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

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.

@Caesar:

@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.

It was called the Jean Bart, moored at Casablanca when Operation Torch Commenced. It actually fired several shots at the American Task Force and lost about 2 dozen men.

Yeah, every single country when it comes to navy are all under strength compared to real life during WWII.

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

Yeah, every single country when it comes to navy are all under strength compared to real life during WWII.

It depends what the units represent, also yes the setup is done for balance reasons its a game not a simulation.

Yeah, I know it’s for balance however that is subjective and I’d rather see historical setup. It makes me laugh we play a game based on WWII but we suddenly care for balance even though Axis is always doomed to lose based on set up. Also I don’t see the balance in situations like Germany being able to outright pound Home Fleet from the get go. Logic behind this is that the Allies will over come due to GDP.

I am currently working on a historical G40 setup, I am sure it will be rejected by the community but I will toss it out there someday.

@Gargantua:

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

So we are not so much talking about a “bidding process”, but rather others ways to balance the game.

It’s sort of a neat idea - player 1 puts any amount of extra Allied units onto the board, then player 2 chooses their side.
This is a little more dynamic, because the equalizer can be a higher monetary amount but spent less efficiently.

I liked this idea with the NAs in Revised.  You select which NAs are to be in play (any combination), and I choose which side I want (or vice-versa).  I’m sad that NAs were dropped from the line.

I think people are teasing a bit about $100.  40 is believable, but Allies are winning in my games with 0.  Depends on who you are an who you are playing.

The problem is about consensus.  The other players in my group think that Japan is underpowered (now).  So they gave it more transports, and moved the Soviets west a bit.

I couldn’t disagree more.  Japan should be underpowered because it makes the axis beatable.

So, no consensus–they think Japan is too weak and I think its not “too weak enough”!

And I play the Axis next!

@taamvan:

I think people are teasing a bit about $100.  40 is believable, but Allies are winning in my games with 0.  Depends on who you are an who you are playing.

The problem is about consensus.  The other players in my group think that Japan is underpowered (now).  So they gave it more transports, and moved the Soviets west a bit.

I couldn’t disagree more.  Japan should be underpowered because it makes the axis beatable.

So, no consensus–they think Japan is too weak and I think its not “too weak enough”!

And I play the Axis next!

A Japan that starts with 21 planes, 3 carriers, and 2 battleships is not underpowered.