Bid a carrier in z98

[variance]

Anyone tried this?  Lots of possibilities….

[cyanight]

You could pull a lot of planes from London.

[variance]

@cyanight:

You could pull a lot of planes from London.

and free up the tac so you can kill Taranto, and also have 80% odds on Tobruk and Ethiopia.  2 hit soaks are better than a sub.  If no scramble you got 2 loaded carriers in z97.  Other odd options could be to stick a carrier with the french ships, or next to Gibraltar, or out suez or whatever.

[ghr2]

How would this affect sealion?

[variance]

@ghr2:

How would this affect sealion?

If you did the 2 carrier taranto you would obviously build all infantry in London.  But another approach could be to skip Taranto but leave blockers in z96 and z99, and NCM the carriers to z92.  With that fleet threatening to go to z110 you could afford to build less infantry and go for an IC in Egypt.  With the sealion threat over, on round 2 you send your fleet back to z98 or maybe just the fighters to Egypt plus a build from your new IC.

Whichever road you take, Germany could not afford the losses to its air force sinking those loaded carriers either in z97, z92, z110, or z93.  Losing that much air power will cost them Russia.

[variance]

@ShadowHAwk:

Effectively forcing the axis to go for the win on the pacific side since they cannot win in europe anymore.

So the biggest question is can japan win if the US spends 100% into the pacific? They dont need to bother with germany as UK will dominate the med and neuters italy.
And after 2 rounds can gather a massive airfleet to drop into moscow to keep germany from taking it.

Japan is never going to win if USA goes 100% pacific.  Plus there is the option of sending those carriers and some transports out suez and in a few turns you are grabbing sumatra etc. from japan’s backside while they have the showdown USA.  Lots of options.

[Whitshadw]

That’s to over powered and takes control of the game to much for the allies

Again the allies are suppose to be behind the 8-ball and overcome the axis onslaught. True genius comes from strategy and not a hand out…

If that’s the case why stop at a carrier? Why not 2 battleships or 1 tech every round for the allies?

The only time a bid becomes valid in “my opinion” is when my opponent is less skilled then I am or vis versa

If you need a bid as the allies to win then your plan of attack is flawed and need to rethink what you need to do to win

But that’s my 2 cents

[Adam514]

So you are saying that in global the Allies and the Axis have about an even chance of winning without bid? My opponent and I have played about 30 games with bids ranging from 12-33 switching sides every time, and Allies have won 5. Most of the time Axis didn’t even need to think to get the win. The more experienced the players are, the more they realise the Axis advantage.

[wheatbeer]

The average bid on forum games seems to be increasing and this includes matches between evenly skilled and experienced players.

If you don’t need a “hand out” Whitshadw, then you’ll find no shortage of Axis opponents here  :lol:

[variance]

yeah $16 is not unreasonable.  Just thinking a carrier might be a more flexible way to spend it than on subs or whatever.

[wheatbeer]

Looking forward to testing this bid variance  :-D

The possibility of 2 loaded UK carriers ending in SZ97 is great … would give the UK a compelling reason to claim Greece too.

[Whitshadw]

@ShadowHAwk:

@wheatbeer:

The average bid on forum games seems to be increasing and this includes matches between evenly skilled and experienced players.

If you don’t need a “hand out” Whitshadw, then you’ll find no shortage of Axis opponents here �:lol:

It could also mean that players are thinking inside the same box and all their strategies are based around the same basics. If most players are a lot better at the axis then they are at the allies they can be equaly skilled and the result would be as you describe.

If everybody paints their house blue it does not mean it is a better color then red :)

The carrier in the med is way overpowered for the allies, basicaly the axis cannot win on the europe board with that bid. You just crush the italian navy round 1 and then secure the med for the allies. After that italy is down to making nearly nothing and UK + russia can easy keep germany busy while the US polishes off japan.

The bigest allied advantage is that have a lot of money, as the allied player you just have to not jump the gun and use that advantage.

I agree with Shadow
There needs to be a reasonable balance as far as the bid goes for the game… 1 fighter sure… And extra Grunt or 2 also NP but let’s not get carried away as far as what’s needed to win .
I have no issues playing on Tripple A with or with out the bid and holding my own so be it .
What it boils down to is … Is my strategy better then his and how can I over come his?
It’s Axis act and Allies React until you get The point where your acting and the axis needs to adjust . With a bid of 33 why not put 11 grunts in China to prevent the Burma road from being cut off? It becomes silly

Also Adam you play Low Luck I won’t even begin to scratch the board on how flawed that game style is and keep on point

Again this is all a matter of opinion
If you play the same person 30 times then he’s bound to figure out what your strategy is and overcome yours correct?

I’m not entirely opposed to the bid but it has to be with in reason yes I understand the axis have an advantage but people make it out to be so overwhelming that you need to make some sort of ludicrous bid to even stand a chance

[Adam514]

Thing is the hypothetical 11 chinese inf would not be enough, that’s how much the Axis have an advantage. In the high bid games I bid to kill tobruk with no tp, 97, fig in scotland and inf in NG. I play dice as well, but yes dice lowers the bid by about half what’s necessary in low luck I would say. We stopped playing after those 30 games because Allies could not win short of an Axis blunder, and we’ve tried many different things as Allies.

[variance]

@wheatbeer:

Looking forward to testing this bid variance  :-D

The possibility of 2 loaded UK carriers ending in SZ97 is great … would give the UK a compelling reason to claim Greece too.

That’s all I need to know.  Thanks  :-)

[knp7765]

This is ridiculous. An AIRCRAFT CARRIER as a bid!?! This is going too far.
While I have never agreed with bids and saw no need for them, I do understand the wish for some people who think the game is unbalanced in the Axis favor to try and achieve some balance by giving the Allies a bit of a boost.
Now it just seems to me like you are carrying it to a point where the Axis simply can not win. Italy would end up being a non-issue, as would any ideas of sealion, and the UK would be able to give a lot of help to Russia to keep them afloat. Meanwhile the US would simply send everything into the Pacific, trash Japan and then it would be everybody against Germany.

Another point which I have made before is putting the Allied bid in the Med with the Brits. Obviously the Axis power that would most directly be affected is Italy. After 2 or 3 rounds, the Italian navy will be gone and there will probably be no Italian presence in Africa either. About the only thing Italy will be able to do the rest of the game is buy infantry to place along the coast. Imagine how boring that will be if you have a separate Italy player.
It just strikes me as odd that when Europe 1940 first came out, it seemed like everyone was so happy that Italy was represented and could do something to actually contribute to the outcome of the game. Now it seems as though certain people just want to rub Italy out as soon as possible. Makes me wonder why to have Italy in the game at all.

One other thing. While it already seems to me like the 2nd edition setup all by itself has just about taken Sealion off the table as an Axis strategy, now so many of you keep wanting to give the UK extra bids to make them even stronger. Now it seems like the only German strategy has to be Barbarossa. What happened to the variety?

[variance]

Hey I’m not playing allies unless I get $16 and I want an aircraft carrier.  :-D

[Adam514]

There are better bids for 16 than an aircraft carrier in 98, it’s really not game breaking.

[variance]

@Adam514:

There are better bids for 16 than an aircraft carrier in 98, it’s really not game breaking.

really?  like what?  I needs help

[Adam514]

I’d always take sub in 98 and fig in scotland over the carrier.

[knp7765]

@Adam514:

I’d always take sub in 98 and fig in scotland over the carrier.

I personally still think that’s too much but at least it’s more reasonable than giving the Allies an extra carrier. Carriers have too many uses which make them overpowering, particularly when you are talking about a starting bid.

Also variance, I understood that most people considered an Allied bid of 8-12 sufficient. Why do you need so much more?