Are players using a bid in this version of the game? It is a great way to balance the game. If a player feels the axis is at a disadvantage then bid some extra units and if the other player bids lower give him the axis.
I disagree. I always disliked the whole “bid” system, I just could never think of a better way to do it. Larry has thought of a better way, the Alpha system which (presumably) will become the beta system followed by the actual set of rules.
Bidding puts the game in flux. It is very hard to determine if 10 IPC here, or 12 IPC there will throw the game out of balance the wrong way. And not all bids are equal. 12 IPC for artillery when used to attack round 1 is > 12 IPC for infantry to do the same thing. Likewise, 12 IPC for Armor on the front may change things differently than 12 IPC for a strategic bomber. What about 2 transports vs 2 infantry and 2 artillery?
It’s a great house rule, don’t get me wrong, and it can add dynamic to the game, but I don’t think it’s the proper way to balance a game “officially.” If the powers that be determine there is a certain “bid” that is required, they should just add whatever units or cash is required and make that standard. IMHO.
The problem with counting on Larry to create a ‘perfectly balanced’ ruleset is that feat may be impossible. Strategies develop over time. The global version is still in its infancy. Bids in second edition at first were in the 14 to 16 range but gradually increased to 23-24 over the years. If and when a ‘beta’ version is released strategies will be developed over the years that will throw off the balance. What better way to fix this than a bid? And if you do not like what or how the other player is bidding you can always bid lower. Some may be worried that the addition of an extra transport for example may throw off the Sealion odds…limit the bid then. In Anniversary edition an intriguing bid idea I thought was adding/subtracting Chinese infantry units in the territory that contained the Flying Tigers unit. So a bid of six would add two infantry there and a bid of negative three would take away an infantry there.
Kurt,
I agree with you, as bidding is the ultimate way of not only balancing a game, but balancing players. They used bidding in ladders anyway, and everyone seemed to accept it as fair.
A bid could be for $ to be used as pruchases bofore the game starts, and when the players conduct their turn, or for VCs.
In this game, a bid would need to have parameters, though, as extra cash for the axis in certain places at sea would just be bad. Maybe bid for cash, but it can only be ground units and only on areas where there are already ground units? Just a thought.
I did not mean to imply bidding was “unfair” only that I disliked it greatly. I much prefer changes to the opening set up than bids. It is something you can always plan for and account for, even if how they are used differs greatly.
Also, second edition was “balanced” at about 6 Infantry, 1 Armor added to Germany and stayed that way for years. If Larry had released rules that just gave you 6 infantry, 1 armor as standard, in fixed locations, no one would ever have needed to bid again. Same with revised, if the allies had just been given 10 IPC period, the game would have been balanced and kept that way without the need of a bid.
That’s only half of it. It also balances uneven players.
And bids can negate opening moves, giving more variety in play.
I like the 1999 Euro board extra cash at the beginning. Everybody spent it differently, that makes it a great game. I think that, that game was the one we started doing the multiple boards everybody had their chance to do their ultimate Germ, or Russia or U.K. or U.S.
We have 2 ALPHA+2 boards in our group, so it’s just a matter of time
Our rolls made it unbalanced for the Allies last week. Two weeks ago it was also unlucky for the Allies but the sides were different, 5 at the table each time.
There is a difference between 1 on 1 and 3 against 2, more players more opportunity
fun games include cashing in all your pieces and spending it all over again. Caveat: Any territory worth 2 IPC or more must have an infantry unit per IPC.
Are players using a bid in this version of the game? It is a great way to balance the game. If a player feels the axis is at a disadvantage then bid some extra units and if the other player bids lower give him the axis.
Bids is a good way for players to reach a feeling of fairness in their chance to win the game. As you said (in following post) for a laps of time, the bid might evoluate.
Thing is, without a form of league, what bids worth?
As for now, about over 1/4 of people feel it’s fair already.
So I look forward a league, to have multiple game and a fair sample. Without that, I think any assumptions don’t have a strong base. Why can’t we, for once with G40 have a good playtest time before changing rules?
There will be a tournament, Global 1940. I am waiting for a few things before opening enrollment.
1) Alpha 3
2) At least a month of play of Alpha 3, preferably 2 months
3) Decision to use Alpha 2 instead (to give people time to test Alpha 3)
4) Decisions on rules, etc.
But there will be a tournament with it.
Sorry if I just missed it… but is Alpha 3 is already out? Or just about to be? Where?
I thought all this Alpha 3 talking was speculative.
All I found is some new NO here : http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5573
At this point it is just a collection of ideas Larry is considering and has shared some of them with us. They are subject to change as he tests some of them himself, or through feed back from others.
Sorry if I just missed it… but is Alpha 3 is already out? Or just about to be? Where?
I thought all this Alpha 3 talking was speculative.All I found is some new NO here : http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5573
He announced that discussion on Alpha 2 is closed and that discussion on Alpha 3 requests is about to be closed. Alpha 3 is expected out immenently, perhaps next week, perhaps tomorrow. Whenver Larry has a few moments to spare.
There’s some new NOs, I think that’s pretty much it. The intent is really to get America to pay attention to Europe, at least a little bit. Things like reducing the number of VCs for Germany to win from 8 to 7, but requiring that Moscow be one of them should really drive home the point that America needs to send SOMETHING to Europe. Additional cash for Russia via SZ 125 and America transports is also on the table. He mentioned something a week ago about changing the SBR rules to make it more appealing as well, can’t wait to see what that is! I love bombing my opponent, going to love it more if it’s more attractive!!!
So there are some significant changes, but it’s not going to be HUGE. Not like allowing scrambling from all airbases huge, anyway.
Nice, I love NOs. I look forward to see it.
Upon reflection, I think the only way to restore balance to the Global game is to change the rules regarding the Japanese Russian border. As the axis, if your strategy is to win the Europe board, then Japans main goal becomes how to best affect the Europe board the fastest. That is resulting in a J1 attack against Russia and a new threat on Moscow that is unstoppable until it reaches the city.
If Japan is given the option of attacking Russia, I think they are going to take it. The only solution I can see is to put some restrictions on the DOW, perhaps make it after round 5 or 6, then either country could engage hostilities if they wanted? Or perhaps make it dependent on something occurring on the board. If China is wiped out Japan can attack Russia. I’m just spit-balling here.
I don’t like it, I prefer to keep the strategic options open, but this move is just too powerful against the Russians, you cannot defend adequately against any Japanese pressure when Germany is bearing down on you as Russia. In the stand alone Pacific game Russia is a nonfactor, and in the Europe board Japan is a nonfactor and in fact you receive additional troops!! That’s why we need a better rule for this border.
The problem is America, not Japan or Russia. We’re pretty well established on that on the forums Larry posts on, best I can tell from what I have read.
One other NO that is being bantered about is one for complete dominance of China. Eh. I don’t think even with that I would bother. What we need is a Philippines NO for Japan, maybe Philippines, Solomons and New Guinea.
@Cmdr:
The problem is America, not Japan or Russia. We’re pretty well established on that on the forums Larry posts on, best I can tell from what I have read.
One other NO that is being bantered about is one for complete dominance of China. Eh. I don’t think even with that I would bother. What we need is a Philippines NO for Japan, maybe Philippines, Solomons and New Guinea.
I don’t know about that. I think the problem more is that when the US goes strong in the Pacific, Germany and Italy still can’t win the game the large majority of the time. All it takes for the European Axis to fail is for Moscow to hold or UK to control Egypt or France. These are not hard objectives to achieve while the US mops up Japan. Any solution that tips the power to Germany and Italy when the US stays out of Europe is going to be better than what we have.
I don’t know about that. I think the problem more is that when the US goes strong in the Pacific, Germany and Italy still can’t win the game the large majority of the time. All it takes for the European Axis to fail is for Moscow to hold or UK to control Egypt or France. These are not hard objectives to achieve while the US mops up Japan. Any solution that tips the power to Germany and Italy when the US stays out of Europe is going to be better than what we have.
Germany will take Russia and England if USA stays out of the European board, baring bad dice.
The problem is that they rarely can do it fast enough when the USA is dumping near 100% into one side of the board until the enemy there is contained. And you do not “fix” the game by making it faster.
Therefore - the issue is USA being able to go effectively 2 countries (US Pac/US Eur) into one side with no real penalty.
Germany will take Russia and England if USA stays out of the European board, baring bad dice.
The problem is that they rarely can do it fast enough when the USA is dumping near 100% into one side of the board until the enemy there is contained. And you do not “fix” the game by making it faster.
Therefore - the issue is USA being able to go effectively 2 countries (US Pac/US Eur) into one side with no real penalty.
You aren’t showing that the US alone is the problem or that altering it is the only solution. The US should be able to tip the scales either way it goes. However, if it goes all out on one side, that should let the Axis on the other side win. And that does happen now if the US goes 100% Europe. It does not happen when the US goes 100% Pacific. That’s the problem. Strengthen Italy, weaken Russia, whatever as long as lack of US intervention allows Axis Europe to win.
Germany will take Russia and England if USA stays out of the European board, baring bad dice.
The problem is that they rarely can do it fast enough when the USA is dumping near 100% into one side of the board until the enemy there is contained. And you do not “fix” the game by making it faster.
Therefore - the issue is USA being able to go effectively 2 countries (US Pac/US Eur) into one side with no real penalty.You aren’t showing that the US alone is the problem or that altering it is the only solution. The US should be able to tip the scales either way it goes. However, if it goes all out on one side, that should let the Axis on the other side win. And that does happen now if the US goes 100% Europe. It does not happen when the US goes 100% Pacific. That’s the problem. Strengthen Italy, weaken Russia, whatever as long as lack of US intervention allows Axis Europe to win.
If you weaken Russia or strengthen Italy, you’re removing the Sealion strategy because then killing off Russia will be too easy. That would make the game shorter, and remove strategies which IMO will harm the overall replayablilty of the game.
I’d much rather encourage the US to have to spend time and resources on both sides of the board instead by tweaking what appears to be the problem, rather than trying to fix the symptom.
And the problem is that 2 USA nations can go into one side of the board without much penalty.
You aren’t showing that the US alone is the problem or that altering it is the only solution. The US should be able to tip the scales either way it goes. However, if it goes all out on one side, that should let the Axis on the other side win. And that does happen now if the US goes 100% Europe. It does not happen when the US goes 100% Pacific. That’s the problem. Strengthen Italy, weaken Russia, whatever as long as lack of US intervention allows Axis Europe to win.
Agreed. If with the absence of the US in Europe, the Axis still can’t take Russia, then making the US spend $ there will only make it that much worse.
