What are "Bids"?

@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!

@ncscswitch:

I like the logging option.

I know I did not care for the argument that brought the issue up.  And it would be nice to have had a way to drop you a note and say “Hey!  What were thsoe dice?” :-)

Okay, I have created a “Make game record page” which creates records that AACalc will soon be able to log to - another couple hours coding should do it. This also incorporates an optional bidding function.

One question that was raised about bidding in software development forum was whether we should use an “Ebay” style bid where the winning bidder gets their optimal bid - ie. if you bid 0 and the other guy bid 10, then you would get it for 9 - so your bid is how low you are willing to go, but you don’t necessarily have to go that low. It’s an interesting concept, and I could just make a choice on my page for which bid system to use.

Thoughts? Would A&A.org consider switching to this bid? It would make the bid less nerve-racking because you know you won’t be leaving money “on the table”. Eg. I just bid 7 for my round 2 game against a player who took the bid for 10 in round 1. If he bid 10 again this time, I could have had it for 9. Of course with that you can’t declare your bid placement with your bid (or you could just get the change in $ to the bank) because you don’t know exactly what it will be yet.

I am speaking of averages here…

And it is not the INF that creates the extra Russian deaths, it is the FIG and ARM living longer with the extra fodder AND the extra single roll of a 2 which gives you a 33% chance of an extra death in and of itself.

@JLord:

I thought the generally accepted rules of bidding were that you couldn’t place more than one unit in the same territory?  Anyways, that is the rule we would follow.  And the thing is, if Allies put 12 IPC somehwere, the Axis will place their bid next and can presumably counter whatever the allies do.

Yeah, it’s also generally accepted that you don’t give a bid to the Allies.

I figured you were doing your own thing, you know?

To me I’m looking for gamebreaking changes in LL that would convince me that it doesn’t have any validity for analyzing overall strategies in ADS. I don’t really get stuck on very small details in very small battles in which we’re talking about efficiency in fractions of IPCs - which either side can take advantage of. I’m looking at the forest, not the trees.

I think it’s something to have to live with, but it’s still better to look at overall strategies than having every other game in ADS screwed over by some important battle going horribly wrong.

You want to replace the bidding system, by allowing an extra NC move before the game begin?

That sounds strange. If you want to eliminated the bidding system, just adjust the starting forces of the Axis, up to a point where the game becomes ‘even’.

My recommendation, to make the game even, would be to:

Add 2 extra inf, to be placed in UKR and +6 Starting IPC to Germany.

…or

Add 3 extra inf in UKR.

Germany would be ready to rock and roll with an extra 8 in Africa…  They would benefit far more than giving the 8 to the Japanese since there is very little to check Japan in the long run in Asia.  The Germans would not need to pull troops from Europe to successfully assault Egypt(closing the Suez-sealing off the Indian fleet), and they’d be able to drop reinforcements to prevent an American counter in US1 in Algeria.  The Germans can go after the Brit BB in the Med with the BB prtotecting the planes(The BB isn’t needed to protect the transport against the Destroyer in the Med when amphibbing Egypt because the amphib isn’t necessary).  The sub could be used to sink the tranny in Canada, hamstrining the Brits efforts in Norway in GB1.  They could move both fleets together in G2… without sacrificing Africa.  And take 4 IPCs off the Brits in G2 as well…  Plus the rest of Africa in G3(would be enough to offset what is lost to US in US2)…  Even if the Allies are aggressive in the first round, there is no reason why Germany would be collecting less than 39IPCs(as opposed to 37) in round1, 42 in round 2, and 44 in round 3.  This almost guarantees that Germany will hang around no less than 7 rounds(more than likely 8 or 9)…  Long enough for Japan to strike down Moscow.

Wilk

@trihero:

I dunno, I’ve been talking with a very good Revised player and he never will play the Axis unless he has a bid of 8 (1 inf in Libya 1 tank in Algeria).