• Sponsor

    How often is 6 IPCs of an Allied bid used to place a UK submarine in sea zone 98?

    I’m asking because we don’t use the bid system in our table top games, so I’d like to house rule a change to the setup in which a UK sub would start in sea zone 98, to at least play games close to what online gamers are playing.


  • Always with me. If I play, the Sub (or six bid) is the minimum requirement for me to play the  Allies.

  • Sponsor

    @wittmann:

    Always with me. If I play, the Sub (or six bid) is the minimum requirement for me to play the  Allies.

    I’m assuming the Italian fleet in Taranto doesn’t stand a chance with the added sub… right?


  • The attack can still fail, if he scrambles 3 planes and you get unlucky. But I suppose, it is a 75%+ certainty.


  • In a bid game, my first 6 IPCs are always a sub in SZ98. Smooths over Taranto, and if Germany doesn’t land a plane in S. Italy, you can also leave the CV out of the attack and save it for later (first casualty has to be the fighter from UK in this case).

    You might be met with some resistance by your group since the change applies immediately to opening battles, especially since it really only weakens Italy, the power you previously said was the least desired in your games.

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    That sub in z98 should be part of the standard setup.

  • '14 Customizer

    @ColonelCarter:

    In a bid game, my first 6 IPCs are always a sub in SZ98. Smooths over Taranto, and if Germany doesn’t land a plane in S. Italy, you can also leave the CV out of the attack and save it for later (first casualty has to be the fighter from UK in this case).

    You might be met with some resistance by your group since the change applies immediately to opening battles, especially since it really only weakens Italy, the power you previously said was the least desired in your games.

    I’m not sure I’m following you here… Are saying the first casualty has to be the fighter from London or Scotland?  Neither of those fighters can reach unless you send the CV.


  • They both can. You only have to prove you have a landing space. That would be the Carrier.
    But it only need move, if your Ft(s) survives.


  • I think it depends on how much the allies bid and where the bid went.

    I am currently experimenting with an extra FTR in Malta instead of this particular sub in #98.
    It helps with ‘Taranto’ and after this, can be staged in either Gibraltar and/or Egypt to help defend there. So, instead of the usual SUB in #98 and a MECH/ART in Alex, the allies can try this 1 extra FTR in Malta because it’s a better defender than the usual land unit and has more flexibility in choosing where to defend.
    Furthermore it has a better flexibility in choosing where to attack later in the game (sub can only be useful at sea, while the FTR attacks both sea and land targets).

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    @ItIsILeClerc:

    I think it depends on how much the allies bid and where the bid went.

    I am currently experimenting with an extra FTR in Malta instead of this particular sub in #98.
    It helps with ‘Taranto’ and after this, can be staged in either Gibraltar and/or Egypt to help defend there. So, instead of the usual SUB in #98 and a MECH/ART in Alex, the allies can try this 1 extra FTR in Malta because it’s a better defender than the usual land unit and has more flexibility in choosing where to defend.
    Furthermore it has a better flexibility in choosing where to attack later in the game (sub can only be useful at sea, while the FTR attacks both sea and land targets).

    or bomber in Gibraltar


  • @ShadowHAwk:

    Well a bid in the med just makes the game predictable.

    Egypt will be hard to invade by italy because they dont have a fleet.
    No egypt = no win in europe so it is almost asured that japan must win the game for the axis.

    It is the best bid for the allies as italy cannot defend against it and you basicaly destroy it as a power before it even gets a turn and has the biggest impact on the game. It also is the most destabalizing bid in the game and if you put it in as the standard setup nobody will ever want to play italy even france has more to do then italy.

    Egypt is still viable for the axis, even after a turn 1 italian fleet squash.

  • '14 Customizer

    Thanks Wittmann, I was unaware of that.

  • '16 '15 '10

    It’s a very good bid placement.  But I believe subs in 110 and 111 are just as good.

  • Customizer

    Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
    While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
    So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
    This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
    Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
    Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
    If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
    If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

  • '15

    @knp7765:

    Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
    While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
    So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
    This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
    Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
    Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
    If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
    If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

    I don’t want to hijack the thread but I agree with all of this, especially the bold part.  The last three full games I’ve played were all clean allied victories with no bids and experienced players on all both sides.

    But to stay on topic I agree that if you want to play bid I don’t see why stacking the deck against Italy is the way to go.  I’d be tempted to take an extra fighter in Scotland for the extra scrambler

  • '14 Customizer

    @knp7765:

    Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
    While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
    So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
    This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
    Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
    Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
    If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
    If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

    I agree 100% and even when I’m playing the allies. You don’t need the sub to wipe out the navy. I think all bids should just be added to starting income and purchased on their first turn.  You might need to send both planes from England but you should have extra bid money to replace the extra fighter used from London.


  • My views on the whole sub and bid is.
    Simple the allies can get a bid …

    Aslong as it can not be used agents the axis on the first round…

    So No sub for 98 but… 1infantry and 1 aa for Gibraltar
    An Air field in Canada
    Even an Infantry in new guinie

    All these are fine and suitable bids for the allies and don’t conflict with the axis on round one
    There is no need to give the allies anything extra to use on either Italy or Germany since everything is attainable its up to the player on how smart he has to play to execute what ever his corse of action is.


  • @Nippon-koku:

    @knp7765:

    Frankly, I think you are all wrong on this.
    While I have let it be known I am basically against bids, that’s a topic for another day.
    So say you think the Allies do need a bid to balance the game out or whatever. Okay, but make it somewhere other than the Med.
    This topic is asking about placing a UK sub in SZ 98, and I believe I saw someone suggest a UK fighter on Malta or even a UK bomber on Gibraltar. All of those significantly help out the UK in the Med against the one Axis power that you don’t need to balance against: Italy.
    Granted, Germany and Japan may be overpowered, but Italy is really the weak spot. They start out with a fairly impressive navy and army, and they outnumber the Brits to some extent. But it is not a great difference between the Italians and the Brits, plus the Brits make a whole lot more than Italy does.
    Even without any bids for the UK, if they do Taranto and SZ 96, Italy loses half their navy right off the bat and they make so little, even if Germany gives them S France, Yugoslavia and Greece, it will take them a long time to rebuild enough navy to get troops over to Africa or the Middle East.
    If Germany doesn’t do a Sealion, then Italy will never be able to because the UK will just overwhelm them. Poor Italy will be reduced to just buying infantry to protect the coast while Germany romps around in Russia.
    If you think that you HAVE to have a bid for the Allies or the UK in particular, put it somewhere else. I like Young Grasshopper’s idea of a fighter in Ontario. Italy has a hard enough time getting any sort of start, you don’t need to make it even harder by beefing up the UK.

    I don’t want to hijack the thread but I agree with all of this, especially the bold part.  The last three full games I’ve played were all clean allied victories with no bids and experienced players on all both sides.Â

    But to stay on topic I agree that if you want to play bid I don’t see why stacking the deck against Italy is the way to go.  I’d be tempted to take an extra fighter in Scotland for the extra scrambler

    Care to elaborate on those 3 clean allied wins in a row, Nippon? Maybe a save-file or a link to an online played game? If the allies won focussing on Germany and Italy first, the axis surely must have made a mistake or got diced. If the allies won going after Japan First, I can understand.
    Sadly enough, I must admit I have not played the game since I recognized this narrow street the allies are forced to walk through but I still have small hopes some1 can show a ‘Europe First’ is still viable for the allies. If nothing else, even a ‘Japan First’ playthrough would be of certain value (to me), since I’ve not been doing this a lot (I don’t like it).

    As for why people place bids against Italy:
    I think ghr said it before, but Egypt is not safe from the axis if playing OOB. If the axis seriously try to get it while also making sure they do not loose the ability to birdcage Russia, the UK will loose it. If the UK goes all-in on the defense of Africa this is only briefly. So, it is NOT an axis all-in against Caïro but the allies have to go very near all-in to defend it anyway, to prevent disaster spreading out from a lost Egypt. Placing a few more bid units in North Africa helps to establish an early allied superiority in Africa AND the ability to produce elsewhere sooner.
    On a sidenote: I consider loosing Egypt for a prolonged number of turns (say 4 or more turns), absolutely game-loosing for the allies. That is why I would place bids there, to make sure the loss of Egypt is not happening or at worst only temporarily.

    Last but not least, from discussions with my ‘game brothers’ I really think the allies cannot win without a bid. Again, going ‘GIF’ that is. Maybe they can do it without a bid by going ‘JF’ but I have too little experience with that to say anything with certainty about it. Again, because I simply don’t like ‘JF’. Even more so when I have the feeling the allies forced to do so.


  • We don’t bid and we’re about 50/50 split win wise.  Seems pretty balanced to us.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    I think a bid to income is better for overall game balance than a bid for preplacement units. In my experience if you award a higher amount of extra cash to the underdog but restrict it to normal purchasing, you take the emphasis off the first round battles which seems to work well for both sides being more satisfied.

    Or just go with some set bid that doesn’t bust the opening round. In most of the older boards you could usually fix things by giving Russia an extra fighter at Moscow. That was my preference in AA50, even if there were “better bids” for Allies, that one usually was enough to keep players happy without being overly distorting.

    Another way is to just give the underdog side a +15 ipc bonus to starting income, and let them choose how to split it up between the individual powers on their team.

    The reason I don’t like preplacement bids for units is because players invariably use them in the breaker battles, to swing the TUV where it can have the most impact. And for whatever reason that always seems to mean a busted Med/Egypt game in every version of A&A ever haha!

    If you keep it to income only then you don’t have to muddle through those, and it also gives a better sense of what is really necessary for ipcs to bid a balanced game. Usually this amount is higher than but most boards can be brought into balance somewhere in the 15-20 ipcs range on income.

    But yeah, otherwise UK sub, since it gives you a much better chance on a heavy TUV swing, and UK is the first allied power that can make an attack.

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 6
  • 26
  • 2
  • 4
  • 3
  • 7
  • 2
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts