Karl could see a whole year ago.  Maybe he’s right about that 15.
And yes, I agree the UK should have the no subs NO, but instead of Russian infantry, I would submit that the Russian lend-lease NO should be easier to get.  Or, they could have 1 NO for No allies in Russia and a 2nd NO for no warships in 125 and Archangel is Russian

Yeah, I have substantially revised my opinions since I started this post.

I now think this:

1. If the Axis get bad luck out of the gate, they will lose unless the allied player is much, much less skilled.

2. If the Axis have an acceptable start, then the game will swing on who is the better player and luck.  So, it’s pretty balanced.

The luck factor is beginning to weigh on my mind more and more though.  I’ve had games where I was winning only to have it stolen by dice in a critical battle – not to mention those games where you are doing everything right but just getting nickeled and dimed on the little battles that just bleed you out.

[Young Grasshopper]

What in your opinion Karl is the lowest bid that would negate the usefulness of a biding system.

[Karl7]

@Young:

What in your opinion Karl is the lowest bid that would negate the usefulness of a biding system.

less than 6.

with 6 you can buy a sub for the UK fleet in the med.

[Spendo02]

@Karl7:

Whats the solution?

I would change a couple things.� I would not take back any units added to the Axis.� I think the editions were good.� I think any changes would have to be on the allied side.� I don’t think a ton of new units are necessary but I would put back that airbase in Gib (placed there in Alpha2).� Why did they take away the airbase in Gib?� Can anyone explain?� That makes a huge difference.� Replace that, put a harbor in Panama, and give the UK more NO’s.� The UK really comes off as the weak power in most global games in the long run.� Even when they are on the offense and get their 1 NO, I rarely see them get over 40 IPCs.� Maybe a UK NO for no subs in the Atlantic, an NO for no ships in the Med (a reflection of the Italian No)…� A boost like that to the UK would go a long way to even out the game I think,� �

Whats the UK going to spend more IPC on once it control of the Channel has be established for the Allies?  You can only place 10 units, and if you’re in a slug fest in Europe you’re going to be spending 35 IPC / round shuttling 5 Inf and 5 Art into Europe on 5 TT.

[gamerman01]

UK has Canada and South Africa complexes, and many players build even more in Egypt, Iraq, and/or Persia.  There is always use for more UK money

[Guest]

I think the real question is what bid makes for a 50/50 win senario btw the very top players. My guess is a bid 12-13 with no china bid restriction and max one unit per territory/seazone. Btw China bid is very OP as one can easily prevent Yunnan r1 with 3inf bid or 1inf Russia fgt.

[knp7765]

@ErwinRommel:

I think the real question is what bid makes for a 50/50 win senario btw the very top players. My guess is a bid 12-13 with no china bid restriction and max one unit per territory/seazone. Btw China bid is very OP as one can easily prevent Yunnan r1 with 3inf bid or 1inf Russia fgt.

Do you mean placing a Russian fighter in Yunnan? Wouldn’t that put Russia automatically at war with Japan from the start? Then the Mongolians would not join Russia but remain strict neutrals.