About bidding

@Funcioneta:

I think a unit bid of 12 (maybe a bit more) could go well for 1941, but it could easily go near to 30 with cash bids

So you lowered your estimate from $20 to $12? I don’t think I’ll find any players who would give me a 12 bid with allies, not even in LL.

Sorry for a stupid question, but english is not my mothertung. What do you all mean by “bidding”? Or have I missed something in the new rules? Oooops…

@hakan:

Sorry for a stupid question, but english is not my mothertung. What do you all mean by “bidding”? Or have I missed something in the new rules? Oooops…

Did you play revised?

What did you do to balance the game?

Darth, thanks for your first post above - some very interesting thoughts.  You raise some good reasons for why unit bids might be a helpful solution.  I think unit bids should remain a last resort however, only if more agreeable (less game changing) fixes can’t be found.

I agree whole-heartedly with your impression that Egypt G1 is important.  In fact, I think it is largely determinative of the game.  But I don’t think it’s so much about the assets that remain as a result (i.e. the british fighter, or the BB in sz2 etc.), but the income difference dictated by who gets early control of Africa.  The problem is that there are so few units in Africa, it is so far out of the way and it is worth so much.  A 20+ IPC swing rides on who controls (I’m talking relative income difference, not territory/cash value.  I.e. if both sides were on 100 income and then africa changed hands it would become 90/110).  And it’s not  worth seriously contesting africa after the opening becuase those assets are more needed and useful at the proximate fronts.  So whichever side ends G1 with armor(s) in Egypts looks good to win I’d say - as in previous editions, he/she who holds Africa wins the war.

If you’re with on this up to here, then neither a cash bid or a unit bid will be a terribly effective balancer.  You’ve highlighted well some deficiencies with the cash bid above.  The unit bid will result the same way - however it turns out, whoever gets the extra units in Egypt wins the war.

It’s clear there’s a dynamics problem here, not a balance problem (in fact I believe the rest of the board is extremely well balanced).  You can basically flip a coin (well, a biased 70/30 one for the axis…) on who starts the game with the advantage - i.e. wins in Egypt G1.  A cash bid of 20 or 30 to USA for example will still come down to the same to a coin flip (and if allies win egypt, the game will be close, if they lose it they will instead get trounced).

Solution
I think a more appropriate solution would be reducing the value of all those central african territories. I don’t think it improves the game that Africa is worth so much - it certainly doesn’t help game dynamics, and I’d welcome the views of people with good historical knowledge whether it is even accurate that it was so valuable income-wise during WWII.

For example, make all African territories worth zero except the three north african ones + Saf.  You’d then have to rebalance the UK’s income.  The value of Australia could be increased (perhaps splitting Australia into two territories with WA worth 1 and the east/south worth 3), which is both more realistic and has the added benefit of keeping the US interested in the pacific (and thus improving the dynamics of the game).

Darth, if you’d like to workshop these ideas (maybe try a game?) i’d be keen.  I think something along these lines would sort out what is nearly a masterfully designed game, but is just not quite right…

No, keep Africa as now. We don’t need a even stronger axis (UK gets most of her income from Africa after Japan eats all east of Persia)

Func, the idea would be UK would have the same income, but added elsewhere (and perhaps by removing that stupid NO about controlling japanese territories which makes no historical sense, and is virtually impossible in any normal/close game anyway).  The reason for reducing the value of africa is it seems disproportiantely valuable, and whether that benefit goes to Axis or Allies is decided in a coin flip on G1…

(Pero gracias por la respuesta - y haber leido - mi anterior consulta larga  :-))

¡Tu español es magnífico! De hecho, es mucho mejor que el que veo por foros españoles  :-)

The UK NO you say is not historicall (I agree with you), but one can get it sometimes, grabbing Caroline islands with USA

I think Africa should retain her value. The coin flip is a valid argument, but I think it’s better altering the setup. A Africa filled with zero IPCs territories would be ignored as we saw in small Pacific islands of Revised (Midway and such). Anyway, it’s not so easy grab Africa: axis face reinforcements from alg or saf (IC), and allies face the japanese indian fleet.

"Solution
I think a more appropriate solution would be reducing the value of all those central african territories. I don’t think it improves the game that Africa is worth so much - it certainly doesn’t help game dynamics, and I’d welcome the views of people with good historical knowledge whether it is even accurate that it was so valuable income-wise during WWII.

For example, make all African territories worth zero except the three north african ones + Saf.  You’d then have to rebalance the UK’s income.  The value of Australia could be increased (perhaps splitting Australia into two territories with WA worth 1 and the east/south worth 3), which is both more realistic and has the added benefit of keeping the US interested in the pacific (and thus improving the dynamics of the game)."

Most African territories are worth 1, so this is already fine. It still take 3-4 turns for a tank to blitz through Africa. Plus, the 2 men in South Africa usually just block the tank from ever getting SAF.
Maybe it’s me being Canadian, but Canada should be worth more. During WWII, we were already 10 millions or so, with a relatively good economy and war economy :/ If UK can keep some stable amount of IPC, maybe things would change.

But I personally believe that it will take more time before knowing what is wrong (if something is) with the game. And I agree that placing units as bids may not be a good idea, because it changes the board situation.

Robert

@Telamon:

For example, make all African territories worth zero except the three north african ones + Saf.  You’d then have to rebalance the UK’s income.

That could be an interesting custom mod, but it has nothing to with game balance.

It would not be AA50 either.

@Omega:

Maybe it’s me being Canadian, but Canada should be worth more. During WWII, we were already 10 millions or so, with a relatively good economy and war economy :/ If UK can keep some stable amount of IPC, maybe things would change.

Thanks for your thoughts Robert.  I agree with you that Canada should be worth more - and perhaps south africa and australia, if going down the route of this solution.

Most African territories are worth 1, so this is already fine. It still take 3-4 turns for a tank to blitz through Africa. Plus, the 2 men in South Africa usually just block the tank from ever getting SAF.

The issue for me is they all add up to so much and it makes the battle for Egypt in G1 have such a decisive influence on the outcome of the game.  When germany gets two tanks there (40% of games), they get 7 of the 13 income from Africa on their second turn and 10-11 from the next round on.  This is being added to germany’s pocket and denied from englands.  If the allies contest africa they’re spending their (now greatly limited) funds on low value territories and giving up the main theatres.  If they don’t, the axis will walk all over the allies.  Germany and Italy on ~65 income can hold out against the three allies far longer than, Russia on 25-33 can against pressure from all three axis.

You’re right that with one tank (20%), it will take germany longer to pillage africa and allied reinforcements can arrive in time to contest.  The game will then be pretty well balanced, IMHO.  When the attack fails (~40%), Germany doesn’t have enough income to hold off very long against british landings and can expect to get trounced in short order.

Now, I’ll return to the topic of this thread (bidding).  While opinions vary on game balance, I now feel comfortable enough to settle on my own view.  The game is ‘overall’ extremely well balanced - it’s just that so much rides on Egypt G1.  Bidding won’t fix this.  Unit bids will just decide who wins the africa advantage.  For cash bids, you won’t know who needs it until after the Egypt attack.  What about doing the Egypt attack before anything else and then cash bidding for sides!

(Obviously works only where the bomber does not attack egypt - but I’ll glady be allies against any axis who makes that decision)

I have read this thread and I have to chuckle as I think people have lost the purpose of the bid. People are concerned about how the placement of immediate units imbalances the game but who allowed that opponent to walk off with so much cash in the bid.

If I think I can win with the axis straight up (no bid) when why would I bid more than zero? The bid is like “name that tune” where you challange your opponent to beat you with less. I am reading bids of 12 or more and I think that is nuts (who allows someone to walk off with 12 IPCs? I wanna play you!)

As for the play testers, Larry Harris is far from perfect. I know far more complicated systems that let have huge amounts of play testers and even they let some things through.

Over all, I like the bid system for if you really want to play the axis…bid low!