Is there a consensus about a bid?

Thanks for your reply. Makes perfect sense.

@Vidocq62:

Thank you for the answer.

Do you have to set a high limit on auctions ?

For a first couple games, I’d play with no bid at all. Have one (side/team/person) first play one side and then swap sides. That will help the players involved learn just how much bid they want to have in the future. Bids are more for when competitive players who know how to play the game sit down to rumble. If you just want to play a game one off, just have the experienced players play the Allies and the inexperienced play the Axis.

My 2 IPCs, anyways.

-Midnight_Reaper

Splitting this Colonial Outpost idea out into it’s own thread.

in order to determine sides, the players will bid for the lowest amount in IPCs they are willing to take the weaker side for. whoever bids the lowest amount (for allies, in the case of AA50) gets to place units up to the value of their bid and before the game begins.

a typical amount for AA50-41 is 5-8 IPCs, most often given to the Brits and placed in Egypt. on Triplea, there is a convention that limits the bid to no more than one unit per territory.

Well, you guys might be missing something here.  You do not need to agree that the game is imbalanced, or have a consensus on what bid is necessary to balance it, to have a consensus on what I am talking about.
Example: Person A may think the game is already balanced and that a bid is not necessary, Person B thinks an Allied bid of 6 ipcs is needed when you play with NOs, and Person C is nutty and thinks that 21 ipcs are needed for the allies with NOs.  But all of these three people may in fact agree that a bid of 2 infantry in europe would be equivalent to a bid of 2 naval warships off the coast of america.
Agreeing on what to do to balance the game is not a pre-requisite to agreeing on certain bids types being equivalent.

Or, to think about it in a different way, lets think of this as a Ratio.
I’m just going to throw this out there, but lets say you have a Bid of X.
If you use it on the “front line” in either Europe or Africa/MiddleEast, then all you get is X.
If you use it not on the front line in Europe/Africa/MiddleEast, or you use it on the front line in China, then you get X1.5
If you use it not on the front line in China, or you use it in the Atlantic on Navy, UK main island Air/Land, then you get X2
If you use it on Pacific navy, or American Continent Land/Air, then you get X*2.5.

Now, as you can see, if you think X should be zero, then they all end up as zero.  If you think X should be 6, then you could either get 2 europe/egypt inf, or 3 chinese inf, or a cruiser in the atlantic, or a DD + a sub in the pacific.  If you think X should be 10, etc, etc.

@zooooma:

I was never a big fan of the unit bid.  I posted years ago about bidding for NAs in revised.  Also I wanted an option to play minor victory, which I think also helps the Axis.  I used to like to play Classic with Restricted russia and Weapons Development Bonus.  If this doesn’t eliminate a bid it should at least reduce it.  I used to advocate for that option in the Axis & Allies Member’s Cluib (AAMC), but there wasn’t much interest.

Best of luck in your endeavors!

Alot of people played this way on the CD version (when those old gaming rooms were around).

@Flying:

I see no strategy evolving that includes fighting Japan with a large enough effort that simulates the real war. It will be KGIF. I do think KGIF can be defeated by Japan buying large quantities of bombers and using them to blast Russian ICs. This would give the Germans an opening to crush Russia.

Japan can make America fight.

I am beginning to wonder if the Heavy Bomber rule that has some people bent so out of shape is in there to compensate for the large boost that attaining National Objectives gives the Axis.  As a guess, it is going to be easier for the Axis to attain their objectives, and more productive to them than for the Allies to attain their objectives, which do not appear to give them anywhere the same boost.