October 17, 2017, 02:04:00 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Want a t-shirt? Check out our awesome Axis & Allies .org T-Shirt Store! Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Pages: « 1 2 3 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bid a carrier in z98  (Read 2061 times)
variance
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 8431


Gargantua's team


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2015, 12:03:42 pm »
0

Looking forward to testing this bid variance  grin

The possibility of 2 loaded UK carriers ending in SZ97 is great ... would give the UK a compelling reason to claim Greece too.

That's all I need to know.   Thanks  smiley

Logged
knp7765
A&A.org Battleship
*
******
Posts: 3050



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2015, 03:52:52 pm »
+2

This is ridiculous. An AIRCRAFT CARRIER as a bid!?! This is going too far.
While I have never agreed with bids and saw no need for them, I do understand the wish for some people who think the game is unbalanced in the Axis favor to try and achieve some balance by giving the Allies a bit of a boost.
Now it just seems to me like you are carrying it to a point where the Axis simply can not win. Italy would end up being a non-issue, as would any ideas of sealion, and the UK would be able to give a lot of help to Russia to keep them afloat. Meanwhile the US would simply send everything into the Pacific, trash Japan and then it would be everybody against Germany.

Another point which I have made before is putting the Allied bid in the Med with the Brits. Obviously the Axis power that would most directly be affected is Italy. After 2 or 3 rounds, the Italian navy will be gone and there will probably be no Italian presence in Africa either. About the only thing Italy will be able to do the rest of the game is buy infantry to place along the coast. Imagine how boring that will be if you have a separate Italy player.
It just strikes me as odd that when Europe 1940 first came out, it seemed like everyone was so happy that Italy was represented and could do something to actually contribute to the outcome of the game. Now it seems as though certain people just want to rub Italy out as soon as possible. Makes me wonder why to have Italy in the game at all.

One other thing. While it already seems to me like the 2nd edition setup all by itself has just about taken Sealion off the table as an Axis strategy, now so many of you keep wanting to give the UK extra bids to make them even stronger. Now it seems like the only German strategy has to be Barbarossa. What happened to the variety?
Logged
variance
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 8431


Gargantua's team


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2015, 04:04:16 pm »
0

Hey I'm not playing allies unless I get $16 and I want an aircraft carrier.   grin
Logged
Adam514
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*******
Posts: 7951



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2015, 05:42:42 pm »
0

There are better bids for 16 than an aircraft carrier in 98, it's really not game breaking.
Logged
variance
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 8431


Gargantua's team


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2015, 08:39:23 pm »
0

There are better bids for 16 than an aircraft carrier in 98, it's really not game breaking.

really?  like what?  I needs help
Logged
Adam514
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*******
Posts: 7951



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2015, 09:10:02 pm »
0

I'd always take sub in 98 and fig in scotland over the carrier.
Logged
knp7765
A&A.org Battleship
*
******
Posts: 3050



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2015, 11:32:59 pm »
0

I'd always take sub in 98 and fig in scotland over the carrier.
I personally still think that's too much but at least it's more reasonable than giving the Allies an extra carrier. Carriers have too many uses which make them overpowering, particularly when you are talking about a starting bid.

Also variance, I understood that most people considered an Allied bid of 8-12 sufficient. Why do you need so much more?
Logged
wittmann
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 16022


KIA 8th August 1944


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2015, 11:39:30 pm »
0

Morning Knp. I am struggling to win with 12 with the people here. Many are accepting 14+ as the norm now.
I will lose the game I am playing against a similar ranked player and I took 16 as the Allies.
Logged
knp7765
A&A.org Battleship
*
******
Posts: 3050



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2015, 12:35:24 am »
0

Morning Knp. I am struggling to win with 12 with the people here. Many are accepting 14+ as the norm now.
I will lose the game I am playing against a similar ranked player and I took 16 as the Allies.
Really? Hmmm. Maybe it has been too long since I have played Allies. I will admit that the majority of our games end up in Axis victory but we have had several Allied victories as well. We have never used a bid in any game for either side. Most of the Allied victories involve the US going heavy Pacific first and really pounding Japan. I don't think we have had an Allied win where the US went after Europe first unless it also involved an Axis screw up as well.
We haven't actually played Global in a while. I think I'm going to have to get together with my gaming buddies for a few games in the near future and just play it out with somewhat "basic" strategies, nothing really weird that might really tilt the game one way or the other. I think I also need to keep the same people playing the same countries each game (we usually switch around so no one has to play the same country every game).
We only use dice in our games (no low luck). Is that how your are playing wittmann? If I am running sort of "test" games, do you think I would be better trying low luck? I know that the randomness of dice can often throw the outcome of a game into question in spite of possibly good or bad strategies.
The people I play with vary somewhat in strategical prowess. If I let everyone change countries around, I don't think I would get a decent idea about whether the game is balanced or not due to differing playing styles.
I think if I can get 3 or 4 "regular" games played, I will have a better idea about the balance. I've always thought the game was balanced but with so many claiming it needs bids for the Allies, I am starting to wonder.
Logged
wittmann
Site Moderator
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 16022


KIA 8th August 1944


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2015, 01:09:25 am »
0

I did think like you, because I always played the Axis and my best friend is a better player, so I struggled. Here on the forum (League) players know how to best use Germany and I have since changed my opinion. Russia is too easily robbed of any income, while Germany grabs all its NOs and can then split between Russia and holding the West.
Japan, well, that is another matter, as you know. Leave it to grow at your peril.
I always bid Sub and UK Ground for Africa, but am now wondering if I need another placement. A Carrier is worth considering. I do like to keep Italy weak.
Always good to talk to you knp.
Logged
ShadowHAwk
A&A.org Battleship
******
Posts: 3071


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2015, 04:03:11 am »
0

Thing is the hypothetical 11 chinese inf would not be enough, that's how much the Axis have an advantage. In the high bid games I bid to kill tobruk with no tp, 97, fig in scotland and inf in NG. I play dice as well, but yes dice lowers the bid by about half what's necessary in low luck I would say. We stopped playing after those 30 games because Allies could not win short of an Axis blunder, and we've tried many different things as Allies.

You cannot win with a bid of 11 inf on yunnan round 1? Im really curious how japan thinks of attacking china in that situation. I already had people complain that putting 2 inf there for the allies makes it hard for japan let alone 11.

Im playing consistently against a friend of mine tabletop + dice and we both have a hard time winning as the axis without a bid. We even went as far as removing some of the NO's for the allies to make it fair( mongolia rule was taken out and Russia NO only worked in ME and europe not afrika ) and axis still had a verry hard time getting anything done.

The allies just have to make a credible threath against axis advances but need to know when to pull out, Time is in favor of the allies not the axis. That is why a bid in the med is so unbalancing the axis need to have the initiative in order to be able to win destroying the italian fleet with ease and without any risk of weakening the UK as a result is deadly for the axis.

Did anyone consider giving russia a bid to either prevent a G1 attack or to help slow down the axis? Because most people here agree that russia is too weak but everybody acts as if they are strong enough.
Logged
variance
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 8431


Gargantua's team


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2015, 04:54:36 am »
+1

To all the guys who say you don't need a bid, I think its a lot different playing online versus face to face.  Online players typically use an odds calculator before every little battle so things are very tight.  The consensus seems to be that a bid somewhere between $10-20 is needed.  The very best "E" ranked players strongly prefer to play axis and bids are higher.  If there were no odds calculators being used and people were just going on their gut from experience or crude low luck estimates in their heads, the need for an allied bid would vanish amid that variability.  I don't mean this to say face to face players are sloppy players; its a lot harder to think and decide on the spot without a computer to guide you.  But its just  not humanly possible to tune every battle (including battles planned several rounds ahead) with that kind of precision in a face to face game.  There is too much variability for a few units here or there to matter much, but in online games every unit on the board has a job to do every turn and for the next several turns.  The only margin for error comes from dice, and under those conditions a bid is definitely needed to even it up.  The setup for second edition came out of a ton of testing in the alpha era and its very well balanced, but only when played face to face without odds calculators.

The scotland fighter + 98 sub is a strong placement for a $16 bid, but although I haven't tried it yet I am thinking the carrier thing will more strongly shift things in allied favour (and if an expert like wheatbeer is willing to try it, then I know its a good idea).

As for Russian builds, I have seen people build a bunch of infantry.  Its not as effective as things for UK in the med because it doesn't take the initiative away from the axis in the early rounds.  G1 attacks are super fun and if done correctly they can bring down the USSR in a hurry but you probably never get Cairo if you go that route.

As for piling a bunch of infantry in Yunnan, Cow pointed out long ago that would be a game breaker so it is usually agreed that you can only place 1 unit per territory or sea zone that you already occupy.   
Logged
ShadowHAwk
A&A.org Battleship
******
Posts: 3071


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2015, 08:24:45 am »
+1

To all the guys who say you don't need a bid, I think its a lot different playing online versus face to face.  Online players typically use an odds calculator before every little battle so things are very tight.  The consensus seems to be that a bid somewhere between $10-20 is needed.  The very best "E" ranked players strongly prefer to play axis and bids are higher.  If there were no odds calculators being used and people were just going on their gut from experience or crude low luck estimates in their heads, the need for an allied bid would vanish amid that variability.  I don't mean this to say face to face players are sloppy players; its a lot harder to think and decide on the spot without a computer to guide you.  But its just  not humanly possible to tune every battle (including battles planned several rounds ahead) with that kind of precision in a face to face game.  There is too much variability for a few units here or there to matter much, but in online games every unit on the board has a job to do every turn and for the next several turns.  The only margin for error comes from dice, and under those conditions a bid is definitely needed to even it up.  The setup for second edition came out of a ton of testing in the alpha era and its very well balanced, but only when played face to face without odds calculators.

The scotland fighter + 98 sub is a strong placement for a $16 bid, but although I haven't tried it yet I am thinking the carrier thing will more strongly shift things in allied favour (and if an expert like wheatbeer is willing to try it, then I know its a good idea).

As for Russian builds, I have seen people build a bunch of infantry.  Its not as effective as things for UK in the med because it doesn't take the initiative away from the axis in the early rounds.  G1 attacks are super fun and if done correctly they can bring down the USSR in a hurry but you probably never get Cairo if you go that route.

As for piling a bunch of infantry in Yunnan, Cow pointed out long ago that would be a game breaker so it is usually agreed that you can only place 1 unit per territory or sea zone that you already occupy.   

Well that is the problem, you go bidding with an assumption and because of that you make rules to prevent it.
If nobody gives me a restriction for my bid im asuming i can place it anywhere and split it any way i want, i cant read minds via the internet so i dont know what my opponent is thinking unless he tells me.
A sub in the med is also game breaking for the axis, even more game breaking then 2 inf in yunnan.
Basicaly a bid that can be used by the allies to hurt the axis first round without giving the axis any way to prevent said attack will be game breaking. Putting a sub in the med where italy cannot defend against it is a lot different then putting 2 destroyers with the Brittisch BB in the pacific, same bid but at least japan can chose to do something or not.


And the post was a bid of 11 chinese inf, without any additional restrictions would still do nothing, well without any restrictions 11 inf on yunnan will be a good spot.
He claims it will not slow his japan play down at all. Personaly i think it will but maby he knows something i dont.

But basicaly everybody is telling how powerfull japan is and that it is unfair, yet everybody acts as if japan is a walkover and italy is the worst axis player to fight against. Why not try to find a bid that helps against japan of helps russia defend iso getting a bid that just completely breaks the game because it is easier?


Logged
Adam514
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*******
Posts: 7951



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2015, 11:10:07 am »
0

Then the bid would have to be higher if you put more restrictions on it, such as not impacting the first round. As for the 11 chinese inf, I was talking about the normal bid restrictions, but even if you put 11 more inf on yunnan I can pretty much garantee an Axis win in low luck.
Logged
Zhukov44
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 9157


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2015, 03:00:47 pm »
+1

Looking forward to testing this bid variance  grin

The possibility of 2 loaded UK carriers ending in SZ97 is great ... would give the UK a compelling reason to claim Greece too.

It's a strong bid.

Germany might respond by purchasing 3 fighters in order to increase its attack odds in case UK stacks in sz97 or sz 92.  However, though 3 figs are a good investment, they do not bring Germany closer to taking London or Moscow.  And UK can, if faced with 15 German aircraft, simply forego the 97 megastack.

This could play a role in pushing the "standard" bid down to 15, which is still a reasonable amount for Allies imho.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2015, 03:11:03 pm by Zhukov44 » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2017 Support Drive

Read about this support drive.
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Field Marchal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2015 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!