Is there currently an average bid(or even a bid) in G40 2nd edition

@NotEvenJail:

@Karl7:

one bid that has always intrigued me was 100 inf for US at start.

No need for the US to but ground units allowing almost all air/sea buys.

:-o

That would actually be so hilarious tho. Build a 10 transport shuck into Europe and go into critical battles with an insane amount of rolls at 1.

Transports roll a zero in G40.

Even better: a bid of a million British tanks in, say, Samoa.

@Caesar:

@NotEvenJail:

@Karl7:

one bid that has always intrigued me was 100 inf for US at start.

No need for the US to but ground units allowing almost all air/sea buys.

:-o

That would actually be so hilarious tho. Build a 10 transport shuck into Europe and go into critical battles with an insane amount of rolls at 1.

Transports roll a zero in G40.

I meant transport the infantry. Drop 20 guys off a turn.

@Caesar:

@Karl7:

one bid that has always intrigued me was 100 inf for US at start.

No need for the US to but ground units allowing almost all air/sea buys.

:-o

That’s such a dumb bid in my opinion, why bother bidding 100 dollars for land units for the nation that makes the most money before NO?

well… the interesting idea behind it is it would relieve the US from the need to build ground units, which wouldn’t have much impact at first but would phase in over time.  So it would function as a staggered bid.

10 infantry in Western USA
10 artillery in Central USA
10 infantry in Eastern USA

$100

I’m confused here.  Are people actually bidding in the hundreds?

Has the bidding system changed since the AAMC?

No Zoooomer; just people bouncing round ideas.

How is it a good idea to put ground units in North America when they could go to Russia or The Commonwealth instead?

It’s not a “good idea” its a concept.  To give the allies a larger more staggered bid over time.

I used a similar concept ice with a new player.  I put $200 of units on a battle board in $20 increments - each turn he could add them to the board if /as he wanted to help his game. (At factories in the build)  This helped him train up over time until he never needed to use the units to boost his build anymore.

Yeah, no. Wasting 100 dollars in the US is pointless, just do that with a nation already at war.

I had suggested long ago that the US should get a battleship off Washington and a battleship off Honalulu. It was shot down vigorously and deemed a horrible idea as it was way to powerful for the United States to have 3 battleships in the setup… now I’m reading $100 bids for American Infantry?

So are the 2 added American battleships still a horrible idea?

@Young:

I had suggested long ago that the US should get a battleship off Washington and a battleship off Honalulu. It was shot down vigorously and deemed a horrible idea as it was way to powerful for the United States to have 3 battleships in the setup… now I’m reading $100 bids for American Infantry?

So are the 2 added American battleships still a horrible idea?

Can’t be worse than Japan having 3 carriers when in 1940 they only had 4 fleet carriers, about the same number as the US.

What the heck, $100 for US land units?

I would rather have the $160 in all Battleships

I’m all for historical setup, nothing less, nothing more. Both the Pacific and Atlantic fleets are horribly under powered in this game.

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Young:

I had suggested long ago that the US should get a battleship off Washington and a battleship off Honalulu. It was shot down vigorously and deemed a horrible idea as it was way to powerful for the United States to have 3 battleships in the setup… now I’m reading $100 bids for American Infantry?

So are the 2 added American battleships still a horrible idea?

Can’t be worse than Japan having 3 carriers when in 1940 they only had 4 fleet carriers, about the same number as the US.

I am pretty sure the correct setup for Japan was 4 carriers and the US only had 3 in the Pacific and I think 2 in the Atlantic.

@Caesar:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Young:

I had suggested long ago that the US should get a battleship off Washington and a battleship off Honalulu. It was shot down vigorously and deemed a horrible idea as it was way to powerful for the United States to have 3 battleships in the setup… now I’m reading $100 bids for American Infantry?

So are the 2 added American battleships still a horrible idea?

Can’t be worse than Japan having 3 carriers when in 1940 they only had 4 fleet carriers, about the same number as the US.

I am pretty sure the correct setup for Japan was 4 carriers and the US only had 3 in the Pacific and I think 2 in the Atlantic.

Im sure France had a battleship in the Med until operation torch, after that IDK. but would we put one there?

@Hunter:

@Caesar:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Young:

I had suggested long ago that the US should get a battleship off Washington and a battleship off Honalulu. It was shot down vigorously and deemed a horrible idea as it was way to powerful for the United States to have 3 battleships in the setup… now I’m reading $100 bids for American Infantry?

So are the 2 added American battleships still a horrible idea?

Can’t be worse than Japan having 3 carriers when in 1940 they only had 4 fleet carriers, about the same number as the US.

I am pretty sure the correct setup for Japan was 4 carriers and the US only had 3 in the Pacific and I think 2 in the Atlantic.

Im sure France had a battleship in the Med until operation torch, after that IDK. but would we put one there?

It was incomplete by the time France fell and I think Vichy France almost had it ready to port.

France had 5 battleships and 2 more under construction.

@calvinhobbesliker:

France had 5 battleships and 2 more under construction.

Thats what I thought, they had at least 1 in the med, that was in port when France surrendered in 1940.