Alternate bidding scheme

[nerquen]

@aequitas:

So a plus 20 or even 25 ipc income each round would be ok to ask for?

After my first 3 test games I would say 20 is a reasonable bonus for US.

Here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TRZcA7zK3-B31ipA9cOzaiLnwiCrJlY7aWlvFMSo4J4/edit?usp=sharing is a google sheet summarizing all played test games. Please let me know if you would like to add a game.

[barney]

just curious, would you consider +15 US +5 Russia? Nice job on staying with it.

[Witt]

I want to see plus 5 to Russia with a plus 10 to America. Will try it out soon, although I still want to see Leningrad dropped as a NO.

[barney]

That sounds good wittman. The -5 to Germany should be more impactful than just more dough for the allies. The money bid seems like a nice option.

[nerquen]

@barney:

just curious, would you consider +15 US +5 Russia? Nice job on staying with it.

yes, I would say that it could make for a good and balanced game.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@nerquen:

@aequitas:

So a plus 20 or even 25 ipc income each round would be ok to ask for?

After my first 3 test games I would say 20 is a reasonable bonus for US.

Here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TRZcA7zK3-B31ipA9cOzaiLnwiCrJlY7aWlvFMSo4J4/edit?usp=sharing is a google sheet summarizing all played test games. Please let me know if you would like to add a game.

Hi Nerq, good job with the sheet!
Like we discussed in private (after my last online games), we can add some other game(s) to this in the near future. I’d like to give GF a couple more tries (especially with increased US production), as in USA 2 turns Europe-production, then switching back to Pacific. At least with DS, I have seen enough of (K)JF to think that this is not the thing to do with the allies: Germany will become monstrous and a monstrous Germany is even worse than a monstrous Japan. Caveat emptor :wink:!

But I have to say that my last tripleA games were a bit of an eye-opener for me as to what my play(time!) limits are and I had to stop playing after about 19 turns (spread over 3 games) during 5 weeks in a row. Too bad my opponent overreacted, but in any case I would not want to repeat this… 5 weeks clearly was too much for me. But anyway, we discussed most of this before.

As I am reluctant to find out where my ‘breakpoint’ (how much time on end) exactly lies, I’d rather stay on the safe side and not get close to the breakpoint in the first place.
So if/when I play on tripleA, I should play as if I play FtF at the table: not longer than a couple of days in a row but those days should be reserved for playing A&A completely. I see you live in Europe (like me), so we should be able to arrange a long ‘tripleA game-weekend’, in which we play 1 or 2 complete A&A games in just 3 to max 4 days. That is way safer (and much more appealing) to me than playing for (5) weeks on end. Depending on how fast we can play, of course, but if we can do >½ a gameturn per hour we should be able to complete at least 1 monster game (of >20 turns) or 2 shorter ones (<11 turns each). If you (and/or any1 else) is interested in playing like this we’ll discuss the exact planning in private.

[regularkid]

Have you done any more play testing of the USA econ bid?

For all the reasons stated by others, the US econ bid seems like a better way to balance the game than simply plopping a few units down on the board at the start.

One point I disagree with: others have said that the bonus should kick in the from the start because, otherwise, Japan might be deterred from declaring war on round 1.

However, the fact that delaying the US bonus might incentivize Japan to delay its DOW is actually the very reason why the bonus should be delayed. The J1 DOW is not only ahistorical, it is extraordinarily powerful and puts Japan in a position that is virtually unstoppable. It is so strong that I would wager many players would continue to use it regardless of when the US bonus kicks in.

I’ve play tested the US econ bid in three games now (with bids ranging from 12 to 15, and all kicking in when USA is at war), and it has done wonders to balance the game, imo. Good idea.

[ItIsILeClerc]

@regularkid:

Have you done any more play testing of the USA econ bid?

Don’t know about the others (looking only at Nerquen’s sheet it doesn’t look like it), but I haven’t.

My FtF games aren’t for much playtesting (other than strategies with the ‘official’ rules) and in TripleA, people just want to have more playtime than I can afford. To better think over their moves, for example, or to spend more quality time with their families during the weekends (very understandable). Since I have to spend much more time on my job since recently, my availability to TripleA has become even more questionable… I don’t want A&A to become my first priority after my job and my daily need for sleep ;-). Alas. But who knows if/when that changes again!

[Cow]

USA starts with SA under control, adjust income accordingly. Makes them more of a threat, liberating uk/losing uk less an issue, more fun. Can even add those neutrals by South Africa to UK.

Bam pick a side or bid down for # of neutrals uk starts with.

[regularkid]

Play-tested Cow’s idea (of putting all of South America under US control, thus increasing America’s starting production by 8, and giving 11 additional infantry at the start of the game) and it seemed to work reasonably well.

It also seems like a more organic solution than simply tacking on some arbitrary number to USA’s income, and has some historical precedent (since South America did lend some support to the war effort)

Coupled with a modest bid for the brits (6ish), i think this would go a long way to balancing the game.