Good topic Moses, +1.
I think unit bids have a yucky effect on the game - changing the set-up completely alters the dynamic of the game.
What I would prefer is bidding away an amount of cash - your opponent chooses how the pain is distributed among your teams. And here’s why…
One of the best inventions of AA50 is the effect of NOs, basically having more cash. It opens so many interesting strategic options. With more money you have the flexibility as russia to move away from [8 infantry, plonk. 8inf, plonk…], as US can fight wars in two theatres (with difficulty, but done well it’s powerful rather than suicide), Germany can think about having a fleet… etc. It also opens many interesting decisions when your cash exceeds your ability to place cheap units (i.e. inf), which happens frequently when any power does better than average. Do you place additional factories so as to pump out more cheapies closer to the frontline, or invest in more expensive hardware?
By bidding down your cash you’re making a painful choice - that initial buy is really important for each of Germany, Russia and UK (and to a lesser extent italians - not so much US/Japan). It doesn’t disrupt the innate game dynamics as much as placing units, which makes the initial combat decisions so different it could be another revision of the game.
An alternative would be bidding extra cash for the opponent, you choose how it’s distributed. This may even prove to be better as each bid increment has a much finer influence on the game (thus keeping the original flavour, and allowing the final optimum bid to rest at more precise point). It would be in keeping with my arguments in the third paragraph above, as well.
/Subotai - completely agree with you on the KISS principle.
//Not such a fan of closing the Dardanelles - the italians are marginalised quickly enough anyway against a strong allied player. I rarely find it attractive to send scarce italian resources to russia in any case, so it would have little effect in my games.