What's the consensus on a standard bid?

@Bean:

The masters over at Csub don’t allow more than one bid unit per territory under the reasoning that more than that changes the balance of the board too much; they are minimalists in that sense. The bids might be higher, but you don’t see insane things like 3 inf Libya or Ukraine. The last time I lost to them they said their bids are in the 9-11 range, but that was over a year ago. I’ve never even come close to beating the author that I played.

Recall too that C-Sub doesn’t allow a capital to be attacked on round 1.

This only applies realistically to G1 on London, but it does alter the bid in allowing more than 7…. (tpt to baltic)

@hyogoetophile:

Back in the day at AAMC and FoE I remember FIDA bids (so free placement but only 1/2 on units) were 6 or so–essentially enough to get an inf or art into Lib and throw some IPCs to both powers. And as far as I can tell, I think that’s a pretty good place for the Axis to be. Maybe even something smaller like 3-4 IPCs to be spent anywhere.

I agree that giving the Axis 8+ IPCs that could potentially be spend on an Atl sub or a Med trn is just too potent. And look at AAR in general. It has more strategical and tactical options than A&A, but I think the Axis definitely have more powerful strategies–namely Germany’s.

Perhaps this could change with some better Allied strats, especially in the area of UK1 options (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10443.0)
but for now it looks like the Axis just need an inf/art or two, not an extra naval unit.

FIDA bids are now around 14-17 these days.

Allied play continues to improve.  Remember this game is won with defense, it’s easier to defend than attack.  It’s also cheaper to defend than expand.  Even if a game has become balanced economically, the allies have that defensive advantage.  Also forgot to mention the 3 on 2 advantage.

Personally, unless I know the other player is horrible with the allies, I rarely bid less than 8 for the Axis.

I think a standard bid of 8, with leftover IPCs not lost, and any number of units built where another unit controlled by that power already exists - IF LHTR is in effect, which I would hope would also be standardized.

I don’t think a Baltic transport buy or an Atlantic sub buy is too horrible for the Allies.  Bad, yes, but nothing the Allies can’t handle.

Best solution I found for the Submarine in SZ 8 bid is to have Russia attack Norway straight off.  Even if you lose a fighter, you are better off then losing the Transport and Battleship in SZ 2.

And USSR doing Norway on R1 certainly balances central europe…  Axis can solidify well before Russia gets to build with the extra income… making Europe more of a battle for Stalingrad/Gates of Moscow (West Russia) instead of trading Belo and Ukraine…

Ummm - is it just me or should these posts read “Axis” everywhere they say “Allies”. Otherwise the Allied chance of victory improves with a bigger Axis bid.  :?

@DarthMaximus:

@DarthMaximus:

This is full bid placement (no restrictions)

5 bids - 5
6 bids - 19
7 bids - 31
8 bids - 28
9 bids - 6

Winners (Allies/Axis):

5 bids - 2/3
6 bids - 8/11
7 bids - 18/13
8 bids - 16/12
9 bids - 3/3

Percentages (Allies win %):

Overall - 47/42 - Allies win 52.8
5 bids - Allies win 40% (too small of a sample)
6 bids - Allies win 42.1%
7 bids - Allies win 58.1%
8 bids - Allies win 57.1%
9 bids - Allies win 50% (too small of a sample)

Eliminating the 5 and 9 bids and focusing on 6, 7, 8 we get:

6-8 bids - 42/36 - Allies win 53.8%

And if we just focus on 7 and 8 bids (which seems to be the norm now):

7-8 bids - 34/25 - Allies win 57.6%

Okay, I went back and went through games up until early Oct. (58 more games).  So, now thru 147 games:

This is full bid placement (no restrictions)

5 bids - 5
6 bids - 27
7 bids - 39
8 bids - 58
9 bids - 16
10 bids - 2

Winners (Allies/Axis):

5 bids - 2/3
6 bids - 15/12
7 bids - 23/16
8 bids - 32/26
9 bids - 10/6
10 bids - 1/1

Percentages (Allies win %):

Overall - 83/64 - Allies win 56.5%
5 bids - Allies win 40% (only 5 games played)
6 bids - Allies win 55.6%
7 bids - Allies win 58.9%
8 bids - Allies win 55.2%
9 bids - Allies win 62.5%
10 bids - Allies win 50.0% (only 2 games played)

Eliminating the 5 and 10 bids and focusing on 6, 7, 8, 9 we get:

6-9 bids - 80/60 - Allies win 57.1%

And if we just focus on 6, 7 and 8 bids:

6-8 bids - 70/54 - Allies win 56.5%

Well, taking into account more games fixed the 6 bid anomaly.  It now falls more into line with the 7 and 8.  Probably do to that fact that 5-6 bids may have won early but later showed to be beatable and the bid moved up to the 7-8 range.  97 games have had a 7 or 8 bid with 58 games having an 8 bid.

@ncscswitch:

And USSR doing Norway on R1 certainly balances central europe…  Axis can solidify well before Russia gets to build with the extra income… making Europe more of a battle for Stalingrad/Gates of Moscow (West Russia) instead of trading Belo and Ukraine…

I agree, going for Norway in almost any other game with Russia on round 1 is not a good idea.  But we’re talking about saving 40 IPC in fleet to have your tanks in Norway instead of in W. Russia for a round.  They’re not destroyed, necessarily, not in a great position either, but at least England isn’t buying a battleship on Round 1, transports on Round 2, Carrier on Round 3……

Ya know?

@Ender:

Ummm - is it just me or should these posts read “Axis” everywhere they say “Allies”. Otherwise the Allied chance of victory improves with a bigger Axis bid.  :?

Nope, just you.   :-D

I’d completely ignore the 5 bids and the 10.  The 9 are highly suspect as well since it is only 16 games, one more Axis win drops it down to 58%, and two wins to 55%.

All the numbers are still highly fluid since it is such a small sample, esp when it gets broken down to specific bid amount.  The better number might be overall 83 Allied wins to 64 Axis, for an Allies Win % of 56.5% in 147 games.

Also many of the 6 bid Axis wins were early on.  In my first post I only had time to go thru June-July and at that point the Axis won 58% of 6 bids BUT in the next 8 games from July to early Oct with 6 bids. the Allies went 7-1 in 6 bid games.  Meaning players learned they have to bid more than 6.  I think the same thing is happening at 7 (maybe even 8 ), where once you start seeing a lot of games with the Allies winning players start to up their bids naturally and you see less and less of the games with lower bids.

Finally there is a good chance that the good Allied players bid relatively high knowing they can deal with giving up 8 or 9 and still win a lot.  It might be interesting to see who has the 10 wins as the Allies with the 9 bid.  I didn’t pay that close attention but it could be one person that is just really awesome as the Allies.  I know when Wazzup was playing he never bid lower than 9 and was 9-0 at one point and I don’t think JWW bids below 9 and he was 13-1 last I looked.

part of the FIDA bid rules require:

@FIDA:

Germany can place units in territories and sea zones that already contain German units.  Japan can place units in territories and sea zones that already contain Japanese units.  Neither Axis player can place units in territories or sea zones where it does not already have units

Does this hold true for triple a or play by forum bid placement?

Specifically could Germany bid a transport into sz7?

I can’t speak for TripleA, but our forum games abide by the same rule.

I think that rule/stipulation is generally understood, but I’m not 100% sure on that.

And to follow-up on a point Switch mentioned earlier, our overall League Avg bid is 7.4, and based on the Allies win % thru these 147 games, I’d expect to see a lot more 8-9 bids in the future, unless the Axis go on a run here late in the year and start to pile up wins.

It is probably safe to say if you really want the Axis you can safely bid 7.

My view on the matter is that the bid AMOUNT is really not that significant. It certainly is much less important than the bid placement.

Every round of the game, every battle, you roll dice. Any one of those dice results in a difference of minimum 3 IPCs.

So whether you add 1 Inf 1 Art to the G1 attack on Egypt, or 1 Inf 1 Art really in the grand scheme of the game is much less significant than how many hits the UK gets in defence. My point is that an extra 1-3 IPCs in a bid is probably lost in the noise of the dice by the end of UK1 at the latest.

However, there’s another lesson in the question of bids and bid placements. I keep railing on about how the key to the game is not territory, but achieving local force superiority, which means maintaining TUV is a priority over capturing territory. That’s why I use only 1 Inf + air in trading territories. Gaining a 3 IPC territory is not worth sacrificing an extra 3 IPC forward unit.

I keep arguing that a front line unit is worth much more than its equivalent of IPCs in the bank - hence I argue against the G1 tank blitz to Archangel. The truth of this is shown in the reality of bid placements. People don’t place the bid in Berlin or Southern Europe. They place it right on the front line, and not just anywhere on the front, but at key locations such as the Suez Canal.

This shows that most players appreciate at some level that an Inf at the front is worth more than an Inf in your capitol (unless your capitol happens to BE on the front…). But people get so caught up in on-paper IPC values and in capturing territory that they expend units they can’t afford to waste on taking territory that they won’t be able to hold.

Don’t get me wrong, I still trade territory, but I do it economically. If I can capture a territory with 1 Inf + air (about 66% chance) that’s good value, better than a 95% chance of capturing it with 2 Inf + air.

Sum up: front line units are worth more, as shown by all the thought that goes into bid placement. A straight-line comparison question would be this: how much would you bid if the requirement was that the bid could only be placed on an IC and only at the end of G1? The answer to that will show how much more valuable front-line units are. Save them.

Ender,

I believe there are two theories on bids.

1)  They can be used to give Germany an additional boost to results securing a better chance of victory in a risky battle (ie Egypt, bidding Inf/Art to Libya almost guarantees you will take Egypt) allowing for the trickle down effect of a stronger nation.

2)  They give the axis power a better chance at defense making a secure chance of victory by an ally less secure which also allows for the trickle down effect of making that nation more powerful.

Both are short term results.  As you mention, one bad throw of the dice for you and you’ve lost more then your bid. :P  It’s just a way to hedge your bets, I think.

As far as bid placement, I know in Classic a common tactic was to bid a German infantry in Manchuria and then violate Mongolia so Japan didn’t have to pay the fee.  I think after that became more commonplace, people started limiting bids to territories you normally start with anyway.

@Cmdr:

Ender,

I believe there are two theories on bids.

1)  They can be used to give Germany an additional boost to results securing a better chance of victory in a risky battle (ie Egypt, bidding Inf/Art to Libya almost guarantees you will take Egypt) allowing for the trickle down effect of a stronger nation.

2)  They give the axis power a better chance at defense making a secure chance of victory by an ally less secure which also allows for the trickle down effect of making that nation more powerful.

Both are short term results.  As you mention, one bad throw of the dice for you and you’ve lost more then your bid. :P  It’s just a way to hedge your bets, I think.

Agreed. My point is, bid units can only serve those purposes if they are placed on the front line. That makes them more valuable than IPCs in the bank. If IPCs in the bank were worth the same as IPCs on the front line, you’d see a lot more people banking their bids.

Amen, brother.  That’s why I don’t like FIDA.  I want two units on the ground, but in FIDA that means paying for those units twice.  I’m happy to have the money, but my actual bid isn’t changing at all, I’m just getting bonus bucks.  It’s like playing Monopoly at McDonald’s.  I’m getting a premium chicken sandwich, but you’re giving me a bonus buck at Toys R Us.  I’m getting the sandwich anyway, but I’ll take the free dollar too, thanks.

Don’t get me wrong, I still trade territory, but I do it economically. If I can capture a territory with 1 Inf + air (about 66% chance) that’s good value, better than a 95% chance of capturing it with 2 Inf + air.

That’s an interesting point about using 1 inf instead of 2 inf to attack one inf. But I think if the territory is worth 2 IPCs or more than I’d rather assure taking the territory. The 2 IPCs from the territory and the 1 IPC average damage that 1 inf will do on defense makes up for the cost of the extra inf you throw in, and also against most people it will have them throwing 2 inf as well to take it back.

You’ll find though that people will commit 2 Inf on the retake whether you have 1 or 2 Inf there.

And the extra Inf does not net you the full 2 IPCs of the territory. It boosts your chance by 30-40% maybe. So that increase is worth 1/3 of 2 IPCs, or 2/3s of an IPC, not 2 IPCs. So committing the extra 3 IPC unit to “ensure” taking a 2 IPC territory only brings a return of about 1.7 IPCs.

Run it on frood.net and see the avg. IPC losses for both sides, you’ll see. I like to trade 1 more Inf preserved over against an additional 1/3 chance to capture a territory. Unless the territory has tactical importance of course. But if it’s just for the money, I’d rather risk a 39% chance of not taking the territory than send an extra front-line unit to certain death.

I know the feeling of kicking myself when I fail to take a territory (“Why didn’t I send 2 Inf?”) but then I console myself with the fact that I saved one more Inf in my main stack. That’s 3 IPCs not only in the bank, but right on the front line, and in itself is worth more than the 3 IPCs gained from taking the territory PLUS the avg. 1 IPC damage it will inflict on defense.

It’s counter-intuitive though, not many people understand it.

There are however reasons to put more units in: if you have the unit lead, and want to whittle down both sides so your lead becomes proportionally larger, or if you want to tie up enemy air units to distract them from other targets.

Oh, they have some good strategy there.  Not a lot, but some.  Problem is, the good players realize that to get the two units that they are accustomed too, they have to bid for four units.

Anyway, I find everytime I need the attacks to win, if I go Fighter/Infantry vs Infantry I always lose my infantry.

Your sim shows you win 90% of the time, but you win with the FIGHTER only for some of those.  In 1.7 rounds you will win with fighter only 37% of the time.

More realisticly looking at the attack, you only have about a 50/50 shot at winning the land if you attack Inf/Fig vs Inf.

If we’re talking Evenki, Persia, Trans-Jordan etc then sure.  It’s only 1 IPC and I really just wanna kill the enemy, not take the land per se.

@Ender:

You’ll find though that people will commit 2 Inf on the retake whether you have 1 or 2 Inf there.

And the extra Inf does not net you the full 2 IPCs of the territory. It boosts your chance by 30-40% maybe. So that increase is worth 1/3 of 2 IPCs, or 2/3s of an IPC, not 2 IPCs. So committing the extra 3 IPC unit to “ensure” taking a 2 IPC territory only brings a return of about 1.7 IPCs.

Run it on frood.net and see the avg. IPC losses for both sides, you’ll see. I like to trade 1 more Inf preserved over against an additional 1/3 chance to capture a territory. Unless the territory has tactical importance of course. But if it’s just for the money, I’d rather risk a 39% chance of not taking the territory than send an extra front-line unit to certain death.

I know the feeling of kicking myself when I fail to take a territory (“Why didn’t I send 2 Inf?”) but then I console myself with the fact that I saved one more Inf in my main stack. That’s 3 IPCs not only in the bank, but right on the front line, and in itself is worth more than the 3 IPCs gained from taking the territory PLUS the avg. 1 IPC damage it will inflict on defense.

It’s counter-intuitive though, not many people understand it.

There are however reasons to put more units in: if you have the unit lead, and want to whittle down both sides so your lead becomes proportionally larger, or if you want to tie up enemy air units to distract them from other targets.

Another inherent disadvantage to bringing only 1 inf is that if you fail to take the territory, your opponent can immediately land fighters for defense there combined with a ground unit push which may be enough to hold that territory and permanently remove your ability to continue trading it. It’s not an everyday occurance, but you do have to take that into account.

Bringing 1 inf is almost strictly an Allied advantage because in most cases there is usually another Ally ready to follow up to take the territory in case the initial attack fails to take it. The Axis can do it, but their opportunities are much more limited.

Good points. There are disadvantages to bringing just one inf.

But assuming that perhaps 5 territories are traded each round, that’s 5 extra Inf saved for your main stack each round. After 5 rounds, you’re suddenly ahead 25 more Inf for the Allies than you would have been otherwise. That can also enable you to hold territories that you wouldn’t otherwise, even more than being able to land an extra couple air units.

Caveat: If the territory is held with 2 Inf, I will attack with 2 Inf + air. Don’t want to take that 1/9 chance of losing a ftr.

My goals are to kill enemy units and  not lose my own units. Taking/holding territory is a lesser priority. Still important though, don’t get me wrong.

@nuno:

Actually even in Classic one can win without a Bid, since outcome depends far more on the quality of the strategist involved(like in Revised) than in material advantage.

Yes u can win in classic without bid, if u r playing allies…lol.
Also in revised that is, and most players here use reg dice, so the variance will be higher than LL.
This means that without bid, the odds to win with axis is better than with LL.
I still have not met anyone who will challenge me and play axis without bid.
I’m noob so it will be an easy victory…even without bid :)

Seriously, I think I will win more than 50% of games if I play allies against anyone who play axis without bid.