Bidding?

@daggaz:

At this point, the game has gone on so long that I fail to see the massive statistical difference you would get from having, say, eight IPC instead of four on G1.  It really just comes down to the tactical errors your opponent makes, and how well you take advantage of them, be they ever so slight.

The massive difference of bids 4 and 8 can mean taking Egypt with enough to deter a counterattack or can mean 2 extra units deterring or thwarting an attack on Ukraine. If Egypt isn’t to be countered, then the UK has all sorts of options. Still, it comes down to the dice - you have a point that it doesn’t always matter 4 to 8 and so on. With two units to Libya, Germany can expect to take it with 4 units plus their plane(s). With just one unit to Libya and good rolls, they could end up with the same 4 troops sitting in Egypt.

@daggaz:

But its simply usually enough for germany to shred africa with minimal investment, hold it until the US is forced to divert troops, at which time Japan has spread the rising sun across the entire swath of the southern pacific and the indian ocean, and is usually able to reclaim the dark continent for axis hands, while at the same time putting the serious hurt into Moscow.

How are the Allies managing Africa in your games? Is Germany taking South Africa as America first lands Algeria? Africa is almost always the first place I go with the US and UK. Lately the US has been in the Med for long term control. Unchecked Japan will definitely plow through Africa.

I think the game is close to balanced, but there is good reason to think it might not be.

basically, if russia were any weaker (or either axis player any stronger), there might be a high number of games where a) novice players would have a terrible time as russia gets pwned, or b) early bad luck by russia would allow for allied defeat even with superior play.

In other words, if germany has the ability to force a battle early in the game against the least resilient allied power, then even when played badly the axis always have a chance of an upset win in that battle.  The stronger you make the axis initially, the more risk that the game is decided by luck in spite of any allied skill very early on.

Having said all that, I think it’s pretty darn balanced and I’m just suggesting theories for why it might intentionally have been left with some imbalance.

SZ 37 is not a help in taking Hawaii, a44.  The idea of the transport for Japan, IMHO, is to take out a third American fighter.  Otherwise, I’d rather have ground forces in Asia for Japan (or Africa/Europe for Germany.)

If you can add several bid units to same area, then yes - 2inf 1arty in Ukraine are way better than 1 fighter there.
And even if not, 2inf 1arty can help several theaters - like arty Libya, inf Ukraine, inf Belorus (or EEu).

@AJ:

What is FIDA?

http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68

All AARevised games played in AAMC use FIDA bidding unless the players agree to another bid system prior to the game starting.  FIDA stands for Flames of Europe, IAAPA, DAAK and AAMC, the four clubs that developed the bidding system.  Under FIDA bidding, each player submits a number of IPCs for a bid.  The lower bid plays Axis.  Up to half of the value of those IPCs can be placed on the mapboard prior to the start of the game in new units.  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.  The remaining balance of IPCs from the bid can be given to either Germany or Japan or split in whatever manner the Axis player chooses.

Example of a bid:  15, 1 Inf in Ukraine, 1 Rtl in Libya, 6 IPC Germany, 2 IPC Japan.

@U-505:

The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.

The person who played the bid, switch, said this:

It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.  Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.

Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.  Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.

@U-505:

With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.

I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.  I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.  Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.

@U-505:

2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.

Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.  But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.  I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.  Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.  If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.  If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.  And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.

@U-505:

The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.

2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.  I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.  But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.  If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.

@U-505:

Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.

3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.  Not much room for a great defense there.  And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.  Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.  (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)

Oh yea good idea!

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6187.0

if you have any questions please direct them to player’s help… you’ll get responses fairly quick…