Bids

Bids are not the same as a “handicap”, though they can be used as such.  The out-of-box game is not necessarily perfectly balanced (as the playtesters are not omniscient and are limited with time), so bids are used to correct these slight imperfections.  A perfectly balanced game with a non-uniform board and setup (unlike a game like chess where the board is perfectly uniform and each player gets exactly the same number of pieces with the same abilities positioned exactly the same way) is virtually impossible.

Considering you’ve just joined the boards and openly express that you are new to the idea of bids in the first place since you don’t understand why they are used, why don’t you test it (like the numerous players have done here in numerous games, and not just Axis and Allies) before you go insulting the people who use it?

“Don’t knock it before you try it.” - Or, in other words, don’t express disgust with something you admittedly don’t understand; it proves nothing for your argument.

When in your playing group axis start to win every AA50 game, you will have a change of heart about this idea. That will happen very soon  :lol:

@BulwFi:

I dont know why AnA players have indroduced bids. It seems pointless and in my view is for weaker players! Play by the book!

Question.

Just what is ‘by the book’?  Do you use the optional rules?  If so which ones?

The National Objectives have the biggest effects on a game.

I agree bids aren’t nessesary with dice. Bids are need for low luck. I don’t like low luck though so

The results from the 2010 spring league will help put a better perspective on what bids are being employeed and who wins with that bid.

My suspicion is that the bid is anywhere from +2 to -$5 (bidding for the allies)

Recall too that a bid is often times simply used by players to determine sides.  For example, if I like playing the allies, I might consider a higher bid (like $2) to ensure that I will get to play the allies.  Most people bid right around Zero.  Giving up $2 IPC to get the side I would like to play should have very little consequence on the games outcome.

@BulwFi:

As for the winning of games, my group is very balanced in terms of player skill and wins to lose ratio. We have playtested with bids and other ‘hadicaps’ only to find these biased to weaker, lower skill players so dont assume otherwise SAS.

Then you found the solution for Asia problem in 1941 scenario or for german baltic fleet+India crush combo in 1942 scenario? Please, tell us what are you doing!

I’m pretty curious specially about China. Chinese player doesn’t play against japanese player, because China is fighting mainly against the rules and the poor setup. Without a bid, how in the Earth can USSR survive against Germany when China is toasted, as too late, round 3-4, and jap tanks are rushing to Moscow? If you wait for USA’s support, forget it: they will be too busy fighting Japan in the Pacific Ocean or even worst, in America (if USA tries ignore Japan), and UK is usually too busy fighting the italians in Africa/Mediterranean

In our FTF group, we usually give axis to bad players to make the things more balanced  :-P

@BulwFi:

As for the winning of games, my group is very balanced in terms of player skill and wins to lose ratio. We have playtested with bids and other ‘hadicaps’ only to find these biased to weaker, lower skill players so dont assume otherwise SAS.

@BulwFi:

I dont know why AnA players have indroduced bids. It seems pointless and in my view is for weaker players! Play by the book!

Well, I am sorry if you feel I have incorrectly assumed your level of experience; however, I stand by my statement that considering the length and content of your initial statement, you have not even made an argument for your point or given any information as to why you hold this opinion.  We still don’t know how long you’ve been playing, how many and which of “all the axis and allies games” you have played, or exactly how you have conducted the “bids and other handicap options” you used; none of which was included in your initial statement either.  If you would care to elaborate on the reasons you hold this opinion (as you have now begun to do), we can have an informed and intelligent discussion on the topic.  Otherwise, you are simply making inflammatory statements of opinion that question the logical reasoning of those who came up with the bidding system and states that the only people who should use bids are “weak players”, implying that anyone using bids is a weak player.  Please back up your statements with a little more information.

Wasn’t the bid in Classic like 14 or something?

The bid at Revised has been 7-9 for 3-4 years.  That’s a long time, and a lot of games.  If those bidding had it wrong, I think they would have figured it out by now.

A little humility is in order BulwFi.  These games have been out 7-20 years–the winning strategies and appropriate bids are well established.  Unless you have hundreds of online 1-1 games under your belt, you should defer to those who have more experience than you.

Want to prove me wrong?  Come on TripleA live and play your game of choice (playing the weaker side) without a bid, and see how much you win.  Otherwise, talk is cheap.

@Zhukov44:

Wasn’t the bid in Classic like 14 or something?

Classic bids (2nd Ed), for top level play, were much higher, 21-23 range.  We had several games here (just before Revised started to dominate) were we were bidding 23.  Occassionally you’d see a 24.

As stated Revised bids were pretty much, 7-10.  We have many more games posted here in the Revised era and I can tell you playing top level players you pretty much needed a 9 bid.  If you wanted to be the Axis you could bid 8 and get them.

––

Also on a game playing note, playing via Forum or TripleA or any on-line play will open players up into a greater talent pool.  No matter how big a play group one has in their home town it can’t compare with being able to play players from all over the world.

And yes most games, if you are playing 1-2 games on a weekend at home with a play group you won’t need a bid and everything will be fine.  But playing on-line it only takes a few games to realize where the holes in the setup may be, particularly since you can view other games and literally see hundreds of games (if you have the time to read the games that is).

Edit:

Also one key component is how many different players are playing the game.  Most online games are 1-1, however, bids would be lower or perhaps not needed as much if you are playing a 4 or 5 player game.

BulwFi wrote…

We have playtested with bids and other ‘hadicaps’ only to find these biased to weaker, lower skill players so dont assume otherwise SAS.

and

I dont know why AnA players have indroduced bids. It seems pointless and in my view is for weaker players!

and

Never play 1v1, very shallow and boring.

You are the one throwing around the insults.  Your mode of discussion is a textbook definition of ‘trolling’.  Nobody has any problem with you playing without bids, so why do you have a problem with us playing with bids?

Bidding is for advanced/expert players, typically in a 1-1 setting.  If you play group games, you can probably get on fine without a bid.

So this discussion is pointless.  We are talking about 2 different things.

@BulwFi:

Cud i just say that in our group games we always have 6 players! Never play 1v1,

That is a BIG factor in bid levels.

@BulwFi:

I dont play Axis and Allies online. I Prefair to play face-to-face. Also how can someone put a time limit on a game of axis and allies?? The winning strategies you talk about, your trying to tell me that there is a magic winning strategy to a game of axis and allies? LoL you need to catch yourself on.

Time limits are needed for FTF tournaments as Yoper was refering too.  It can take all day to pay one game so in a tournament atmosphere over 2-3 days there needs to be a way to get in several rounds.

@BulwFi:

1. That the Game creators cannot put together a balanced and fair tabletop game based on Chance (dice), and you and many others could obviously do a superior job than they.

In A&A first edition, there were no limits on unit placement for new ICs.  Thus the strategy of the Allies buying and IC and placing in Persia was born.  And the correction of limited placement (only place ipc value of Ter) was put into place for 2nd Ed.  It simply isn’t possible for the creators and game testers could forsee every strategy possible.

The testers test for a few months, we can play year after year after year, have access to a vaste majority of games as well as a world wide selection of players.

@BulwFi:

2. Bids, Handicaps and the such somehow make yourself and many others feel comfortable about playing Axis and allies. And i dare to say ‘you cud not win a game without.’

It depends on which side you get.  The alternative to that statement would be "you could not lose if your opponent doesn’t get one’.

Bidding isn’t really a touchy subject, its just that we are all players looking for great strats, so if there are things that we miss we’d love to hear it.  We can only go by what we’ve seen play out here and strategies that people post about and how games play out in our league and tourney or cross over posts from TripleA players or players from other clubs.

I don’t feel bids are nessesary for when poeple are playing with dice but if playing low luck then a bid is needed.  Period.  That is something I think gets overshadowed in these discussions whether you play with dice or low luck.

LL is a house rule that alters the game dinamic radically. Any well tested and balanced setup could potentially be broken if playing LL (specially round 1 navy battles but also key land zones as Egypt). But with a unbalanced setup, LL only serves to make greater the unbalance, because advantaged side can play many safe battles with 0% chances of them going bad

AA50 is broken with normal dices. With LL house rule is even worst. Also it usually kills the new tech system, one of the good additions of AA50 (because I assume that LL means also no tech)

@Funcioneta:

it usually kills the new tech system, one of the good additions of AA50

I guess when all you have is a skateboard, a bike looks pretty good.

NO, and I mean NO version of A&A (OOB rules) has had a GOOD tech system.  Adding MORE random dice to a game with enough of them does NOT make a good addition to the game (IMHO)

Revised was closest to a good tech system as it at least allowed targetting a weapon, and it didn’t allow a surprise tech roll to win you a game.  No “I rolled heavy bombers, I win!”  also known as Yahtzee! Tech

But, I digress, that’s another thread altogether
I couldn’t help but not respond to Funcioneta’s tech comment, apologies

While I totally agree bids are for weak players, I’d say the best way is to simply bid 0 and play allies to avoid any whining from the weaker player.

Also, It’s always great to beat someone who is convinced axis are too strong when not only you let them play them, but you do so by the book in conditions he would not dare to play allies. It’s like adding the cherry on top of the sunday or taking a candy from a new born baby ( I would not do that to my own son, mind you  :roll: ).

Moral of the story is if your opponent ask for a bid, you know you already won. Agree to his terms, bid 0 and watch his world fall appart. :evil:

@axis_roll:

NO, and I mean NO version of A&A (OOB rules) has had a GOOD tech system.  Adding MORE random dice to a game with enough of them does NOT make a good addition to the game (IMHO)
Revised was closest to a good tech system as it at least allowed targetting a weapon, and it didn’t allow a surprise tech roll to win you a game.  No “I rolled heavy bombers, I win!”  also known as Yahtzee! Tech

I have a different point of view:

• Classic: you spend money. If you fail, you lose the money. If you success, you have still to roll a die and if you get super subs or another crappy tech, you are screwed anyway. But if you hit the 2 broken techs (industrial fancy and triple bombers), you screw the game anyway. So I agree with Classic tech being crap. It’s not a surprise that almost nobody wants play Classic tech

• Revised: you spend money. If you fail, you lose the money, so usually tech rolls are a poor option even if rolling for HBs (too risky). As is directed, it has more use than Classic tech, and HBs were nerfed (in LHTR they were reduced to crap). It had a fail: since it was directed, almost nobody rolled for SSs, Jets or fancy DDs
  In resume, tech was pretty weak in Revised, mostly futile (I played many tech games in Revised FTF and tech rolls were a very very rare purchase). So for those or us that like tech, there was not much point wanting fight against tech haters for a weapon that simply was very poor

• AA50: being a broken game as it is due setup failures, however came with many engine improvements, being tech one of the most importants. Now you don’t lose the money when you roll for tech, so there is a incentive for purchasing tech teams. To compensate, tech now is not directed but you have a choice with land and navy tech teams, so you don’t get stuck with SSs being USSR and you see rare things as USA with mech inf here and there. Finally tech is a usable weapon and a valid strat, and HBs were nerfed again with FAQs. So I think that tech system of AA50 is best in the series
  You cannot say that HBs, even without nerfing, is game over in AA50. There are many counters available in the tech trees. In fact, I feel that techless AA50 is a bit poor because you don’t have to care about the multiple variations tech gives. Now it’s important fight against tech haters, and more since seems that this tech system is going to be almost the same in G40. And lasty, if you feel that a single tech is too good, simply pact with the rivals nerfing or delaying it but keep the system