Adjustable bid

@barney:

“Bids and Scramble”
sounds like a good name for a board game   :lol:

IDK “Chutes and Ladders” just came to mind lol

Back to the OP. One other point I’m coming to see is devastating is to land 4 ground units on Kwangsi J1. These units really make a big difference in being able to hold on to Yunnan. While you can’t get the TTs back to Japan J2 unless you combine a Naval base on Hainan or Kwangsi, the main game in Asia isn’t to get Japanese land units on Asia but to deny the Burma Rd. If you can do that, your one step on the way to Axis victory in the Pacific. One of the land units can come from Okinawa, two from Japan so you are only relocating one unit within Asia, the artillery from Manchuria, but in a very advantageous way.

interesting. I will check out that thread.

Well some interesting facts.

All agree that in Europe 1940 the axis need a bid.
All agree that japan is hard to stop unless US invest heavy in the pacific.

In global nearly all players give the bid to the allies on the europe board and nobody gives the bid to the pac board.

Has anyone tried the “China first” proposal I made? I used this solution in AA50 as a bid alternative, and I think it works well in G40 too, but haven’t received much feedback from actual games other than my own group.  Maybe its because the HR forums are a wasteland of forgetfulness? haha.  
:-D

The basic idea is pretty simple, everything else stays the same, but China moves first in the turn order!
So in Global that’d be…

China, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA, UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac, France (then back to China)

I’m not saying that this change does away with the need for an Allied bid entirely, but it surely makes the bid range a bit narrower, and a lower. I mean if you can bring it down from 15, back into the single digits that’s a definite positive right? And China is a lot more fun to play this way. Its not like you’re getting “11 infantry in Yunnan”, but it does allow China to pull back and consolidate their starting forces, and build 1 round worth of additional units. It gives them their artillery in the first round, and bonus for control of the Burma road. What’s more it gives them a much better chance to secure their National Objective in subsequent rounds. This adjustment in turn order, also affords the Chinese an opening attack option in they want to get balsy!

The reason I really like this approach is because it doesn’t mess with the Europe side of the map (e.g it doesn’t break the med.) Doesn’t change the situation outside of the Chinese theater, since those units are restricted on where they can move. And most importantly, it gives Japan more to worry about. Sure, you’re probably going to kick a lot more ass as Allies if you give UK an extra carrier in the Med, but if that kind of bid strikes you as overly distorting you might try this instead. It’s pretty easy to implement and makes China a lot more effective as a player nation, which eases the pressure on the other Pacific nations. China has an advantage (over India) in that it can’t be strategically bombed or convoy raided into non-existence. Also, you can preserve the illusion that the OOB force distribution of units on the gameboard, actually corresponds to something in reality. As if the units OOB units where chosen for some reason by the designer, to be at least vaguely historical. This change in turn order of just one Nation, allows to avoid bringing too many extra units into the board outside of the normal purchasing/placement mechanisms. Its at least as easy to explain to your opponent as a standard bid, and if you still want to bid anyway, then go for it. But the change is so simple, and it really does give Japan more to chew on, and it seems like the Pacific side of the map is the one that is grabbing all the attention lately in terms of balance.

Also, for the history buffs…I feel like this tweak gives a slight nod to the fact that the War had been going on in China, even before all of Europe and the rest of the world was embroiled in the conflict.

“July 7, 1937 a day that lives in”… I don’t know, the first turn of G40 at least? hehe. There are crazy numbers of potential players in China. The materials are produced there more often than not. Why not roll the dice and see if a China first approach will work? Anathema to all Americans, like me! But in the game’s turn order I think it is kind of cool ;)

My mistake was not sending my two move units to Romania the previous turn as Germany. I just played out turn 9 and US was able to stack Northern Italy. Italy is out of the game now, but on the other side of the board Japan is making 105, and he is bombing Russia with 5 bombers every turn. He has more than UK in the south and he can now start landing in Africa taking the money away from Russia and UK. I do agree that US is going to eventually take Germany, but could he do it before Moscow falls? Probably :/

I’m curious which statements here are differing from what you’ve seen in the league? Do you feel that this NO is playing differently or is more relevant in the league?

I suppose its important to realize that any statements you read here on the boards are largely anecdotal. It comes down to how much of what you read accords with your own experience. And of course results will differ depending on what conditions you typically play with. For example, I noticed just now you mentioned the Russian bomber in another thread. In G40, and in other prior A&A games, many people have used additional Russian aircraft as an expedient alternative to the open pre-placement bid. An Extra Russian fighter in AA50 for example, or a Bomber in G40. In G40 specifically, that option is preferable to me, than an open bid for UK. Its the sort of set up change you really have to force though, because given the option most people would take that same bid amount and instead throw down 4 infantry or 3 art units in separate territories to spread the advantage, or a pair of subs to break a naval battle. Anyway, the point being that if you are using a Russian bomber in your games regularly, then chances our you’ll be seeing different results from people who try other balancing options. Beyond this, there is also the No Tech aspect, or things like whether or not players are using standard dice rules or low luck rules. All this stuff can skew the results in a given set of games, or provide somewhat different play-balance results from the games of people who play other ways.

I will say this about G40, if you play standard dice, there is a fairly substantial swing potential on sz 110 and sz 111, not to mention with casualties in France. This can be a pretty big deal for an opening battle that sets the stage for the whole game. The results there can be a lot more consequential than say Classic/Revised when a transport hit, or a destroyer dudded out was in the opening round. The old German battleship headache comes to mind. Or take for example how in Revised the swing on the W. Russia battle could really effect the whole game in a massive way, such that some players would just quit outright in the opening round, if the dice didn’t go their way. Something similar can occur here (though perhaps not quite as extreme) with sz 110 and 111. If the Luftwaffe trades well in those battles it can be a huge boon for Axis. If they trade poorly it can be a small nightmare for G. Low Luck can control for that to a certain extent, but what you gain in consistency by using LL during the opening round, you lose out on in dynamism during the endgame. This is why I tend to prefer dice since they are so unpredictable for the endgame, though I appreciate the place for LL and understand why so many are fond of it. Still even a small bid disrupting either of those battles, or the battles in the med, can take it from a risky swing to a clear and obvious choice, especially under LL conditions.

So all that is just to say that the conventions in your playgroup, the typical bid, what sort of rules you option in or out, can really affect the patterns that emerge.

You’ll probably have noticed as well, that because A&A uses a very fixed set up and involves a number of scripted first round battles, that players often use a technique that you might call mirroring. Where players tend to model their strategies and opening moves, on things that they’ve seen stronger opponents do. Adopting the strategies that beat you last time, we might call it. This happens a lot after a board first comes out, or especially with players who are new to the game. So what happens is a kind of gameplay evolution, that selects for the best opening plays and weeds out the poorer ones over time. So right after a new board comes out everyone is excited, since the playing field is leveled, and nobody really knows how to exploit the map. Very quickly though, players start adopting standard buys and standard openings, until at some point (after a year say) someone hits on a strategy that is very dominant, which never remains secret very long. Soon variations in it get more popular, until eventually it becomes a scripted move (something everyone does.) Its usually at this point, if the advantage is clearly going one way, to one side over the other, that people start seriously examining bid solutions.

Whats interesting about all this, is that if you are playing with someone who is inexperienced, and does something totally batshit crazy, that you wouldn’t expect anyone to do ever, sometimes that sort of game can actually get entertaining as well as challenging. Since you really don’t know how to predict the erratic behavior of the newb. These games can be fun, since they force all sorts of weird decisions on you. Like wow, he built that? I guess I have to go destroy it now, and do something I wouldn’t usually do haha.

I agree though, from an archival standpoint, its nice to have a league and a way to track what sorts of things are happening in games (what sort of bids are being used for example, and what opening moves.) The overall tally Axis wins to Allied wins. But even there, the nature of the dice can be pretty nuts in providing different experiences.

All this is just to clarify something that it might have been worth saying at the outset. When I talk about game “Balance” or “Balance by Sides” what I am really referring to is the ‘feeling’ or ‘sense’ among both players that the starting conditions provide a roughly even shot for either to prevail. There’s no way to be really absolute about this, since as soon as you roll the dice in a single round of combat, you shoot off into so many different variables that its probably impossible to say anything with certainty… eg. whether a bad roll somewhere can be recovered by an amazing one somewhere else, later on. So really what we a striving for is the sweet spot, where the feeling of balance is the same for both players at the outset. Where one person isn’t constantly grumbling about how the odds are totally stacked against them from the get go, or how if they don’t win battle X, “its basically all over!” I’m not sure how much you could learn from seeing my games in an after action, since I’m perhaps not as cut throat as others, and I like to experiment a lot (often with game mechanics.) I don’t mind losses and haven’t bothered to keep a running tally on anything.

If I’m in the lobby and I have more time to play, I also almost never concede defeat, at least until I see the deep endgame ;) Since that’s the one that fascinates me most in A&A games! The deep endgame, for those unfamiliar with how I use the term in A&A, is how things play after capitals have already fallen. So in Classic or Revised or 1942.2 the Deep Endgame is when you are down to just 4 nations. In AA50 when you are down to 5 etc. Another way to think about it is the gameplay when W. Allies can take over Russian land directly because the capital has fallen.

Pretty good at grinding it out, since even a losing game can be entertaining, and it teaches you about the production spread and the importance of the center ;) But now I’m just rambling.

Is it the general premise of this thread (that Russia’s NOs are too weak, and virtually pointless) that you find problematic? Or the proposed solution as a bid alternative? I guess I’m just a little confused where you think we’re running off track. Most of the results posted in that league forum for g40 games (at least for the last several months) show Allies being bid out consistently, often at above +10 ipc. So I feel that it supports the general position of game unbalance in favor of Axis. I’m not sure what bearing any of those games would have on my proposed solution right now, since those games are virtually all using pre-placement bids. What I have suggested here is a standard income modification for an NO as an alternative to what people are currently doing, which is bidding pre-placement. Does that make more sense from the perspective of a bid replacement/balance perspective?

3 boats a turn on the Atlantic side or the pacific side?

Pacific.  He was speaking of the type of Navy that could get built up between Anzac and US with a late DOW.  Without pulling guys from the Atlantic, US can’t put a ton of guys on the Pacific in those first 3 turns.  Just to match the Japan Navy the US needs 2 more carriers, 1 battleship, 1 destroyer.  That’s  60 ipcs.  In my opinion, US needs more navy since they need to be the attackers.  That would require neglecting the atlantic almost entirely (which isn’t an awful idea depending on how good the German player is).  That also doesn’t take into account that Japan buys a Carrier and can load it without spending the 20-21 ipcs for fighters.  The Naval bases also allow for 3 more fighters to defend if used correctly.