1941 with NOs, what is your bid? (experienced players only)

All the LL games get annoying, its too scripted.

Thats the WHOLE point of LL. It makes the game more like Chess.

The only problem with LL is that it heavily favors Axis. So in LL games I feel Allies deserve a much higher bid (9-11). Bid 10 seems to be increasingly more common on TripleA as it becomes more and more apparent the advantage Axis has.

Bids will go greater with the time as axis strats improve and people forget old topics as axis needing haste and such

At some point we’ll need limit the bids to Asia if we want a balanced game without KGF fanmania

@Khobai:

All the LL games get annoying, its too scripted.

The only problem with LL is that it heavily favors Axis. So in LL games I feel Allies deserve a much higher bid (9-11). Bid 10 seems to be increasingly more common on TripleA as it becomes more and more apparent the advantage Axis has.

After testing this some I agree with this (Func and Yoshi have pointed it out as well).  LL favors Axis and the bid in that setting will need to be 10-11.  The question, then, is what is the bid in dice?  I’ll still insist on a minimum of 7-8.

At some point we’ll need limit the bids to Asia if we want a balanced game without KGF fanmania

Veqyrn and I are testing a mod where China gets to play during the Soviet turn…hopefully this will be a more balanced game.

I have played arond 100 games and observed 50 all irl.

I do not play LL games because dices is a part of the game. Me and my firends a talking a little about insted of bidding with IPC from start bid with a number of rerolls in favor of the Allies. If you bid 3 rerolls you are allowed to rewoll three of your own rolls in the game. To force the Axis to reroll it costs you 2 of your own rerolls.

I am no fan of IPC-bidding because there is a risk moment and if you change the risk by adding new units in the start there is a new game. I would prefer adding IPC to the countrys “bankaccount”.

We have also been experimenting with China. Our basic houserule for China is that they get reinforcements based on the territory they control in the end of their turn insted of inte the beginning.

Veqyrn and I are testing a mod where China gets to play during the Soviet turn…hopefully this will be a more balanced game.

This is a something I most definitely will talk about with my friends. A very interesting change of turn order.

Depending on one players style of gaming and taking risks the IPC bidding or reroll bidding changes the game. Reroll of dices encourage risk taking, but if you ar out of rerolls then you have to change your strategy.

Have anyone else considered bidding for rerolls insted of IPC? (I will lock around in the forum or possiable answers.)

Hi guys,

I’ve played a lot of straight up games (no bid) and Axis is clearly favoured
Personally though, I would like to see something other than your standard Egypt/Eastern Front bid placements as these do nothing to correct what I see as the MAJOR FLAW with A&A50.  Specifically, I’m tired of the old “Will Allies get to Berlin before Japan gets to Moscow?” playout.

If you guys really want to think out of the box, I’d suggest a house rule like the following…

Pre-placed UK IC
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada.  
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC.  Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)

-Now if you’re wanting to decide who plays who, you can simply bid for the starting cost of the IC (anywhere from 0-15).  If you felt you were a strong Allied player, you would be willing to pay more, whereas if you felt stronger with Axis, you would be willing to give/take the IC for less.

-The idea here is that instead of a very static and nonchallenging push game (Ger–>Rus, UK–>Ger, US–>Jap, Jap–>Rus) you actually get a very dynamic game with multiple fronts and strategic decisions (UK, US, and Jap must split resources more, Germany becomes the dominant Axis player rather than Japan)

-In one fell swoop, you automatically correct for game balance PLUS you make the game a LOT more fun to play :-)  Anyone whose played AAR: Enhanced wll know what I mean as we incorporated a similar rule to keep UK in Asia/Pacific.  The results were very successful as the game was a lot more enjoyable than regular Revised.

-The game also becomes a lot more competitive.  When you’re playing a simple push game, there is very little strategic decision making.  You just buy the units and move them to your target.  I’d say these games are about 80% dice rolls, 20% real strategy.  With a UK IC in Asia/Pacific, you increase the number of fronts and tough resource decisions, making the game more like 60% strategy, 40% dice.

-Anyways guys, that’s my take on the whole thing.  I really think we need to start thinking out of the box when it comes to this whole bidding thing.  Thanks  :-)

You really need do something with China. Try using 1942 scenario deploy, but make the fig start at Chinghai, and use AAP40 rules for China, including Burma Road NO. It’s easy and clean. Delete the ACME wall also (Carthago delendam est)

But I agree with you, KGF games are push games with few really strat involved

@cousin_joe:

-The idea here is that instead of a very static and nonchallenging push game (Ger–>Rus, UK–>Ger, US–>Jap, Jap–>Rus) you actually get a very dynamic game with multiple fronts and strategic decisions (UK, US, and Jap must split resources more, Germany becomes the dominant Axis player rather than Japan)

……

-The game also becomes a lot more competitive.  When you’re playing a simple push game, there is very little strategic decision making.  You just buy the units and move them to your target.  I’d say these games are about 80% dice rolls, 20% real strategy.  With a UK IC in Asia/Pacific, you increase the number of fronts and tough resource decisions, making the game more like 60% strategy, 40% dice.

I can sympathize with your desire for an AA50 scenario that plays out “globally”.  However your characterizations of the game as-is are inaccurate.  I suspect your opinion on KGF is colored by Revised gameplay.

Here are my conclusions on KGF in aa50 based on experience playing for and against it

1. it plays out differently every time due to all the variables and different nations involved.  There is nothing “static” about it–it’s quite dynamic and could be compared to KJF in Revised.
2. after many many many games, the optimal strategy is still in development and has not yet been mastered.  And of course, the optimal strategy is always relative to what is going on.  So, KGF is very “challenging”…both for Allies to execute it, and for Axis to defend against it.
   3)  If anything, in the type of ‘global’ game where each Ally attacks on a different vector (ie USA pac, uk france/africa, russia europe) there is LESS strategy involved because there is less team-work and virtually no 1-2 punches.  It would be more accurate to characterize this sort of game as a “push” game.

So yeah I can understand your desire to mod the game.  But there’s no need to mischaracterize it.

I chose 5 IPCs or less, because I’m still not convinced that the Axis have a big advantage.

Axis/Allied advantage more depends on if Germany and/or Japan have better than or worse than average dice in the first round. I mean, come on, I would MUCH rather see 2 or even 3 extra Allied land units somewhere on the board than for my G1 Egypt and/or sz2 attacks to fail (By fail, I mean that I didn’t kill the UK fighter in Egypt when I attacked with everything, and the sz2 transport is still alive while my 2 subs and 1 fighter are at the bottom of the Atlantic.)  Also, I’ve seen Japan fail at clearing Yunan (in other words, China still has the fighter, while Japan lost 2-3 fighters), fail at sz50, leaving 2 loaded transports open to attack (which means that the US has the potential to REALLY mess with Japan on US1), lose 4+ fighters in the naval battles, and or only capture 0-1 land territories on J1 (which means that Japan has very few boot on the ground in Asia with which to follow up on J2-J3).  In my opinion, any 1 of these 6 first Round situations are FAR more important than a couple of extra land units.

So, I feel that if the Axis get an average Round 1, then the game is fairly close to balanced, with maybe an extra Allied infantry unit or two in Asia being fine, but if the Axis get awesome dice (i.e. Germany and Japan both lose 0-1 air units in total and capture all of the land territories which were attacked with few losses, then the Axis do have a definite advantage, but on the other hand, if 1-2 of the above situations happen, then it seems that the Allies will have the advantage.

Of course, I DO realize that with the current free-placement bidding setup, just adding 1 infantry to Egypt alters the odds for Egypt, which therefore usually alters the common G1 which I have been seeing lately (bomber and everything else to Egypt, 2 subs, 1 fig to sz2).  Because I don’t feel that this unit bid to Egypt is what the game needs, I don’t usually allow my opponent to have 3 IPCs which keeps the bid low, unless he lets me have it higher.

If the bidding placement rules were altered to limited placement to Asia/China only, then I would be probably be fine with a 6-10 IPC bid.

I bid nothing. We often play China as having the ability to defend on 3’s with infantry on any NON-Coastal territory. This reflects reality and allows China to survive without much or any help from Russia. We have found that when we do this the game is balanced and neither side comes out on top all the time.

@Blitchga:

I bid nothing. We often play China as having the ability to defend on 3’s with infantry on any NON-Coastal territory. This reflects reality and allows China to survive without much or any help from Russia. We have found that when we do this the game is balanced and neither side comes out on top all the time.

This, while interesting,  may actually backfire in the hands of a good Japan player in the sense that it may encourage a strong southern push where they can be in persia, jordan or egypt on J2. Assuming egypt falls on G1 the UK will be in a weak position to assist the allies as it will be strapped economically. I think this is why alot of the bids are to egypt. The UK can then decide wether it will defend egypt or india.

Reviving this a bit, I think that a 6 IPC bid is sufficent. Two infantry to Egy is often enough.

@cts17:

Reviving this a bit, I think that a 6 IPC bid is sufficent. Two infantry to Egy is often enough.

Putting 2 infantry in Egypt tends to mess with Italy pretty bad, so I prefer to limit the bid to Asia if possible, but I agree that 6 is probably about right (if placed in Asia).

Well, Italy WAS messed up pretty bad in the real war.  :wink:

@Veqryn:

@cts17:

Reviving this a bit, I think that a 6 IPC bid is sufficent. Two infantry to Egy is often enough.

bids generally don’t allow more than 1 unit to a territory….

at least, that is what i’ve always been told

(a max of 1 unit to a territory, and you must have units in that territory already)

That’s a ‘house rule’ from the Triple A lobby, from what I understand.  Usually bid limits are listed with how the bidding works (i.e.  all cash (no immediate units), 1 unit per territory, etc).

In other words, bid rules are all over the board.