A Bid For Allies

generally speaking in a competitive game, the lowest i would take would be 6 ipcs
maybe 5
also, I would not take more than 8 as that would be too high

I will never let my opponent play allies with a bid.

If forced to play a bid game, I’d rather play allies at 0 bid, I feel it’s easier to win with them than with axis.

In all cases, for me, the game is balanced.

I regularly play competitive games without a bid for either side. If there is going to be a bid I will bid zero as I am already convinced the game is balanced and can be won by either side.

Personally, I don’t think that a free-placement bid is needed.  Egypt and Karelia are both balanced, but if free placement is allowed, then that is where any extra units will probably be placed.  If anything is needed, it may only be 1 or 2 Chinese infantry, or a slight setup change, such as, upgrade the US transport in sz56 to a cruiser.

The bid should be limited to chinese infs. The other theaters are well balanced, as Bardoly says

I guess at least 4-5 chinese infs, all to Yunnan

The game is totally balanced.

Only play style/strategies are unbalanced.

I would only allow bids in AA50 for newer/unfamiliar disadvantaged players, to make them more formiddable opponents. And to keep things fun and exciting, so they feel the desire to play again.

For China, I think it’s mostly it’s rules rather than number of initial units that makes them so bad. ( Except that fighter who should get to place where you want )

• Remove the unit limit reinforcement per territory if there is already units in it.
• Divide by 2 and not 3 for the number of reinforcement infantry.
• Place fighter where you want or at least not in range for Japan turn 1.

@Corbeau:

For China, I think it’s mostly it’s rules rather than number of initial units that makes them so bad. ( Except that fighter who should get to place where you want )

Yes and not. Of course, the rules gives China all disadvantages and Japan all the advantages. This would happen also with more units as you say (you can observe it in 1941 scenario or if you bid, say, 2 inf to Yunnan). But 1941 makes that trouble even worst than it is. Having only chinese 1 inf after a full attack of J1 is ridiculuos because China had a horde army, and of course Flying Tigers should be out of danger since you cannot rebuild them

So I think China problem is a combo of crappy rules and (a bit less but still very important) crappy setup

I thought it was 1 Chinese infantry for every 2 territory not 3?

@Corbeau:

For China, I think it’s mostly it’s rules rather than number of initial units that makes them so bad. ( Except that fighter who should get to place where you want )

• Remove the unit limit reinforcement per territory if there is already units in it.
• Divide by 2 and not 3 for the number of reinforcement infantry.
• Place fighter where you want or at least not in range for Japan turn 1.

What if we let America rebuild the Flying Tigers for an increased cost, and they would be deployed when China places their infantry? Somewhere in the 12-15 IPC range seems about right. That would certainly give China a chance to hold off the Japanese.

Would there be a limit as to one Flying Tiger at one time?

@Butcher:

What if we let America rebuild the Flying Tigers for an increased cost, and they would be deployed when China places their infantry? Somewhere in the 12-15 IPC range seems about right. That would certainly give China a chance to hold off the Japanese.

Yeah, there is a limit of one, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Either that, or if the U.S. can fly a fighter into a Chinese controlled territory, it comes under Chinese control when they place their units. Again, there is a limit of one Flying Tiger.

Or to keep it alive at the start, the Flying Tiger could start in Sikang.

Sort of like a Chinese-US lend & lease?  I like that idea.  It  would take some time but at least the Flying Tiger can be replaced.

@Butcher:

Yeah, there is a limit of one, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Either that, or if the U.S. can fly a fighter into a Chinese controlled territory, it comes under Chinese control when they place their units. Again, there is a limit of one Flying Tiger.

Or to keep it alive at the start, the Flying Tiger could start in Sikang.

I think it makes sense. The U.S. can provide support to China, but they have to actually get the fig there.

Maybe both options could be included. Pay 15 to have it placed with China’s new infantry, or pay 10 and have to move it there. Limit one Flying Tiger at a time.

If Japan kills China J1, as they should, USA’s figs will not arrive there at time to even land in China. And India will be soon another japanese puppet

China needs a total change of rules and setup if we want this game working

Never thought about that.  If there are no Chinese territory, no US-Chinese lend and lease.  No Flying Tiger.

@Funcioneta:

If Japan kills China J1, as they should, USA’s figs will not arrive there at time to even land in China. And India will be soon another japanese puppet

China needs a total change of rules and setup if we want this game working

@rockrobinoff:

i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?

Why didn’t I think of that?