Yesssssssssss!!! Finallyyyyyyy!!!
I’m lying, but I’ll quote Indiana Jones anyway:
“I’ve been looking for this all my life.”
Great series of videos!
Axis and Allies Revised: The Bid
-
Axis and Allies Revised: The Bid
Some players of Axis and Allies Revised believe that there is an imbalance in overall power between the Axis and Allied powers. To correct this perceived imbalance, players may use a bid.
That is to say, if Alice and Bob both think the Allied powers have an advantage, neither will want to play the Axis. However, both Alice and Bob may put a value on how much they think the Axis are disadvantaged by. So if Alice and Bob both find that they want to play the Allies, then one or the other player (determined by random lot) can start a bidding war to play the Allies.
Example: Alice wins the coin toss, and starts the bid, saying “I’ll bid 2 IPC so I, Alice, can be the Allies”. However, Bob really wants to be Allies, so says “I’ll bid 5 IPC so I, Bob, can be the Allies”. Alice may up the bid, or accept Bob’s offer. If Alice ups the bid, the process continues; if Alice accepts the bid, then Bob plays the Axis, but starts with 5 IPC extra.
There are a lot of different bidding systems out there. Some systems start high and have the players bid lower (that is, Alice will bid 20 IPC to play the Allies, and Bob will bid 19 IPC to be the Allies; the winning bid is the lowest bid). Some systems let the winning bidder(s) place up to half the bid amount in units before the game starts. Some systems let the winning bidder(s) place all of the bid amount before the game starts, but extra IPCs are lost. Some systems let the winning bidder(s) place all of the bid amount before the game starts, and extra IPCs are kept.
I think the best system is one that has players starting the bid low, and bidding higher to play the side of their choice, with the entire amount of the bid usable to purchase and place units before the game starts. Starting low and bidding higher results in an open-ended system with no arbitrary limits. Using up to the entire amount of the bid to preplace units, and keeping leftover IPCs, allows for the most change in the initial position, resulting in a more variable and therefore more interesting game.
-
Usually the system that starts high and works down is not giving money to play the allies, but rather taking money to play the axis. ie. Alice will play the axis for 10IPC. Bob will play the axis for 8 IPC. Bob gets the Axis when Alice refuses to go lower.
-
Somethign I have often thought about…
EXCHANGE BIDDING.
This would be a bid where the extra Axis cash did not come from thin air, but was transfered from the Allies, reducing their first turn income as it raised the Axis first turn (and per-first turn) cash.
-
Nice article NPB, explains bid very well.
Though Switch, does the allies choose where the money comes from? Since if I was the allies, I would 90% of the time donate money from America, and if I’m the axis, I would want the money to come from the Soviets.
-
That would allow different flavors to come in with exchange bidding…
Axis picks the source (bids will be very low).
Even spread of bids (reduced bids from traditional, but higher than above)
Allies pick the source (bids slightly reduced from traditional)Basically, I would see something liek this happening…
“Gift” bid (miraculous new money to the Axis, current Method): Bid in the $7 range common
Allies pick source: Bid lowered to $5 range
Even spread: Bid lowered to $3-4 range
Axis picks: $2 -
@ncscswitch:
Somethign I have often thought about…
EXCHANGE BIDDING.
This would be a bid where the extra Axis cash did not come from thin air, but was transfered from the Allies, reducing their first turn income as it raised the Axis first turn (and per-first turn) cash.
thats an interesting concept switch
-
Type above… that should be PRE first turn cash.
Also, another conept…
SURRENDER BIDDING.
Cash to the Axis coming from the Allies, but in the form of TERRITORY (and corresponding income) transfered to the Axis at the start of the game.
It would ahve to be vacant territory (to preclude the need to re-locate troops which could be its own Allied advantage) is about the only limitation I can think of for this, and that means it would have to come from the UK or USA. Along with the surrender bid, an additional 1 INF of the nation receiving the bid to be placed in the surrendered territory (just to prevent the surrender bid from being Rhodesia, but with no German troops and UK re-taking with UOSA INF on a walk in on UK1 before Germany could do anythign about it).
-
newpaintbrush,
Would you mind adding to your article? I think talking more about some of the other used bid systems and some of these proposed ones would be useful.
-
Nice summary on bidding.
You neglected to mention a widely used bid concept (especially for <pbem>tournaments):
The blind bid.
One bid from each side, no room to haggle the amount up or down. Ties are determined by coin toss.</pbem>
-
How bout the idea of both sides getting X amount of IPC to spend at start, with the axis obviously getting more… Example 3 to 1 ,5 to 2, 9 to 2. Each side draws chits from a cup with all possible ratios (within reason) the one who draws lowest gets to choose first:
- if he wants to take the chit he drew and play those odds as axis or
- if he wants to take the allies and play the higher chit drawn by the other person
This will do a few things:
- throw out the silly strategies that stagnate the game where everything is essentially (home preparation)
- create totally new strategies and liven the game
- make an objectively based system that does not allow game psychology to play a part in the bid.
- its also outside the box thinking
-
Switch,
I think you need to think about a 3rd option as well: Allies can choose where that money comes from. Maybe they want it all to come from America or split between America and England?
-
I had intended the Allies to choose the source of the bid cash/territories.
Interesting question…
Would the USA want to give up Mexico, Cuba, Panama or Brazil from the start?Sure, they could take it back, but it would be a detour for US forces from their main goals…
Suggested Topics
