1941 with NOs, what is your bid? (experienced players only)

[Funcioneta]

The weak point of Egypt bid is still lefts z2 undefended. Since z2 is the second best option after Egypt for a german attack, and only marginally worst, one or two inf there are not going to aid much. This is even worst in case of tech (in case of a lucky tech, z2 could be a no brainer)

Now, if we are talking about 3 inf to Egypt, that’s another issue. Then is possible a Egypt IC can hold, thus paliating a bit the lack of India IC. That could aid. It leaves China, Australia and z2 unresolved but at least Africa is secure

I’d still prefer a bid limited to Asia but well …

[DarthMaximus]

@Funcioneta:

The weak point of Egypt bid is still lefts z2 undefended. Since z2 is the second best option after Egypt for a german attack, and only marginally worst, one or two inf there are not going to aid much. This is even worst in case of tech (in case of a lucky tech, z2 could be a no brainer)

You might leave Sz 2 undefended, but you are saving a ton of IPCs in Afr, and you get the UK NO for sure on UK 1.
Yes it hurts losing the BB, but if you can slow the Axis expansion, I think it is a tradeoff work making.

[Funcioneta]

My point is: yes, Egypt bid aids (for the reasons you say), but not enough

[Corbeau Blanc]

You need a no bid option as well as axis bid options.

Personnally I find that axis are weaker than allies.

[Battlingmaxo]

@a44bigdog:

Battlingmaxo if you haven’t figured it out now, all us people that play here at AA.org are a bunch of stupid newbs and the truly elite players play at TripleA  :roll:

Since I’m not really a noob and I’m reasonalbly intelligent I think I’ll take my “lucky dice” to Vegas.

[Zhukov44]

@Funcioneta:

The weak point of Egypt bid is still lefts z2 undefended. Since z2 is the second best option after Egypt for a german attack, and only marginally worst, one or two inf there are not going to aid much. This is even worst in case of tech (in case of a lucky tech, z2 could be a no brainer)

Now, if we are talking about 3 inf to Egypt, that’s another issue. Then is possible a Egypt IC can hold, thus paliating a bit the lack of India IC. That could aid. It leaves China, Australia and z2 unresolved but at least Africa is secure

I’d still prefer a bid limited to Asia but well …

UK ICs in 41 don’t seem to succeed very often.  Maybe Norway if UK has lots of extra cash.  Or France if it can be held.

Getting back to Egy bids…the problem with just one inf is Germany might still decide to attack and is still at 40% and could catch some luck.  This combined with aggressive Japanese tactics and things can get bad for the colonial troops.  Not to say attacking Egy G1 against a bid unit is a good play…but it’s frustrating if I’m Allies and Axis takes the risk and wins.

Re. SZ2, the only way you could cover both Egy and 2 would be an 11 bid.  But there are still plenty of targets on G1 (Karelia, SZ8, SZ12)…  If I got an 11 bid I’d consider an alternative placement.

Btw I voted 9, but 10-11 are pretty reasonable numbers.  8 is the price I’m seeing the most.

[Bigtiti]

victory cities

[Funcioneta]

@Zhukov44:

Re. SZ2, the only way you could cover both Egy and 2 would be an 11 bid.  But there are still plenty of targets on G1 (Karelia, SZ8, SZ12)…  If I got an 11 bid I’d consider an alternative placement.

You say dd to z8, inf to egy in case of 11 bid? That’s interesting, and it prevents a double on z9 and z2. That one might work

I think z12 is a must for axis or italian navy is going to die UK1, anyway even one dd to z12 will allow germans kill that fleet and maybe preventing an attack over Egypt or z2. I like that dd+inf bid, with time we’ll know if is the proper. I think I prefer the dd to z8, at least you have canadian trannie secured and z2 is too risky with just fig+bomb. The only problem I see with this bid is maybe ignoring Japan could get too attractive for some, and that’s a big problem, I don’t want to revert to Revised KGFfanmania

I don’t like attack on Karelia, it can get cathastrophic easily

[Zhukov44]

I play low luck alot, and Karelia without a bid unit is too much of a risk G1 in ll.

Hence if I get 3 bid units, I’m more inclined to give 2 to Russia and 1 to Egypt than any other bid strategy.  As you note, the UK naval bid is tricky in that Germany can choose other targets like 12 and 9…and they might also decide to go for the SZ2 anyway with both subs and both planes.

To those who don’t believe a bid is necessary, on the TripleA live server there are plenty of experienced gamers who would be happy to school you.  There is no one on TripleA who regularly plays without a bid…the closest thing that comes to mind is Robin who will take games with just Dard closed as the bid, but I’m not sure he has a great success rate against experts with this.

[Funcioneta]

LL gives even more advantage to axis due starting attacks will be an almost secure victory if done right. The side with an advantage gets more advantage from the scripted game LL house rule leads. That opens Karelia road of course

Maybe you are saving Karelia but z2 is still lost with that bid

Since I never play LL unless totally desperate for a game, bidding dudes to USSR is useless for me

[chunksoul]

just a heads up

in the final of the daak tourney

the bid was won with 8$

which means dutchmanD is playing the axis vs 2 inf in egypt and 2$ for russia

I personally bid 5 as i wasn’t willing to give a good allies player 2 inf in egypt.

However i am still not confident i am winning with the 2 inf in egypt and the 2$ for russia

but honestly i think it depends alot on how the bidding is done

in DAAK i got to choose units anywhere.

your bidding is different.

However under the daak rules i think a bid between 5-9 is probably correct

i also had thoughts that with 2 inf in egypt i can possibly build a factory in egypt turn 1

i think 9 might be too much

and 5 might be too little

[bongaroo]

Jeez do I get tired of hearing how “badass” these TripleA players are.  I play on there and don’t really think the level of gameplay is any better.

All the LL games get annoying, its too scripted.

I’m going to try the 11 bid with a DD in SZ2 and an INF in Egy, I like the possiblities it opens up.

[axis_roll]

@bongaroo:

Jeez do I get tired of hearing how “badass” these TripleA players are.  I play on there and don’t really think the level of gameplay is any better.

what we need is a challenge!
DAAK vs A&A.org

[Khobai]

All the LL games get annoying, its too scripted.

Thats the WHOLE point of LL. It makes the game more like Chess.

The only problem with LL is that it heavily favors Axis. So in LL games I feel Allies deserve a much higher bid (9-11). Bid 10 seems to be increasingly more common on TripleA as it becomes more and more apparent the advantage Axis has.

[Funcioneta]

Bids will go greater with the time as axis strats improve and people forget old topics as axis needing haste and such

At some point we’ll need limit the bids to Asia if we want a balanced game without KGF fanmania

[Zhukov44]

@Khobai:

All the LL games get annoying, its too scripted.

The only problem with LL is that it heavily favors Axis. So in LL games I feel Allies deserve a much higher bid (9-11). Bid 10 seems to be increasingly more common on TripleA as it becomes more and more apparent the advantage Axis has.

After testing this some I agree with this (Func and Yoshi have pointed it out as well).  LL favors Axis and the bid in that setting will need to be 10-11.  The question, then, is what is the bid in dice?  I’ll still insist on a minimum of 7-8.

At some point we’ll need limit the bids to Asia if we want a balanced game without KGF fanmania

Veqyrn and I are testing a mod where China gets to play during the Soviet turn…hopefully this will be a more balanced game.

[Tistel]

I have played arond 100 games and observed 50 all irl.

I do not play LL games because dices is a part of the game. Me and my firends a talking a little about insted of bidding with IPC from start bid with a number of rerolls in favor of the Allies. If you bid 3 rerolls you are allowed to rewoll three of your own rolls in the game. To force the Axis to reroll it costs you 2 of your own rerolls.

I am no fan of IPC-bidding because there is a risk moment and if you change the risk by adding new units in the start there is a new game. I would prefer adding IPC to the countrys “bankaccount”.

We have also been experimenting with China. Our basic houserule for China is that they get reinforcements based on the territory they control in the end of their turn insted of inte the beginning.

Veqyrn and I are testing a mod where China gets to play during the Soviet turn…hopefully this will be a more balanced game.

This is a something I most definitely will talk about with my friends. A very interesting change of turn order.

Depending on one players style of gaming and taking risks the IPC bidding or reroll bidding changes the game. Reroll of dices encourage risk taking, but if you ar out of rerolls then you have to change your strategy.

Have anyone else considered bidding for rerolls insted of IPC? (I will lock around in the forum or possiable answers.)

[cousin_joe]

Hi guys,

I’ve played a lot of straight up games (no bid) and Axis is clearly favoured
Personally though, I would like to see something other than your standard Egypt/Eastern Front bid placements as these do nothing to correct what I see as the MAJOR FLAW with A&A50.  Specifically, I’m tired of the old “Will Allies get to Berlin before Japan gets to Moscow?” playout.

If you guys really want to think out of the box, I’d suggest a house rule like the following…

Pre-placed UK IC
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada.  
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC.  Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)

-Now if you’re wanting to decide who plays who, you can simply bid for the starting cost of the IC (anywhere from 0-15).  If you felt you were a strong Allied player, you would be willing to pay more, whereas if you felt stronger with Axis, you would be willing to give/take the IC for less.

-The idea here is that instead of a very static and nonchallenging push game (Ger–>Rus, UK–>Ger, US–>Jap, Jap–>Rus) you actually get a very dynamic game with multiple fronts and strategic decisions (UK, US, and Jap must split resources more, Germany becomes the dominant Axis player rather than Japan)

-In one fell swoop, you automatically correct for game balance PLUS you make the game a LOT more fun to play :-)  Anyone whose played AAR: Enhanced wll know what I mean as we incorporated a similar rule to keep UK in Asia/Pacific.  The results were very successful as the game was a lot more enjoyable than regular Revised.

-The game also becomes a lot more competitive.  When you’re playing a simple push game, there is very little strategic decision making.  You just buy the units and move them to your target.  I’d say these games are about 80% dice rolls, 20% real strategy.  With a UK IC in Asia/Pacific, you increase the number of fronts and tough resource decisions, making the game more like 60% strategy, 40% dice.

-Anyways guys, that’s my take on the whole thing.  I really think we need to start thinking out of the box when it comes to this whole bidding thing.  Thanks  :-)

[Funcioneta]

You really need do something with China. Try using 1942 scenario deploy, but make the fig start at Chinghai, and use AAP40 rules for China, including Burma Road NO. It’s easy and clean. Delete the ACME wall also (Carthago delendam est)

But I agree with you, KGF games are push games with few really strat involved

[Zhukov44]

@cousin_joe:

-The idea here is that instead of a very static and nonchallenging push game (Ger–>Rus, UK–>Ger, US–>Jap, Jap–>Rus) you actually get a very dynamic game with multiple fronts and strategic decisions (UK, US, and Jap must split resources more, Germany becomes the dominant Axis player rather than Japan)

……

-The game also becomes a lot more competitive.  When you’re playing a simple push game, there is very little strategic decision making.  You just buy the units and move them to your target.  I’d say these games are about 80% dice rolls, 20% real strategy.  With a UK IC in Asia/Pacific, you increase the number of fronts and tough resource decisions, making the game more like 60% strategy, 40% dice.

I can sympathize with your desire for an AA50 scenario that plays out “globally”.  However your characterizations of the game as-is are inaccurate.  I suspect your opinion on KGF is colored by Revised gameplay.

Here are my conclusions on KGF in aa50 based on experience playing for and against it

1. it plays out differently every time due to all the variables and different nations involved.  There is nothing “static” about it–it’s quite dynamic and could be compared to KJF in Revised.
2. after many many many games, the optimal strategy is still in development and has not yet been mastered.  And of course, the optimal strategy is always relative to what is going on.  So, KGF is very “challenging”…both for Allies to execute it, and for Axis to defend against it.
   3)  If anything, in the type of ‘global’ game where each Ally attacks on a different vector (ie USA pac, uk france/africa, russia europe) there is LESS strategy involved because there is less team-work and virtually no 1-2 punches.  It would be more accurate to characterize this sort of game as a “push” game.

So yeah I can understand your desire to mod the game.  But there’s no need to mischaracterize it.