I am curious if anyone has ever played with an “upgrade” bid system…
Where you are allowed to upgrade existing units to better units using bid cash.
Example:
Axis bid is $4
Bid is
1 ART Algeria upgraded to ARM
1 INF Kwang upgraded to ART
1 INF Balkans upgraded to ART
1 INF Manch upgraded to ART
I think that would cause lower bids.
With a bid of $7 W Russia could become 5 Arm.
3 Inf upgraded to Arm at $2 each = $6
1 Art upgraded to Arm at $1 = $1
That makes W Russia cause a lot more casualties for russia if you would use the bid there.
i’ve thought about it but never did it. i would like to down grade my fig in ukr to an inf and up grade my inf in the balkans to a fighter. but bids would be really low. it would be like a bid of 3 into algeria to get 2 tanks.
I agree it would cause lower bids… probably in the $3 to $5 range.
Anyone have any direct experience with this?
No, but sounds like fun!
i’ve thought about it but never did it. i would like to down grade my fig in ukr to an inf and up grade my inf in the balkans to a fighter. but bids would be really low. it would be like a bid of 3 into algeria to get 2 tanks.
downgrading is not an option. where do you draw the line? I could downgrade all day my non-key turn 1 units….
@ncscswitch:
I agree it would cause lower bids… probably in the $3 to $5 range.
Anyone have any direct experience with this?
I agree this is a nice alternative to ‘regular’ bidding.
You could do some nasty things with the axis with this capability.
Id upgrade a sub in baltic to a destroyer. Or TWO!
What about bidding for a tech? Wonder what that would translate to in IPC value???
Bidding for a tech would be stupid. It would give the Axis more power throughout the entire game instead of just a few units in the beginning.
And your point??? Cause the question I asked was how much IPC would 1 tech be worth?
My point is that it would upset the balance of power.
But dear, all bids upset the balance of power. That’s the point of the bid!
Yes dear but they change the balance so it is relatively equal
That’s a matter up to dispute. Maybe I don’t think it’s equal unless Germany has Heavy Bombers in Classic or if Japan starts without Super Submarines in Revised?
I guess it’s a matter of opinion.
Now that we agree on that, what should we consider a technology worth, on average? AARe says 30 IPCs (6 rolls, period, end of story. 4 in the first shot, if you miss, 2 more and you auto get it.) Is that too high, or too low?
Now that we agree on that, what should we consider a technology worth, on average? AARe says 30 IPCs (6 rolls, period, end of story. 4 in the first shot, if you miss, 2 more and you auto get it.) Is that too high, or too low?
The idea into guarenteed tech break throughs was to eliminate some of the luck as well as add some value to the money spent (i.e. an investment). How many times have you rolled 4,5,6+ dice to not get a tech? Then your odds next time are just as poor. We wanted that missed try to be worth something. You only get the assured tech if you go the full $30, which can be a large chuck of one’s bank roll.
I understand the rational, Axis. Honestly. Though, I think it would have been better to say must buy 4 dice in the first round and if you fail you have to buy another FOUR dice in the second, instead of 2, to get the guarenteed technology. =) Make it a punishment to fail!
Just my two cents.
Okay, back on topic, what if I wanted to bid that Germany could earn a technology (first one awarded, only) on a roll of 5 or 6 on the die instead of just asking for it up front?
Tech rols are straying rom the original topic. You may want to create a new thread to deal with house rules/options for tech rolls.
