UK Submarine in SZ 98?

[ItIsILeClerc]

I think it depends on how much the allies bid and where the bid went.

I am currently experimenting with an extra FTR in Malta instead of this particular sub in #98.
It helps with ‘Taranto’ and after this, can be staged in either Gibraltar and/or Egypt to help defend there. So, instead of the usual SUB in #98 and a MECH/ART in Alex, the allies can try this 1 extra FTR in Malta because it’s a better defender than the usual land unit and has more flexibility in choosing where to defend.
Furthermore it has a better flexibility in choosing where to attack later in the game (sub can only be useful at sea, while the FTR attacks both sea and land targets).

[variance]

@ItIsILeClerc:

I think it depends on how much the allies bid and where the bid went.

I am currently experimenting with an extra FTR in Malta instead of this particular sub in #98.
It helps with ‘Taranto’ and after this, can be staged in either Gibraltar and/or Egypt to help defend there. So, instead of the usual SUB in #98 and a MECH/ART in Alex, the allies can try this 1 extra FTR in Malta because it’s a better defender than the usual land unit and has more flexibility in choosing where to defend.
Furthermore it has a better flexibility in choosing where to attack later in the game (sub can only be useful at sea, while the FTR attacks both sea and land targets).

or bomber in Gibraltar

[ghr2]

@ShadowHAwk:

Well a bid in the med just makes the game predictable.

Egypt will be hard to invade by italy because they dont have a fleet.
No egypt = no win in europe so it is almost asured that japan must win the game for the axis.

It is the best bid for the allies as italy cannot defend against it and you basicaly destroy it as a power before it even gets a turn and has the biggest impact on the game. It also is the most destabalizing bid in the game and if you put it in as the standard setup nobody will ever want to play italy even france has more to do then italy.

Egypt is still viable for the axis, even after a turn 1 italian fleet squash.

[cyanight]

Thanks Wittmann, I was unaware of that.

[Zhukov44]

It’s a very good bid placement.  But I believe subs in 110 and 111 are just as good.

[knp7765]

Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

[Nippon-koku]

@knp7765:

Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

I don’t want to hijack the thread but I agree with all of this, especially the bold part.  The last three full games I’ve played were all clean allied victories with no bids and experienced players on all both sides.

But to stay on topic I agree that if you want to play bid I don’t see why stacking the deck against Italy is the way to go.  I’d be tempted to take an extra fighter in Scotland for the extra scrambler

[cyanight]

@knp7765:

Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

I agree 100% and even when I’m playing the allies. You don’t need the sub to wipe out the navy. I think all bids should just be added to starting income and purchased on their first turn.  You might need to send both planes from England but you should have extra bid money to replace the extra fighter used from London.

[Whitshadw]

My views on the whole sub and bid is.
Simple the allies can get a bid …

Aslong as it can not be used agents the axis on the first round…

So No sub for 98 but… 1infantry and 1 aa for Gibraltar
An Air field in Canada
Even an Infantry in new guinie

All these are fine and suitable bids for the allies and don’t conflict with the axis on round one
There is no need to give the allies anything extra to use on either Italy or Germany since everything is attainable its up to the player on how smart he has to play to execute what ever his corse of action is.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@Nippon-koku:

@knp7765:

Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

I don’t want to hijack the thread but I agree with all of this, especially the bold part.  The last three full games I’ve played were all clean allied victories with no bids and experienced players on all both sides.Â

But to stay on topic I agree that if you want to play bid I don’t see why stacking the deck against Italy is the way to go.  I’d be tempted to take an extra fighter in Scotland for the extra scrambler

Care to elaborate on those 3 clean allied wins in a row, Nippon? Maybe a save-file or a link to an online played game? If the allies won focussing on Germany and Italy first, the axis surely must have made a mistake or got diced. If the allies won going after Japan First, I can understand.
Sadly enough, I must admit I have not played the game since I recognized this narrow street the allies are forced to walk through but I still have small hopes some1 can show a ‘Europe First’ is still viable for the allies. If nothing else, even a ‘Japan First’ playthrough would be of certain value (to me), since I’ve not been doing this a lot (I don’t like it).

As for why people place bids against Italy:
I think ghr said it before, but Egypt is not safe from the axis if playing OOB. If the axis seriously try to get it while also making sure they do not loose the ability to birdcage Russia, the UK will loose it. If the UK goes all-in on the defense of Africa this is only briefly. So, it is NOT an axis all-in against Caïro but the allies have to go very near all-in to defend it anyway, to prevent disaster spreading out from a lost Egypt. Placing a few more bid units in North Africa helps to establish an early allied superiority in Africa AND the ability to produce elsewhere sooner.
On a sidenote: I consider loosing Egypt for a prolonged number of turns (say 4 or more turns), absolutely game-loosing for the allies. That is why I would place bids there, to make sure the loss of Egypt is not happening or at worst only temporarily.

Last but not least, from discussions with my ‘game brothers’ I really think the allies cannot win without a bid. Again, going ‘GIF’ that is. Maybe they can do it without a bid by going ‘JF’ but I have too little experience with that to say anything with certainty about it. Again, because I simply don’t like ‘JF’. Even more so when I have the feeling the allies forced to do so.

[IKE]

We don’t bid and we’re about 50/50 split win wise.  Seems pretty balanced to us.

[Black_Elk]

I think a bid to income is better for overall game balance than a bid for preplacement units. In my experience if you award a higher amount of extra cash to the underdog but restrict it to normal purchasing, you take the emphasis off the first round battles which seems to work well for both sides being more satisfied.

Or just go with some set bid that doesn’t bust the opening round. In most of the older boards you could usually fix things by giving Russia an extra fighter at Moscow. That was my preference in AA50, even if there were “better bids” for Allies, that one usually was enough to keep players happy without being overly distorting.

Another way is to just give the underdog side a +15 ipc bonus to starting income, and let them choose how to split it up between the individual powers on their team.

The reason I don’t like preplacement bids for units is because players invariably use them in the breaker battles, to swing the TUV where it can have the most impact. And for whatever reason that always seems to mean a busted Med/Egypt game in every version of A&A ever haha!

If you keep it to income only then you don’t have to muddle through those, and it also gives a better sense of what is really necessary for ipcs to bid a balanced game. Usually this amount is higher than but most boards can be brought into balance somewhere in the 15-20 ipcs range on income.

But yeah, otherwise UK sub, since it gives you a much better chance on a heavy TUV swing, and UK is the first allied power that can make an attack.

[barney]

Yea I don’t like the unit preplacement either.

Just give all those Pacific islands a buck and give it a try.
Give the med some dough too.

I’m on my 5th test game now and don’t know what to think.
It’s fun finding out :)

[ghr2]

@Black_Elk:

I think a bid to income is better for overall game balance than a bid for preplacement units. In my experience if you award a higher amount of extra cash to the underdog but restrict it to normal purchasing, you take the emphasis off the first round battles which seems to work well for both sides being more satisfied.

Or just go with some set bid that doesn’t bust the opening round. In most of the older boards you could usually fix things by giving Russia an extra fighter at Moscow. That was my preference in AA50, even if there were “better bids” for Allies, that one usually was enough to keep players happy without being overly distorting.

Another way is to just give the underdog side a +15 ipc bonus to starting income, and let them choose how to split it up between the individual powers on their team.

The reason I don’t like preplacement bids for units is because players invariably use them in the breaker battles, to swing the TUV where it can have the most impact. And for whatever reason that always seems to mean a busted Med/Egypt game in every version of A&A ever haha!

If you keep it to income only then you don’t have to muddle through those, and it also gives a better sense of what is really necessary for ipcs to bid a balanced game. Usually this amount is higher than but most boards can be brought into balance somewhere in the 15-20 ipcs range on income.

But yeah, otherwise UK sub, since it gives you a much better chance on a heavy TUV swing, and UK is the first allied power that can make an attack.

I just feel that UK being able to cripple the italians round 1 is very necessary for the Allies to win.

[ghr2]

@ShadowHAwk:

@ghr2:

I just feel that UK being able to cripple the italians round 1 is very necessary for the Allies to win.

You can still do that without the sub, it just means you have to make a choice. The sub makes it so you can do it without even thinking about it.

But you are likely to lose more in ipcs without it.

[cyanight]

The only time I ever even play with bids is in league and tournament games.  It seems when we get together and play as a group there are so many ideas flying around the game doesn’t always follow the standard path.  We also play with tech and do NOT discard the tokens after purchasing them. Our games seem very balanced when we play as group with tech.

[Nippon-koku]

@ItIsILeClerc:

Care to elaborate on those 3 clean allied wins in a row, Nippon? Maybe a save-file or a link to an online played game? If the allies won focussing on Germany and Italy first, the axis surely must have made a mistake or got diced. If the allies won going after Japan First, I can understand.
Sadly enough, I must admit I have not played the game since I recognized this narrow street the allies are forced to walk through but I still have small hopes some1 can show a ‘Europe First’ is still viable for the allies. If nothing else, even a ‘Japan First’ playthrough would be of certain value (to me), since I’ve not been doing this a lot (I don’t like it).

As for why people place bids against Italy:
I think ghr said it before, but Egypt is not safe from the axis if playing OOB. If the axis seriously try to get it while also making sure they do not loose the ability to birdcage Russia, the UK will loose it. If the UK goes all-in on the defense of Africa this is only briefly. So, it is NOT an axis all-in against Caïro but the allies have to go very near all-in to defend it anyway, to prevent disaster spreading out from a lost Egypt. Placing a few more bid units in North Africa helps to establish an early allied superiority in Africa AND the ability to produce elsewhere sooner.
On a sidenote: I consider loosing Egypt for a prolonged number of turns (say 4 or more turns), absolutely game-loosing for the allies. That is why I would place bids there, to make sure the loss of Egypt is not happening or at worst only temporarily.

Last but not least, from discussions with my ‘game brothers’ I really think the allies cannot win without a bid. Again, going ‘GIF’ that is. Maybe they can do it without a bid by going ‘JF’ but I have too little experience with that to say anything with certainty about it. Again, because I simply don’t like ‘JF’. Even more so when I have the feeling the allies forced to do so.

All of the games were in person so unfortunately I have no screen shots to post.

Without trying to rehash all three games I’ll say this: other than one game where I felt Germany left it’s backside way too exposed the Axis played fine.  The Allied victories were simply good teamwork and effective planning.

Two of the games were KGF and America had the same US1 buy: (I detailed how I like to do the US buys in a KGF game here http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35174.0)

UK grouped its surviving fleet by Canada, bought 2 fighters first round then set up shop in SZ 109 on turn two by utilizing both airbases and building a carrier, fighter and DD to go along with the DD, C and transport that survived round 1.  Now they had a loaded CV, 2 DD and a Cruiser to go along with 6 planes to scramble.

Germany marched towards Moscow but had to respond to the pressure from the backside.  Moscow bought 10 units a turn (heavy on artillery) and maneuvered.  One game they set up shop in Belarus and Germany went for an attack; Germany had slight odds but nothing overwhelming.  A good first round of rolling for Russia and the battle tipped in their favor, forcing a German retreat (and before we say this was simply bad rolling for the Axis, let’s be honest: most of the games come down to one or two rounds of dice rolling).  Germany attacked the force in Belarus because Russia forced their hand and they had to move quick due to the EUS and UK rush on their backside.

The other game was a KJF.  Heavy buying in the Pacific and setting up shop in Java early on.  Japan never became dominant.  Germany marched towards Russia but India and Anzac, knowing America was going heavy in the Pacific, sent fighters up to Moscow.  Heavy unit buying, bringing back the Far East men and an extra 6-planes from their allies, juust enough credible threat from UK and EUS and Russia was just fine.

I rarely worry about Italy when I play the allies.  I once played a game where UK1 went so poorly that Italy took Egypt round 1 and the Axis still lost.  Not counting the first few play through’s, I’ve never seen Italy be a major factor in the game.

I dunno, I don’t see the heavy Axis advantage everyone talks about.  I say this with love of course, but I’ll gladly bring a couple of players from my group anywhere, play as the Allies and, at the very least, give you a competitive game  :-)

[madscientist]

I’m with Nippon. The axis have only won 2 out of 8 games my group has played. Of course, we are still using version 3.9 where planes can only scramble from islands so the UK can’t defend its ships as much in turn 1.

The axis have no recourse but to attack to gain more territory, and defending is easier than attacking (allies just need to build mostly inf).

[ItIsILeClerc]

@Nippon-koku:

(…)
I dunno, I don’t see the heavy Axis advantage everyone talks about.  I say this with love of course, but I’ll gladly bring a couple of players from my group anywhere, play as the Allies and, at the very least, give you a competitive game   :-)

Thanks Nippon, I enjoyed reading that.
Reading your 2 posts more closely I see you and me play the allies really the same way (first 4 turns anyway), as far as a European USA focus, that is. So I guess the difference must be with the axis play somewhere, since I cannot find a way into European soil with the allies anymore after the axis switched from trying to grab Moscow GE6-GE10 into building up against the Wallies prio 1 (but still birdcaging then defending against the Russians in Bryansk) early and mid game, patiently planning to attack Moscow somewhere between GE15-GE20.

You’re always welcome to play ofc, but you live in the USA right? That’s too far away from me ;-). And I’m not playing as much as I used to anyway. I find it too much time-consuming for too little reward for the allies. It’s starting to annoy me so I guess after a while I will pick up the sword again and this time try to find a Pacific-oriented answer. IF a pacific approach does the trick for the allies I call the game ‘balanced’ again but I’m afraid I won’t enjoy it much. I just don’t like a ‘JF’ approach so if this is the only way the allies can defeat the axis ploy I described above, my playing days are numbered  :-(.

[Nippon-koku]

Thanks Nippon, I enjoyed reading that.
Reading your 2 posts more closely I see you and me play the allies really the same way (first 4 turns anyway), as far as a European USA focus, that is. So I guess the difference must be with the axis play somewhere, since I cannot find a way into European soil with the allies anymore after the axis switched from trying to grab Moscow GE6-GE10 into building up against the Wallies prio 1 (but still birdcaging then defending against the Russians in Bryansk) early and mid game, patiently planning to attack Moscow somewhere between GE15-GE20.

You’re always welcome to play ofc, but you live in the USA right? That’s too far away from me ;-). And I’m not playing as much as I used to anyway. I find it too much time-consuming for too little reward for the allies. It’s starting to annoy me so I guess after a while I will pick up the sword again and this time try to find a Pacific-oriented answer. IF a pacific approach does the trick for the allies I call the game ‘balanced’ again but I’m afraid I won’t enjoy it much. I just don’t like a ‘JF’ approach so if this is the only way the allies can defeat the axis ploy I described above, my playing days are numbered  :-(.

This is where I strongly believe the Allies ability to recognize and adjust comes into play.  As the US, if I notice Germany playing a “Build a sea wall first” strategy I would adjust my efforts back to the pacific.  For Germany to build a wall that can successfully fend of 7 loaded US transports, along with support from London, they’d have to dedicate a couple of turns worth of buys.  In that case Russia is going to hold out for a long time.  I would take the US and UK force to the Med and set up shop in the Middle East (or maybe even Greece) to prevent Germany from rolling south and getting all those bonuses.  A complex or two in the Mid East and now Germany’s “Take Moscow on turn 12-15” plan isn’t all that easy.

Starting with US3 the majority of the buying would be in the Pacific.  Between that and the Middle East build up with the US and UK it would be very hard for Japan to get 6 VC’s.

Is this a foolproof plan?  Nothing is.  But it’s an example of how to adjust to what the Axis are doing.

Where do you live Cleric?