What's the consensus on a standard bid?

[Lucifer]

@Cmdr:

Yes, but we should limit the bid to what you see on this site.  Which is unrestricted bids.

FIDA is just plain stupid.  All it does is double the bid amounts.
Csub/TripleA is kinda ridiculous, one unit per TT.

It’s not ridiculous with 1 units pr. TT, but I actually agree that bids should be totally unrestricted.
FIDA bids (all cash?) just makes clear that the game is not balanced out  :wink:

[DarthMaximus]

I don’t think there is really that much difference in 1 unit per TT bids and unrestriced.

You can still bid 8-9 to Afr/cash (1 inf Lib, 1 arm Alg), or trn to Sz 14 for ADS or
1 inf Belo, 1 inf (or rt/arm) Lib, 1 inf (or cash) somewhere else for LL.

But I honestly don’t think the 3 inf bid to Ukr is that big of deal.  It might be annoying but it is beatable.  IMO, It’s kind of like the 23 PE bid in Classic, you put all your eggs in one basket and if you fail in take Mos in 3 turns the Allies will win.  It just isn’t a fun game.  I think it is more of an intimidation play but once you see it 2-3 times it loses that effect.

I think a PAfr bid is the way to go, giving the the Axis the most possibilites to win, and in this case 1 per TT and unrestricted are equivalent since you are able to place 8 ipc in Afr in each case or get the extra trn in Sz 14.

[Jennifer]

A)  Of course it’s silly in MY opinion.  :P  I can’t declare something silly for everyone’s opinion by fiat!

B)  The test should be for all rounds of combat.  Not just the first round of combat, since if you miss, you’d obviously keep going (assuming everyone missed and you didn’t get your buttocks handed to you.)  So yea, you have a higher chance of hitting with 1@4 then 2@2.  Granted, you cannot possibly hit twice in the first round with the 1@4, so?  We’re trying to see which has the best chance to get ONE hit.

[Mazer Rackham]

@Craig:

As for the CSub bid restrictions, I have spent enough gaming sessions arguing with Crazystraw (and Mighty Air Force) about their “fixes”.  We have come to the understanding that we just don’t agree. :-(

I don’t understand that!  (btw - CrazyStraw is my old avatar.  I’m TJ Hoo… Mazer Rackham now)

I don’t agree to disagree!

You will submit!

You will relent!

You will be assimilated!

Dang, my frothing sems to b shrtg out my kebr

[Guest]

Jen, your original argument was that 1 INF & 1 ART was superior to 1 INF & 1 ARM in LL.

NOT TRUE!
In both cases it is a 4 that needs to be rolled to score 1 hit (comparing attacking values).

And they are not equal on defense either.
1 INF, 1 ART defends on a 4 or less for 1 hit
1 INF, 1 ARM defends on a 5 or less for 1 hit

Also, if both sides hit on the first round of battle, the 1 INF & 1 ARM ends up WAY ahead as both attacker and defender…
a single roll of 2 or less for the ART, versus a single roll of 3 or less for the ARM (50% increase in probable success) for both attack and defense.

[Jennifer]

You misunderstand, Switch.

I said that Inf + Art was superior on OFFENSE.  The reason?  Not the target number, the COST.  You get identical chance to kill the enemy with Inf + Art in LL as you do with Inf + Arm.  In ADS that’s not true anymore.

Inf + Arm in ADS has a 58% chance to score AT LEAST ONE HIT.

Inf + Art in ADS has a 55% chance to score AT LEAST ONE HIT.

You may think that’s insignificant until that time you attack with 100 Infantry and 100 Artillery vs 100 Infantry and 100 Armor.  Then we’re talking a potential large number of hits.

However, in LL you have a 67% chance  to score AT LEAST ONE HIT. (And no more then one hit either!)

Which is more skewed of a result?  The 55/58% chance in ADS or the 67% chance in LL?

[frood]

For attack value, Inf/Art is more cost effective than Inf/Arm, no matter how you roll the dice (or don’t  :roll:)

Spending 56 IPCs on Inf/Art gets you 16 land units, with a total offensive punch of 32. (dPunch also 32)

The same spent on Inf/Arm gets you 14 land units, with a total offensive punch of 28. (dPunch of 35 though) This force is more skewed and thus keeps fighting better after the first round of casualties, however the skew is not as advantageous of the higher unit count of the Inf/Art force.

However, the Inf/Arm force is still superior IMO because of the mobility of the Armor units. Mobility can’t be accounted for in all the number-crunching, but it is a key aspect of the game. And it doesn’t change from LL to ADS. If the game was simply two territories fighting for control of two territories directly between them, Inf/Art would be the way to go. Unfortunately, A&A requires maneuvering. So you need mobility - force the enemy to defend multiple points, or retreat.

In addition, the Inf/Arm has better defense value. Since it’s overall a better combination, that’s what I prefer to load my TRNs with.

[Guest]

@Mazer:

(btw - CrazyStraw is my old avatar.  I’m TJ Hoo… Mazer Rackham now)

Welcome back

[trihero]

We’re trying to see which has the best chance to get ONE hit.

Yet again….so what? If you’re in a big offensive war, you’re not trying to get one hit. In which case ADS averages out the same because it can hit twice. If you are sending 1 inf + 1 art against 1 inf, the odds are indeed higher in LL, but so what? It’s still an attack you would consider in ADS, and it’s still a battle you can easily lose in LL. It does not drastically change the game, and even if you think it does, either side can purchase artillery, and generally both Russia and Germany both do.

[Jennifer]

Let’s say Germany averages three attacks a round. (Karelia/Belorussia/Ukraine, for argument’s sake.)

In a ten round game, that’s 30 attacks.  Or, roughly, 30 Infantry + 30 Artillery or 30 Infantry + 30 Armor.  That’s a difference of 30 IPC in cost (+6 Infantry + 4 Artillery!) and you can get away with that in LL because the massive increase in hitting ability already granted to you from the very nature of LL is the same regardless of if you are using artillery or armor to accompany your forces. (Not to mention you take a 50/50 battle and make it a 67/33 battle meaning you have much better odds of taking the land in one round then you normally would.)

If you want to discount that with flowery logic, that’s your prerogative.  But let’s not try to pretend that LL is the same as ADS only without the extremes.  It’s not.  It forces battles that would be in doubt into absolute certainty by skewing the bell curve so that the center encompasses more of the extreme results and shrinking the extremes.

Guess what.  2 Attacking Fighters miss A LOT.  But not in LL.  In LL they ALWAYS get a hit.  6 Attacking infantry get killed off by one defender sometimes.  But not in LL.  in LL they ALWAYS kill the solitary defender in one round.

Thus, it is NOT the same game.  If I wanted to play risk, I’d play risk.  The map is cuter, and those little horsey guys are absolutely adorable.

[frood]

No one’s saying it’s the same game. But the important differences between Art and Arm are not greatly affected by the switch to LL. Cost / unit count per IPC remains the same, skew remains the same, mobility remainst the same, TRN capacity remains the same.

“Flowery logic”. Pah!

[trihero]

If you want to discount that with flowery logic, that’s your prerogative.  But let’s not try to pretend that LL is the same as ADS only without the extremes.  It’s not.  It forces battles that would be in doubt into absolute certainty by skewing the bell curve so that the center encompasses more of the extreme results and shrinking the extremes.

I do not want to repeat myself for a third time. LL has a LOT of uncertainty. 1 inf 1 art is not guaranteed to win against 1 inf. Not at all. Where’s this absolute certainty you speak of? Since when did 1 inf + 1 art have a 100% hit rate?

Do I have to point out again that attacking the baltic has the exact same range of results, from 0 planes living to all 3 living? Or that attacking a lone tran with a lone bom has the same results? Or that many standard attacks have the same range of variation minus the extremes?

In a ten round game, that’s 30 attacks.  Or, roughly, 30 Infantry + 30 Artillery or 30 Infantry + 30 Armor.  That’s a difference of 30 IPC in cost (+6 Infantry + 4 Artillery!) and you can get away with that in LL because the massive increase in hitting ability already granted to you from the very nature of LL is the same regardless of if you are using artillery or armor to accompany your forces. (Not to mention you take a 50/50 battle and make it a 67/33 battle meaning you have much better odds of taking the land in one round then you normally would.)

But what the heck, I guess the German fighters disappeared and every single battle you are using arm/art. No.

[Jennifer]

@Ender:

No one’s saying it’s the same game. But the important differences between Art and Arm are not greatly affected by the switch to LL. Cost / unit count per IPC remains the same, skew remains the same, mobility remainst the same, TRN capacity remains the same.

“Flowery logic”. Pah!

Really?  Cost/Unit Count is the same between Inf/Art and Inf/Arm?  You get a discount on your armor, or you just paying too much for your artillery?

Really?  Mobility remains the same?  Your armor cannot move two spaces?  Or you have trains to move your artillery around?

[frood]

@Cmdr:

@Ender:

No one’s saying it’s the same game. But the important differences between Art and Arm are not greatly affected by the switch to LL. Cost / unit count per IPC remains the same, skew remains the same, mobility remainst the same, TRN capacity remains the same.

“Flowery logic”. Pah!

Really?  Cost/Unit Count is the same between Inf/Art and Inf/Arm?  You get a discount on your armor, or you just paying too much for your artillery?

Really?  Mobility remains the same?  Your armor cannot move two spaces?  Or you have trains to move your artillery around?

Re-read what I wrote. The DIFFERENCES between Art and Arm remain the same. Whether ADS or LL, your tanks are still more mobile, more expensive, etc.

[Jennifer]

But in ADS your tanks hit 50% of the time while your artillery hit only 33% of the time.  Meanwhile, in LL those individual ratings are meaningless, only your over all punch.  Thus, the game is significantly DIFFERENT from ADS.  Which is the entire POINT of the evaluations to begin with.

I don’t care if you use 1 Inf attached to 1 Art or 1 Arm, or if you use 10 Inf attached to 10 Art or 10 Arm.  The results are different (significantly higher for LL than ADS) which means that the strategies employed are NOT the same. (Well, they could be, if you CHOSE to make them the same, but realistic players are going to adjust their combat forces, their purchases and their moves accordingly to maximize and exploit LL.  Moves, purchases and combat forces they may not have chosen in ADS.)

[Mazer Rackham]

@ncscswitch:

Welcome back

I’m back with the nerds, where I belong.

:-D

[trihero]

@Mazer:

@ncscswitch:

Welcome back

I’m back with the nerds, where I belong.

:-D

Isn’t it kind of contradictory to label your own group? Shouldn’t you say something more like, I’m back with the cool people where I belong? =)

[Mazer Rackham]

Bean, know thyself.

I do.

[trihero]

You’re not going to send me back to Battle School, are you?  :-o

(btw if you didn’t know this is wes/wsc150)

[Guest]

Nah…

We’re nerds.   :mrgreen: