I wouldn’t say they are a dictatorship. We did have a discussion in October and November before the official first day of league play.
However, interpreting every rule thereafter cannot always be put up to a community vote. When it can, like increasing the amount of times you can play the same person, or increasing the size of the play offs, basically anytime it does not penalize players for their previous actions or give them unfair advantage with a change, I try to let everyone input their thoughts.
That said, AA Guns, Air Bases, Naval Bases and Industrial Complexes (both major and minor) would be instances of non-legal bids for China. Although, China may control AB/NBs I believe, so I could be dissuaded there, just not sure who in their right mind would try to do so and as for AA Guns, I am open to being persuaded about those as well. Complexes, of course, are strictly forbidden per Page 10 of the Pacific manual for 1940 Second Edition so even if I wanted to let them be bid in for China they would have to be removed immediately since China cannot own them.
Yea, attacking Amur was always a favorite move for Russia. Glad it was included, however. I never liked that Russia could invade with impunity, but Japan couldn’t. A far better rule would be to close off the Soviet Far East and force all invasions to come in from the South (through India/Middle East or China) and just give Russia 6 IPC a round for the Far East.
You may only bid 1 unit per territory, so the Cheese that you are talking about is illegal. The bomber with Russia is legal, but super gay… A player that is willing to put his 12 bid into a russian bomber to try a risky attack on a cruiser transport is someone that I don’t want to play against, to be honest.
Standard bids are 10-12. I won’t bid less than 12 for allies, but many games go at 11. 12 usually see’s 2 subs for UK. One in 98 and one in 110. 11 bid is a sub in 98, and the other 5 IPC’s are usually spent in Africa.
@Cow:
To be honest I never read the league rules. I usually say 1 unit per territory and if they do not like it, then no game. I do not mind someone getting armor units for China as a bid, it is just weird.
Interesting philosophy. It’s not currently a regulation, but I have no problem including it next in next year’s league. Or, perhaps, limit the amount of value of bidded units in any one territory or sea zone to be 8 IPC or less (which is probably 2 ground units, or 1 naval unit.) Be an interesting discussion for when that time comes.
As for China having the potential of non-typical units, my problem is this: How do I justify not allowing it halfway through the season? It isn’t a matter of making the league more accessible like allowing you to play past opponents more often, or increasing the number of those allowed in the playoffs, we’re actually changing a rule of the game. Since, as far as I can tell, there is precedent for China to have units it cannot build, there is no current restriction on them having them - just not being able to build them after the game has started - then I feel I cannot change it now. Be more than glad to include it as a regulation for 2014, however, assuming the community decides that during the discussion of the rules coming up. It’s just never been an issue before now.
Hearing a lot of caterwauling over Russia putting planes in Yunnan prior to a Japan attack there. Uhm, how about you don’t attack Russia with Germany round 1? There, no Russian reinforcements for the Red Chinese and any bid placed there, in anticipation of Russian assistance, is wasted. Not to mention, Germany gets a round of extra money for not being at war with Russia and can line up her own attacks better. Call me crazy, but it just may work….
Lastly, I would hate to see someone in the league pick and choose opponents because they want them to play the game their way. It feels, to me, to be unsportsmanlike.
@Cmdr:
As for China having the potential of non-typical units, my problem is this: How do I justify not allowing it halfway through the season? It isn’t a matter of making the league more accessible like allowing you to play past opponents more often, or increasing the number of those allowed in the playoffs, we’re actually changing a rule of the game. Since, as far as I can tell, there is precedent for China to have units it cannot build, there is no current restriction on them having them - just not being able to build them after the game has started - then I feel I cannot change it now. Be more than glad to include it as a regulation for 2014, however, assuming the community decides that during the discussion of the rules coming up. It’s just never been an issue before now.
Hearing a lot of caterwauling over Russia putting planes in Yunnan prior to a Japan attack there. Uhm, how about you don’t attack Russia with Germany round 1? There, no Russian reinforcements for the Red Chinese and any bid placed there, in anticipation of Russian assistance, is wasted. Not to mention, Germany gets a round of extra money for not being at war with Russia and can line up her own attacks better. Call me crazy, but it just may work….
Lastly, I would hate to see someone in the league pick and choose opponents because they want them to play the game their way. It feels, to me, to be unsportsmanlike.
Jenn,
Sino-Russian politics operate independently of the Europe map. Germany doesn’t need to attack Russia for them to declare war on Japan.
Also, is there an example of a game where Chinese units were bid other than inf and art? If there isn’t, I don’t see why changing it now would have any retroactive implications.
-Zigg
Yea, I had forgotten Russia was unique and could declare on Japan whenever. Had that corrected already.
As for China, I think it’s a nut to leave alone now and look into limiting it later. ATM, it’s legal to put any ground or air unit you want on China as part of the bid, for league. I see no harm coming from it, and I don’t see any benefit from putting an armor unit or an AA Gun (although the later would be a LOT of fun!) in China.
The current arguments are all along the lines of impact on Yunnan - so far. Complete with the ones complaining of allowing more than one bid unit in a territory. Honestly, if I wanted to be all Empresslike and declare by fiat what I want, I’d say “no units to be allowed to be bid for China or placed in China” and be done with it.
I do have to say, at least the provision is there to say you must own the territory to put bid units there! Otherwise, there would be a valid argument in allowing America to put bid units in Szechwan and thus, force Japan to attack America early, if they wanted to take Szechwan.
You may only bid 1 unit per territory
League on this forum does not have this rule.
Haven´t really played much with bids and when I have, I have never had more than 10 IPCs to spend.
Now I am about to play a game as the Allies and with 20 IPCs to spend thanks to a most generous Axis bid.
Would it be legal to place a UK minor IC in Egypt? (Triple A allows it)
I am not saying the IPCs can´t be spent more wisely, but I like the idea of a minor IC in Egypt from round 1 and I still got enough IPCs left for a sub or dd in SZ 98…
a minor IC is legal. Unless your opponent opposes it, I suppose.
An IC in egypt is legal, and if your opponent allows is, then you can do that as your bid. But its not always the smartest decision for a bid.
I’d be curious about a minor in Egypt paired with successful Taranto. Egypt would be pretty hard to get without Germany sending considerable resources.
