Questions about bids and balance

[ghr2]

@Young:

Movement Phases

• Once combat and noncombat phases are declared over, units may not be moved.

As in you can’t take back a decision or if you forget something you are SoL?  I assume it is just like normal play just you are very strict.

[ghr2]

@knp7765:

We never play with bids in my group. Frankly, I think playing with bids is nonsense, like coddling to crybabies. “I will play the Allies, but only if I get X # of IPCs extra or more units to place at start”.
I think the starting setup is just fine the way it is for Axis or Allies. We have had wins on both sides with the starting setup just like it is.

I am honestly surprised that the axis don’t win a clear majority of your games.

[eddiem4145]

Only if they are playing with the victory city rule, which of course is the rule, but in my games we don’t use them. They are unrealistic and foolish, (im sorry if that offends).

Europe, where the main battle is, can be losing terrible, on the verge of defeat, and Japan without even taking Anzac can win the whole game. It forces the US to spend incredibly inefficiently in the Pacific to not risk that happening.

Outside of the, I have not played enough games, roughly 10 or so to fully understand the balance as old strategies have to be modified still.

But only 6 victory cities in the Pacific to win the whole game, that is foolish. Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and the Philippines are automatic. Calcutta is automatic too unless the US foolishly goes on the offensive in the Pacific and defensive in Europe, or worse, attempt to go on the offensive in both. That only leave Hawaii. Hawaii, an insignificant island that if taken over and kept for one turn, ends the game. Foolish. It again, forces the US to overspend to avoid even the risk.

It should be 8 victory cities, not 6. So yes that would include Sydney and Los Angeles. It would have to be that overwhelming to ignore what is happening in Europe.

[Young Grasshopper]

@ghr2:

@Young:

Movement Phases

• Once combat and noncombat phases are declared over, units may not be moved.

As in you can’t take back a decision or if you forget something you are SoL?  I assume it is just like normal play just you are very strict.

Yes… that’s right.

[knp7765]

@eddiem4145:

Only if they are playing with the victory city rule, which of course is the rule, but in my games we don’t use them. They are unrealistic and foolish, (im sorry if that offends).

Europe, where the main battle is, can be losing terrible, on the verge of defeat, and Japan without even taking Anzac can win the whole game. It forces the US to spend incredibly inefficiently in the Pacific to not risk that happening.

Outside of the, I have not played enough games, roughly 10 or so to fully understand the balance as old strategies have to be modified still.

But only 6 victory cities in the Pacific to win the whole game, that is foolish. Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and the Philippines are automatic. Calcutta is automatic too unless the US foolishly goes on the offensive in the Pacific and defensive in Europe, or worse, attempt to go on the offensive in both. That only leave Hawaii. Hawaii, an insignificant island that if taken over and kept for one turn, ends the game. Foolish. It again, forces the US to overspend to avoid even the risk.

It should be 8 victory cities, not 6. So yes that would include Sydney and Los Angeles. It would have to be that overwhelming to ignore what is happening in Europe.

I think using the victory cities is really the only way the Axis will get wins. If you played all out domination, I don’t think the Axis could sustain the drive and would in most games eventually get overwhelmed by the Allies.
As for the Pacific Theater, I don’t think it’s as easy as you make it seem. Yes, Japan starts with 2 VCs and 2 more are pretty much a given. Calcutta does require a dedicated effort though and if Japan commits too much to it, they can lose elsewhere. I have seen games where Japan got India, but it took so much effort that it cost them the war. Of course, that was with heavy US spending in the Pacific, which in my opinion, is usually the best way for the Allies to win. If the USSR and UK can fend off Germany/Italy well enough, the US should go heavy Pacific and try to take out or neutralize Japan as quickly as possible, then focus attention in the Atlantic/Europe.
If the US tries to split their forces, they won’t have enough in either theater to make a difference and if they go after Germany first, Japan can run hog-wild in the Pacific.
I think Sydney is just too hard to take for Japan being so far away from her factories. Hawaii is too close to the US and therefore too easy for the US to take back. As for San Francisco, if Japan is able to take and hold San Francisco, then the US is doing something really wrong.

[Young Grasshopper]

Could someone please list 7 or 8 popular ways bids are being used (what units and where). Thanks.

[ghr2]

Depending on the bid value, any combination of:

• Subs in 98 and maybe 91

• Chinese land units

• Ground around Egypt/Sudan/Alex

• Transport off South Africa

• Fig in gib or scotland

• If you allow it, anzac inf in NG

• Russian Bomber

Some may even say land units for russia, but I don’t see them being too useful.

[Young Grasshopper]

Thanks… that’s very helpfull.

[ghr2]

Want me to edit the post for reasons behind the bids?

[Young Grasshopper]

@ghr2:

Want me to edit the post for reasons behind the bids?

Not necessary, but thanks anyways.

[JDOW]

@knp7765:

We never play with bids in my group. Frankly, I think playing with bids is nonsense, like coddling to crybabies. “I will play the Allies, but only if I get X # of IPCs extra or more units to place at start”.
I think the starting setup is just fine the way it is for Axis or Allies. We have had wins on both sides with the starting setup just like it is.

I clearly disagree here when saying “playing with bids is nonsense per definition”. If in your group everybody thinks the game is perfectly balanced, fine.
However I think you’d agree that many people think there might be a slight imbalance plus some people prefer a particular side and thus bids are imo the perfect tool to avoid many clashes:

1. If people think the game is imbalanced they have a very fair and effective system to determine how much they think it is imbalanced and can exactly determine what they think makes the game balanced.

2. If both players think they can play one side better (they still can think the game is balanced but they simply think they cannot play one site perfectly), the bid gives the player an advantage who has to play with the powers he thinks he plays worse –> Otherwise you need to draw the sides which could lead to “I only lost because I had to play Allies/Axis”

So the bids are even a tool to determine not only to determine IF a game is balanced (this would also be shown be the win ratio of a single side with no bids) but also HOW imbalanced a game version is because the bids gives quantitative data.

On top of that comes that balanced y/n also depends on the overall skill level of the top players. It is very likely that the level of top players increases over the years after the release of a new version as their strategies get more sophisticated. One could think that today the Axis are still in favor because the average bid is 8-10 for the Allies or so.
However maybe today most players just don’t know how to play the Allies the best way. Maybe in 2 years people place bets to get Axis because Allied play became more sophisticated, who knows.

tl:dr
Bids are a great tool to quantitatively determine the current level of balancing of a game version  :-)

[eddiem4145]

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.