@DoManMacgee Hi DMM & thanks for the response… Really appreciate that these forums have experienced players who weigh in on things. It was OOB with a 12 bid.
That’s pretty much what Japan did - eliminate the threats and take back the 2 islands as advantageously as possible while still consolidating the fleet. I was just surprised how long it then took for Japan to have any pressure westward. India, in spite of losing 2 men on the initial Kwangtung foray, stayed around for quite a while (minimal investment for a KGF).
What helped, no doubt, was that Russia traded unfavourably in the initial Caucasus strafe (dice game, lost 3 inf to Germany’s 2, and took W Russia at odds) and the Germans (rather than push hard back immediately), decided to save the Med fleet with a carrier. This made the Egypt / Africa game interesting, but maybe a different buy on G1 and the Germans win sooner. Always tough to say.
But, as many have pointed out here, the Axis have such a strong start in this game it was nice to have a hotly contested battle!
Potential bid options between 6-12 ipcs
-
I like a bid of 9 but I almost always give it all to uk 1 inf in Egypt and 1 sub in sz 35 with that bid it makes Egypt safe for at least 3 turns and by that time I have move other units there and kick the Germans out of North Africa and the sub makes the attack on sz 37 a must
-
As a general principle, a bid is most useful when used to decide very close battles. Based on the initial 1942 second edition starting setup, the most impactful potential bids are (in no particular order):
1. Destroyer - Increase chances that US East Coast fleet survives
2. Inf - Defending Egypt
3. Sub - Threaten Germany Med fleet
4. inf - Attacking Ukraine
5. sub - Attacking SZ37
6. Art - Attacking Belo to prevent germany from stacking KareliaThere might be some okay bids, but these stand out as top tier most effective bids.
-
Those bids comport well with my own experience… At least, playing games with people who know what they’re doing. :)
I call all those bids, battle breakers, since they are used to disrupt the normal odds on a round one battle (either on attack or defense.) Given the option, I think most experienced players will use their bid this way.
Recognizing the strategic wisdom of such bids, I still think there is something to be said for a fighter bid, because of the cumulative movement and attack/defense advantage over multiple rounds. In a battle breaker bid (with inf or art or subs), you will know the result almost instantly. An extra inf unit might seal the deal and win you the fight, or it might dud completely, either way the advantage is usually expended right then and there, after which point everyone adapts to the results and the new situation on the board. Subs strike me as similar, just in the naval arena. Either its going to hit, or its going to dud, and you will know right away whether the bid had an impact. But a fighter is a little different. It could conceivably just fly around making low risk attacks, and maxing defensive maneuvers for many rounds. Setting up attacks/defenses in the second or third round that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to achieve.
Consider for a instance a 3rd Russian fighter (not that this is the optimal bid, but just as an example). We know on a gut level that this fighter’s impact will make itself felt over several rounds. Considering that, is it better to take a safe 10 ipcs on a unit that you know will survive into the endgame? Or to bid it out on units that you risk immediately to gain an edge in a narrow first round battle? If risking a battle breaker, then you are likely still playing the odds. But sometimes even a strong boost on the percentages could still backfire, as we’ve probably all seen in one of Russia’s opening fights (too many times to count). :-D
I think about the same thing with the sz37 battle. Is it better to risk the fighter you saved in Egypt on a chancy fight, or to just fly it somewhere it can defend safely and make attacks at no risk to itself? And then I think to myself, “I’d have to conquer France, Northwestern, and Norway to make up the replacement cost of this unit!” So these things weigh on me sometimes haha.
A fighter’s key advantage, beyond movement and defense, is the fact that it doesn’t have to occupy the territory into which it is attacking. So again, using the example of Russia, a fighter could do much the same thing as an extra inf or artillery unit (in Belo say, or Ukraine) but without putting the unit itself at risk on counter attack after the job is done. Of course the instant reply is, “but with the same bid on the ground, you could do this in 3 territories rather than just 1!” Granted, but it might still be worth considering… which bid will have the greater long term effect on game balance between the two sides over successive rounds? I know as Axis, I am always put a bit on edge, if Allies bid in the air, because its harder too see how it might swing things in later rounds. Where it will it land? Always the question on my mind. Not to deter anyone from using the tried and true bids listed above, as the advantages there are clear, but I still thought the fighter was worth a post.
-
A fighter bid is suboptimal no matter how you look at it. Take the example of the Russian fighter. Instead of bidding that, give the Russians 2 extra INF and 1 extra ART, then buy the fighter on round 1. These three units will help you more in round 1 then the fighter would, and by round 2, you’ve got the fighter either way.
The same can be said of a UK fighter. You can achieve the same result for cheaper with a sub and an INF. You’ll keep that INF for a long time, while the sub will be taken as a casualty, probably keeping a cruiser alive, and you just buy two fighters on round 1 anyway.
-
Well I wouldn’t labor too hard to convince someone to bid a single air unit over three ground units :) to me the advantage of the latter is pretty obvious (3 chances to have an impact instead of 1). But rather than being categorical about it, I am trying to consider the potential merits of a fighter. The main one I see is in the movement and the coverage across multiple territories or sea zones.
So using the UK example, an artillery unit in Egypt can defend against a German attack before UK1, during UK1 combat phase it can attack Libya, or in UK1 non com it withdraw to Trans, Sudan, or transport out a distance of 2 sea zones. That is its maximum range. A sub in sz 35, can attack 37 or 61 during UK1 combat phase, in UK1 non com it can move a max of 2 spaces in any direction (including sz17 provided the canal is still open.) But that’s still as far as it can get.
A fighter can get out 4 spaces, so it can potentially land somewhere reaching territories or sea zones in the second round, which a newly purchased fighter (whether in India or UK) would not be able to reach. Even if they are the same essential cost in ipcs, the bid fighter has a greater movement value for this cost since it is on the board from the outset. Production may also play into the decision. For example, it might make sense for UK to buy 2 fighters in UK regardless, in which case the decision isn’t between a fighter or ground, but the decision between 5 total fighters and 4 total fighters (potentially) on the gameboard after UK1 purchase.
You might be able to get a comparable value, or better value on the trade out of a ground bid, or a sub bid, but a fighter might allow you more flexibility to decide what to do after Germany’s turn, rather than before it.
If you bid a sub for an attack on 37 you are pretty much locked in, but with a fighter in Egypt you could decide after you see the German opening. Likewise a sub might keep your cruiser alive after a 37 attack, but the cruiser is stuck afterwards, and may be vulnerable to Japan. A fighter placed in Egypt offers a similar attack potential, but without giving away your plan necessarily, while simultaneously giving you more first round power in the Med. A fighter bid in sz 35 or somewhere else, might allow 2 fighters to escape from 37 (if your carrier dies) to land safely in India. Or perhaps better still, don’t attack 37, and use the fighters instead for other things, that way you can save it to fight over multiple rounds. All these seem pretty workable to me. Whether its optimal or not, I suppose that depends what sort of game you play.
Its not like a fighter bid is so strategically unsound as to put you on the immediate path to losing hehe. It might be sub-optimal for most strategies, but might yet offer some unconsidered advantage in others. The power of air vs ships especially, leads me to think that most players could find a way to make effective use of it, even if the initial gameplan falls apart completely. Which is why I still think its interesting. Or put another way, if my opponent was Allies, I would not be all smiles and confidence if saw them bid a fighter.
Also relevant to the general discussion, though perhaps I haven’t mentioned it specifically… everything I’ve said so far assumes normal dice rules. The situation may be similar in a low luck game, but I would not say the situation translates 1:1 by any means. In LL a single fodder hit, or even 1 extra pip on attack or defense, can take you from something which is “probable” to something which is “guaranteed” 100% of the time. Its a different dynamic and may factor into the decision making process. I prefer dice myself, so that is my focus. A lot of LL principles can be helpful when applied to dice, but they do not translate directly all the time. The bid could be an instance where the difference in play style makes itself felt. I would say in general that the results of the first round battles in LL are more important to the overall game, than they are in dice, and as result the preplacement bid is more significant. Put simply the advantage goes to the first person who wins in LL, and it is harder for underdog to recover from an early swing against them in TUV, because of the cascading effect. So that’s definitely something to consider when it comes to the bid, that would argue in favor of Russian ground, Egypt fodder, or naval fodder to grind it out in 37.
-
If you bid a sub for an attack on 37 you are pretty much locked in, but with a fighter in Egypt you could decide after you see the German opening.
I have to disagree about this. A sub in SZ 37 doesn’t have to attack Japan; you can just as easily take your whole Indian fleet and bring it to the Med. You’re still able to threaten pretty much all the same theaters as with a fighter. Therefore I would definitely take a sub and a ground unit over a fighter.
And since I don’t consider a sub and a ground unit to be all that great either (I think 3 ground units are far superior, unless you really want to go KJF), then the fighter bid is out of its league against its competitors. It’s an intriguing concept (especially if placed in Egypt), but in the end it’s just not worth it.
-
Good point, from 35 it can transit back to the med, so its not totally locked in, but in terms of combat attacks you basically have only 37 and 61. I think there is probably general agreement that a fighter is not the most potent use of the ipcs. Playing devils advocate just for the sake fully examining the issue. But I would concede, I am far more likely to bid ground :)
-
I found a very interesting opening. take 9 bid, and bid 2 inf for UK and 1 for Russia. Bid inf in caucus, trans, and egypt. Bring 1 Russian tank to trans. You can now bring your UK fleet from the pacific into the med.
-
Bad idea. Your fleet will just get destroyed by German fighters + their battleship.
-
Only if his fighters are in position, and only if he killed your DD. He can kill you pretty easily, but you will have a carrier cruiser and 2 fighters that he has to kill. That means at least 3 fighters his bomber, if it survives, and his battleship have to hit you for it to be cost effective. If he has that much that can hit your fleet then don’t go into the med. Still a good move as allies regardless. Forces Germany into doing stuff he doesn’t like. Like taking Gibraltar first turn instead of trans.
-
So his aircraft would have to be on Southern Europe or Balkans in order to hit the fleet? I like this idea :-D.
I’ve only played one game and I’m a little surprised Axis is favored given that tanks are now 6 AND Allies have an perfect spot for invasion in Northwestern Europe. Seems like Allies have a good shot at defeating Germany before Japan can take Moscow.
However, the starting factories in India and Karelia are great for Axis….
If you guys (ROC and Black Elk) play on TripleA…let’s give it a go sometime.
-
Regardless, the inf and tank in Trans-Jordan are not only useless, but counter-productive. All this does is keep the Germans from taking that country, but if he wants to make such a huge mistake, you should let him. That would mean the battleship and transport would be sunk by UK1, with 1 bomber and 2 fighters.
As for going into the med, even if German planes aren’t in range, it’s still a mistake. All he needs to do then it put them in range in round 2, buy a carrier or interpose a destroyer, then destroy you in round 3. Your fleet is dead either way.
And that’s not even counting the fact that by sending it to the med for suicide, you forfeited the opportunity to either attack SZ 37 or sink the destroyer and transport in SZ 61 (while landing your plane in Szechuan to protect the US plane).
-
I agree with zombie that reinforcing trans-jordan is unnecessary because of the threat of a profitable 2 fighter & 1 bomber counter. I think that bidding egypt with 1 infantry or 1 sub in the adjacent sz makes sense. This deters a slightly profitable attack by germany R1 with expected result of UK losing all 4 units in egypt and germany left with 1 bomber.
UK moving the Indian fleet to the Med is the optimal choice in some situations. It’s optimal when the UK wants to destroy the germany med fleet R2 and is willing to lose India earlier because SZ61 isn’t sunk. The critical factor is that Germany hasn’t deadzoned sz 15 so that UK carrier, cruiser, and 2 fighters can safely move in. R2, UK can project at least 4 fighters, 1 bomber, 1 cruiser, and 1 carrier which Germany is hopeless to defend. The main issue is that most good German plays will deadzone sz15, so this move normally isn’t an option.
-
So his aircraft would have to be on Southern Europe or Balkans in order to hit the fleet? I like this idea :-D.
I’ve only played one game and I’m a little surprised Axis is favored given that tanks are now 6 AND Allies have an perfect spot for invasion in Northwestern Europe. Seems like Allies have a good shot at defeating Germany before Japan can take Moscow.
However, the starting factories in India and Karelia are great for Axis….
If you guys (ROC and Black Elk) play on TripleA…let’s give it a go sometime.
When I first looked at the board I thought that the allies were strong looking as well. surprisingly the India factory helps out the allies a lot more than the axis. A good UK player can keep India alive for a while.
-
My friends and I used to feel Axis is strongly favored but after a few games I no longer able to beat my friend consistently using Axis… :x… perhaps I don’t know how to use Axis well enough…
Suggested Topics
