• Hello everyone !
    This is my first post online and I’d like to start a discussion about what is your favorite bid. I used to think that Axis needed a bid to even things up, but I have been playing axis a bit more lately and I think this game could actually be even.
    What is your opinion everyone. Is the game already balanced as it is or does a 3-5 IPC bid (or more) is needed to convince you to take axis ?


  • I’ve been playing it since it got released without bid and that seems to be the opinion of the majority of players.

    The changes in rules (transports & subs) and the slightly different setup increase the effectiveness of Germany’s 1st round by allowing both SZ2 and Egypt to be attacked and captured. And they also restrain Allied landings on Africa on the first round. Usually G bids on Revised would be used on Libya or the Russian front or even the Atlantic, but with AA42 Germany has a stronger punch on both Africa and the sea, rather bidding the units against Russia, which is a welcome change from Revised.


  • I tend to agree. I’d like the opinion of other people too that say that axis or allies are well favorized.
    Thanks.

  • '16 '15 '10

    My impression is Axis have a narrow edge without a bid.  But I can see how some see it the other way, especially if they have a sophisticated Allied strategy.

    I think any unit bid is too much.  I can see cash bids of 1-5 to either side depending on who is perceived to have the advantage, as a way to fairly determine sides.  I wouldn’t agree to play Allies if Axis gets a bid unit or vice versa.


  • From the games I’ve played, the game seems balanced. And the potential anihilation of the British fleet on G1 combined with the fact that transports will not take any hits really slows the Allies progression. It means regrouping with the U.S. vessels (and lone R sub), and prevents from building ships off the coast of UK/Western.

    My preference is to play axis, so I usually let go for a 1-2IPC bid in favor of Allies. After that, I take 3 allied IPC and put one more INf in India or China.


  • @Zhukov44:

    My impression is Axis have a narrow edge without a bid.  But I can see how some see it the other way, especially if they have a sophisticated Allied strategy.

    I think any unit bid is too much.  I can see cash bids of 1-5 to either side depending on who is perceived to have the advantage, as a way to fairly determine sides.  I wouldn’t agree to play Allies if Axis gets a bid unit or vice versa.

    @coorran:

    My preference is to play axis, so I usually let go for a 1-2IPC bid in favor of Allies. After that, I take 3 allied IPC and put one more INf in India or China.

    Sometimes I also wonder about about the need for an Allied bid but with an increasing bid, with the higher bidder playing Axis and the other player receiving the winning amount. That should minimize the values involved, and yes, no unit bids (I’d place the 1 extra INF to Karelia and Russia’s odds for an attack on Norway just get better, which prevents the SZ2 attack).


  • Based on my modest experience i do not believe any bid is necessary. I think a better player would have higher chance to win with either side.

    And also as I do only play with dice, the outcomes of the first round differ so wildly that it makes for a much higher scale than any bid can cover.

    For instance if you play the norwegian attack R R1, if you fail, to kill the Germany’s fighter you are 10 ipcs down already compared to what was planned and than you would most likely lose your SZ2 UK fleet on G R1. which is another 20 IPCs in the Battleship there. So this is the 30 ipcs difference in only one single attack.

    You could analyze the standard German attacks R1 and you will see that the scale of possible outcomes grossly extends any possible bids.

    Anyone who plays AAA will simply have to live with the fact that luck is simply a part of the game.

  • '10

    I like to look at the dice rolls as representing the things we can’t control in war, as well as tactical decisions (since this is more of a strategic game). Weather, maybe poor officers, bad intelligence, as well as luck itself are all included in the dice.
    Other games factor in the weather, terrain, etc. when doing combat. In this game, the dice covers those things.


  • @Col.:

    I like to look at the dice rolls as representing the things we can’t control in war, as well as tactical decisions (since this is more of a strategic game). Weather, maybe poor officers, bad intelligence, as well as luck itself are all included in the dice.
    Other games factor in the weather, terrain, etc. when doing combat. In this game, the dice covers those things.

    Exactly. If larry harris meant the game to be played with low luck, he would design it that way. Saying that, I lost a game today round 2!!! because of russia attacking with 8 units of combined 19 A-punch 5 German units of combined 12 D-punch in west russia, killing none of those in the process. Would not you call it just a treason? In four rounds of rolls I have not got a hit!!!


  • @Granada:

    Based on my modest experience i do not believe any bid is necessary. I think a better player would have higher chance to win with either side.

    And also as I do only play with dice, the outcomes of the first round differ so wildly that it makes for a much higher scale than any bid can cover.

    While this is true to some extent, bid has more “IPC worth” than its actual IPC value. What I mean by this is that the 3 IPC bid that buys you an infantry that goes in Africa before the start of the game is worth a LOT more than 3 IPC. With bid you get to choose where a unit is placed, and that can turn the tide of an important early battle. In fact, there’s a reason Axis bid used to often (always?) be in Africa…

    Still, yes, 1st turn battles will shape the game.


  • In my view, I don’t think I will  ever play enough games to decide if I think there should be a bid.

    Results till now are balanced! really like this setup. I just wish it had the luxury of AAA50.
    Anyways, I concluded long time ago that bids are a bad habit of LLuckers … ( 😄 find out what that means) who seem to enjoy having scripted games.


  • Me and my friends have played at least a hundred games of 42 and we’ve recently come to the conclusion the Axis need a bid. Sure, GER can set themselves up for a slightly better round 1 by spreading themselves out a bit and sinking the UK navy and taking Egypt is possible but you still risk losing 3 planes to do all of it it. As the allies we throw our transports away on round 1, and land in Algeria regardless of what germany has done. US has no problem replacing their lost trans. UK does but that’s not really a problem either. All it does is change the order of what UK purchases. They will either buy planes early if they can’t buy navy or a bunch of land forces in preperation of when they have navy. You’re going to eventually have to spend at least 24 ipcs on four loaded trans anyway. No matter what Ger does, the allies can get rolling heavy by round 3. All they have to do is make sure GER is shut down in Africa. Of course all this can change if the war on the Russian front goes bad but it usually doesn’t in our games.

    We now give the axis (just germany - none for Japan as they don’t need it) a 9 IPC bid (usually and extra sub in Atl, 1 inf for UK or 1 inf for africa) and 3 national advantages - atlantic wall, jet fighters, and blitzkreig). We also give UK British Commandos but that’s it for the allies. We did this last week and the axis still lost.


  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    We now give the axis (just germany - none for Japan as they don’t need it) a 9 IPC bid (usually and extra sub in Atl, 1 inf for UK and 1 inf for africa) and 3 national advantages - atlantic wall, jet fighters, and blitzkreig). We also give UK British Commandos but that’s it for the allies. We did this last week and the axis still lost.

    Well you are changing a lot of rules. What would be your bid with no rules changes ?


  • With all the respect to your experience which is much broader than mine, with a well played Germany i still do not see allies “rolling by R3” esspecially if they sacrificed all their trannies R1 and axis surely loosing without a bid. A well played Japan can be effective force both in contesting Africa and stregthening Germany in Europe. I have won 2 games with Axis recently only in R7 or 8 respectively and i really do not think axis has to blitz or is lost… I would take both sides without a bid and if my opposition insists allies are the stronger side from set up, i really want to see it… I like playing allies more but that is because i believe it is more difficult to win with allies. Russia still is the weakest force on the table.


  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    We now give the axis (just germany - none for Japan as they don’t need it) a 9 IPC bid (usually and extra sub in Atl, 1 inf for UK and 1 inf for africa) and 3 national advantages - atlantic wall, jet fighters, and blitzkreig). We also give UK British Commandos but that’s it for the allies. We did this last week and the axis still lost.

    Either the Allies had some tremendous luck or the Axis didn’t play properly or both. 1 extra sub on the Atlantic and G can sink the entire UK Navy on the Atlantic and Mediterranean. And with Panzerblitz (I imagine that’s what you call Blitzkrieg) and Luftwaffe Dive Bombers (jet Fighters is a tech, not an NA) G can simply fortify W. Eur. and E. Eur and doesn’t have to use its planes to take Russian territories.


  • @Hobbes:

    @Col.Stauffenberg:

    We now give the axis (just germany - none for Japan as they don’t need it) a 9 IPC bid (usually and extra sub in Atl, 1 inf for UK and 1 inf for africa) and 3 national advantages - atlantic wall, jet fighters, and blitzkreig). We also give UK British Commandos but that’s it for the allies. We did this last week and the axis still lost.

    Either the Allies had some tremendous luck or the Axis didn’t play properly or both. 1 extra sub on the Atlantic and G can sink the entire UK Navy on the Atlantic and Mediterranean. And with Panzerblitz (I imagine that’s what you call Blitzkrieg) and Luftwaffe Dive Bombers (jet Fighters is a tech, not an NA) G can simply fortify W. Eur. and E. Eur and doesn’t have to use its planes to take Russian territories.

    In this particualy game Russia was rolling hot and Germany was rolling poor. Despite all these changes it came down to Germany losing too much infantry on the front. It was our second game of the night. We called the first one after Russia botched their round 1 attacks on West Russia and Ukraine (Russia got two hits total, while germany got 8 after one round of combat

    As for the UK Navy getting sunk, it’s not that big an advantage. They just change the order in which they buy things - the need inf, planes and trans. This is something I think we can all agree on.  Instead of buying navy round 1, they buy planes or they buy inf. Planes are really handy because you can send two (and the bomber)to Russia right away and they can possibly sink the german Med navy round 2.

    As for Russia being the weakest I disagree. I think it’s germany. They start with the most stuff, but they are usually facing a 3 on 1 beatdown as opposed to the 2 on 1 Russia faces (1 and a half when you consider Germany has to constantly be sending forces to defend). That’s why we’ve determined they still need a bid. Plus our Russia usually makes around 30-32 ipcs from round two to about round 6 or so.

    Also regarding the advantages we use the ones someone posted here ahwile ago -
    Blitzkerig - planes and tanks when paired attack at 4, Jet fighters- planes defend at 5, Atlantic wall - inf and art defend at 3 forthe first round of combat on west eur, germany and norway.

    I think if players think the axis even have a chance, the’re not playing the allies right. (I’m talking one on one games, with dice)


  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    As for the UK Navy getting sunk, it’s not that big an advantage. They just change the order in which they buy things - the need inf, planes and trans. This is something I think we can all agree on.

    I don’t. My first buy for the UK is 1 AC and 2 destroyers. I very rarely buy only planes for the UK on round 1. If you don’t buy navy then you’ll have to pull back that transport on SZ1 to join the US fleet. With that buy you can keep the UK navy on SZ2,3 or 8 (depending on how many German planes and subs survive round 1). The issue is always whether Germany buys a bomber on the 1st round. If it does and doesn’t lose planes/subs on round 1 then Germany can prevent the UK from building any navy on those seazones and prevent any UK landings until round 3.

    The longer the Allies take to start landing, the more time Germany has to build infantry to fortify Europe, especially W. Europe. If the Axis move their entire airforces to W. Eur then the Allies will need to invest a lot of money on navy,  quite slowing them down. It is quite common for me to have 12+ infantry on W. Europe and 10+ planes, which forces the Allies to either have 2 fleets capable of withstanding air attacks (and since Japan plays between the UK/US it can take advantage of any UK moves that leave US ships undefended, the same for Germany regarding the US).
    Plus, not being able to take W. Eur won’t help the UK’s income.

    But well, have a look at the Fortress Europe strategy on my signature. It is basically my blueprint for dealing with a KGF situation and so far it has worked well.

    Instead of buying navy round 1, they buy planes or they buy inf. Planes are really handy because you can send two (and the bomber)to Russia right away and they can possibly sink the german Med navy round 2.

    The starting UK airforce is usually enough to sink the Med fleet, unless you lose 2 ftrs on the 1st round. You can buy more but their use will be limited to reinforcing Russia and infantry won’t have any effect on Europe until you have transports to offload then.

    As for Russia being the weakest I disagree. I think it’s germany. They start with the most stuff, but they are usually facing a 3 on 1 beatdown as opposed to the 2 on 1 Russia faces (1 and a half when you consider Germany has to constantly be sending forces to defend). That’s why we’ve determined they still need a bid. Plus our Russia usually makes around 30-32 ipcs from round two to about round 6 or so.

    That’s why I send the Japanese airforce to W. Eur. Now the situation at sea is a 2v2 (2v3, if you consider the Russian sub), which reduces the Allied advantage. And if W. Eur is fortified then your need to send forces to defend it will be reduced.
    To get 30-32 IPCs for Russia you need either for Japan not to take Buryatia/SFE/Yakut or for Russia to take Norway. If Russia takes Norway then the UK income will suffer even more.

    I think if players think the axis even have a chance, the’re not playing the allies right. (I’m talking one on one games, with dice)

    I quite think the opposite: it is the axis who aren’t being played right. And I also mean 1v1, either dice or LL (I’ve played also about a hundred or more games using TripleA). 🙂


  • I was talking about if you use you sink the UK navy round 1. Do you still do the 1 ac, 2 Des build? We don’t because by then 3 subs and whatever planes are on france/Nor will be in range.

    You can afford to spend 40+ Ipcs on planes for Germany? And this is more if you lose a plane in Ukraine right off the bat and/or one taking out the cruiser. If you’re buying that many planes then you’re not that much Inf. and by round 3 or 4 the germany income should be shrinking, or else you’re not playing the allies right.

    Those Russian territories are worth only 3 ipcs. WR, UK, Belorus combine for 9. You only need to go up 6 and be down none to reach 30. Not hard at all with an agressive Russia.

    UK needs planes for when they start attacking the Eastern Europe stack, amoung other things.

    The Japanese airforce takes a long time to get to Germany and it’s not threatening the Asian mainland. We’ve done this before and from my experience it’s a "delaying the inevetable strat. It weakens Japan more than it helps Ger.

    Anyway, I like to keep and open mind and will your read your fortress Europe strat later.


  • @Col.Stauffenberg:

    I was talking about if you use you sink the UK navy round 1. Do you still do the 1 ac, 2 Des build? We don’t because by then 3 subs and whatever planes are on france/Nor will be in range.

    Usually you can buy the AC, 2 DDs for the UK and place them on either SZ2/8. It depends on the results of G1 but on average G will lose 1 sub on the SZ2 attack and a ftr on SZ13. You can see the odds for any German attacks those SZs during G2 on the Fortress Europe Strategy.

    You can afford to spend 40+ Ipcs on planes for Germany? And this is more if you lose a plane in Ukraine right off the bat and/or one taking out the cruiser. If you’re buying that many planes then you’re not that much Inf. and by round 3 or 4 the germany income should be shrinking, or else you’re not playing the allies right.

    Those Russian territories are worth only 3 ipcs. WR, UK, Belorus combine for 9. You only need to go up 6 and be down none to reach 30. Not hard at all with an agressive Russia.

    I usually only buy 1 bomber on G1, sometimes more but it depends, so I’m only using 12 IPCs, not 40.

    Belo and WR are only worth 2 IPCs each, so Russia only gets 7 IPCs from those 3 territories. Since Russia should lose Buryatia and possibly SFE by J2 it will rise to 31 IPCs on R2 but only receive 29 IPCs by R3 and lower afterwards.

    UK needs planes for when they start attacking the Eastern Europe stack, amoung other things.

    If you have the Japanese AF on W. Europe then attacking E. Europe with the UK can be very tricky because Japan can attack the invasion fleet before the US moves to reinforce it. And the UK will already need ships to defend itself from the Luftwaffe based on W.Eur because it will have to move to either SZ3/6/7 before moving to SZ7 to land on E. Eur. Any US builds won’t reach any of those SZs until US3.

    Considering that the Germans should have 4 ftrs, 2 bmrs and 2 subs still available by G3, the UK will need to buy even more warships (AC, DDs or even cruisers) on UK2 if it wants to move to SZs 3/6/7 than the 1 AC + 2 DDs + 1 US cruiser + 1 Russian sub + 2 ftrs. Otherwise Germany will have 24 attack points and 8 units against the Allies 18 defense points and 7 units.

    The Japanese airforce takes a long time to get to Germany and it’s not threatening the Asian mainland. We’ve done this before and from my experience it’s a "delaying the inevetable strat. It weakens Japan more than it helps Ger.

    It only weakens Japan if the US decides to go Pacific (on which case the Axis will be more than satisfied since those units won’t be going after Germany). It will give less of a punch against the Russians but it is a matter of massing enough ground forces (and units used by the Russians against Japan won’t be available to use against Germany). Russia can’t deal with both Germany and Japan, without weaking its defenses against one of them.
    Like I mentioned above, having the Japanese airforce on W. Eur really messes up the Allies’s ship movement on SZs 8/7/6/3 since they risk leaving ships unprotected to either the Germans or the Japanese and force the Allies to spend more money on warships.
    If the Japanese have their carriers on the right positions (SZ34 and either SZ60/36) the fighters can reach W. Eur in 2 turns from SZ60. Japan can also land fighters on Egypt right on J1/J2, allowing them to start reaching W. Eur by J3. And if Japan buys the occasional bomber it can reach most of Asia on the next turn, and/or Japanese bombers on India can reach SZ5 (Baltic), also making it risky for the UK to go after E. Eur.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

30
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts