G40.2, do u bid for allies? if so…WHY?


  • just wondering, do you beleive the allies need a bid in the G40.2 game? and why?

    i dont get why they would need a bid in the G40.2.

    and if you bid in the G40.2 do you bid in the E40.2 and the P40.2 and if you do…why?


  • I only think the bid is applicable when someone experienced is playing the Axis powers.  The group I play with have only just started to get to a level where the Axis are winning games (most of the guys will be hitting their 4th game this weekend, a couple of us played a dozen or so).  I think most of it comes from the Allies are stronger long term, so if Axis are quick and decisive early game it becomes difficult to find strategies against it, hence the bid for Allies.

  • '12

    @builder_chris2:

    just wondering, do you believe the allies need a bid in the G40.2 game? and why?

    At first I didn’t, for the same reason mentioned by elzario: if the Axis make too many mistakes, then the Allies can roll all over them pretty quickly.  For experienced players, a bid appears to be necessary just because the Pacific side of the board is too weighted in Japan’s favor.  An aggressive Japan can easily eliminate either China, ANZAC, or UK-Pacific by turn 3.  In theory, this should have an opportunity cost in that either the Russian Infantry stack or the US can save the Allies’ bacon over there, but the large size of the Pacific and the requirement to spend so much on Navy dilutes the effectiveness of the USA far too much.  The USA has to spend at least as much in the Pacific as they would in the stand-alone map; if they don’t, then Japan probably has a lock on the DEI and will meet or exceed the US income, making them largely untouchable.  I’m actually curious if the USA’s global income is equal to the separate Europe & Pacific incomes taken together.  If it isn’t at least equal to that, then the global game is unbalanced for sure since the Allies have no chance in the Pacific stand-alone.


  • @Eggman:

    @builder_chris2:

    just wondering, do you believe the allies need a bid in the G40.2 game? and why?

    At first I didn’t, for the same reason mentioned by elzario: if the Axis make too many mistakes, then the Allies can roll all over them pretty quickly.  For experienced players, a bid appears to be necessary just because the Pacific side of the board is too weighted in Japan’s favor.  An aggressive Japan can easily eliminate either China, ANZAC, or UK-Pacific by turn 3.  In theory, this should have an opportunity cost in that either the Russian Infantry stack or the US can save the Allies’ bacon over there, but the large size of the Pacific and the requirement to spend so much on Navy dilutes the effectiveness of the USA far too much.  The USA has to spend at least as much in the Pacific as they would in the stand-alone map; if they don’t, then Japan probably has a lock on the DEI and will meet or exceed the US income, making them largely untouchable.  I’m actually curious if the USA’s global income is equal to the separate Europe & Pacific incomes taken together.  If it isn’t at least equal to that, then the global game is unbalanced for sure since the Allies have no chance in the Pacific stand-alone.

    the pacific side of the g40 game is too weighted in japans favor?!?!? how?!

    the set up between the G40 and P40/E40 is EXACTLY the same with very minor differance in 99% of the board.  the big differance is russian units on the pacific map in the g40 that are not in the p40 game.  so in the p40 game japan will NEVER be faced with the possiblity of facing 5 enemies like they can in the G40 game.  also, in the G40 game, the USA (if they dump ALL thier IPC into the pac side of the map) can dump 114 more ipc in the G40 game onto the pacific map by the time their auto DOW kicks in on round 3 than they ever could in just the Pac40 game.  if the USA goes to war on J1 than they can dump 17 more IPC per turn into the pacific (on average) than they can in just the P40 game.

    so, in the G40 game, Japan can face 5 enemies, has the US making more IPC than in the P40 game and has to be concerned with the US using russian land to put air units onto. 
    3 things agaisnt them that they do not have on them in the P40 game!  how can having more allies things added to the pacific in the G40 map make them stronger than they are in the p40 game?

    granted they are strong in the P40 game, but than they have 3 less things on them…so it only is logical that they should be stronger in the p40 game.  a J1 in the G40 game is very hard to stop harder to stop when combined with a G1 dow but a J1 DOW in the P40 game is almost unstopable and to some degree it should be, they have no russian issue to hit them on the back door with and the US makes less money but the Uk and anzac are EXACTLY the same.

  • TripleA

    I like to give the allies a Russia bomber and 9 bid, so that when I play the axis I have a challenge in front of me.

    To balance the game out is one reason for giving the allies a bid. To make the allies more exciting is another good reason.
    ~
    **In the global tournament, the axis win a majority of games and the allies have received bids.

    Same thing in league, allies receive bids and the axis usually win.**

    So there is empirical data to back up the claim that bids are necessary.

    I will admit there is a bunch of luck that gets involved in Germany 1 and a high standard deviation from expected results. I will also admit the same can be true for Japan 1. The axis have a strong backup plan for when one side gets screwed, they can win in the other half.

    ~

    I understand the criticism that the allies might not be playing well, the problem is that there is no evidence to support that claim. Even with bids the allies are losing, so the allies have to be making substantial mistakes to be losing.

    In a world where a bid of 0 is balanced for the allies, if they allies get 7-15 bids and lose about 50% of the time… Everyone must be making big mistakes to mess up a free attack.

  • '19 '18 '17 '16

    I’m curious about one of Eggman’s assertions.  “An aggressive Japan can easily eliminate either China, ANZAC, or UK-Pacific by turn 3.”  I’ll happily concede the point that Japan can easily eliminate China or UK-Pacific in turn 3, but I’m curious as to the strategy that lets Japan knock out ANZAC on turn 3.  I can think of a couple high risk strategies that use one transport, but those are fairly easily blocked.  Using more transports is possible, but the large number of transports sitting in the Caroline Islands gives away the strategy.

  • TripleA

    I think he meant Japan 4, that is the soonest you can take it reasonably.

  • '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    How do you wipe out China in 3 turns?

  • TripleA

    china does not really die until you take every spot…

    I think he just meant kill the main big stack.

    India is usually 3-5 turns.

  • '12

    @builder_chris2:

    granted they are strong in the P40 game, but than they have 3 less things on them…so it only is logical that they should be stronger in the p40 game.  a J1 in the G40 game is very hard to stop harder to stop when combined with a G1 dow but a J1 DOW in the P40 game is almost unstopable and to some degree it should be, they have no russian issue to hit them on the back door with and the US makes less money but the Uk and anzac are EXACTLY the same.

    I agree that Japan has more challenges in the Global version.  My claim is that the Pacific setup is SO unbalanced that these extra things make no difference.  I am not saying that this makes the Global game unwinnable (although I lean that way) but it is very difficult if the Axis player is smarter and you have no bid.  The Russian stack doesn’t stop Japan from being able to wipe out China in three rounds if that is what Japan chooses to do.  They are merely a speed bump.  Especially if the Russians stack Amur R1, they will be wiped out with little to no loss of Japanese planes.  Then this air force just sweeps south cleaning out the Chinese.  The Japanese navy is still strong enough to clean out the UK/ANZAC in a couple of moves, then you just convoy India out of the game while you wait for the army to march south.  Most of the damage Japan can do to the Allies happens in the first three rounds, and there is pretty much zero the Allies can do about it since the US can’t get to the scene fast enough.

    @Degrasse:

    I’ll happily concede the point that Japan can easily eliminate China or UK-Pacific in turn 3, but I’m curious as to the strategy that lets Japan knock out ANZAC on turn 3.  I can think of a couple high risk strategies that use one transport, but those are fairly easily blocked.  Using more transports is possible, but the large number of transports sitting in the Caroline Islands gives away the strategy.

    @Cow:

    I think he meant Japan 4, that is the soonest you can take it reasonably.

    Yes, I misspoke.  It is turn 4 for Sydney.  I’m not sure I would ever recommend it for Japan since it is in a dead-end area of the board.  I also wouldn’t go for it by stacking the Carolines- stack in SZ36 J2 with a Naval base built in Kwangsi or Hainan.  Then the Allies have to split their defense between covering India and ANZAC.

    Also correct on China.  If you’re willing to risk a couple of air losses then J3 you hit every province that still has Infantry in it.  You also want to remind yourself to ship over some tanks so you can sweep up these areas all the faster.  EDIT: I’ve also seen some games where the Japanese player is willing to use air-only attacks to clean out all the Chinese Infantry on round 2.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @builder_chris2:

    just wondering, do you beleive the allies need a bid in the G40.2 game? and why?

    i dont get why they would need a bid in the G40.2.

    and if you bid in the G40.2 do you bid in the E40.2 and the P40.2 and if you do…why?

    G40 game, yes.  It’s mainly because of the victory conditions.  It’s difficult for the Allies to prevent Axis victory on both fronts–it takes a delicate balancing act from the Allies.  More advanced Allied strats could lead to bids going down later.  But for now the bid is 8-12.

    E40 I think favors Allies.  But the game plays well with no bid because its very easy for Allies to make a mistake and lose their edge.

    P40 favors Axis by a large margin, so a bid is definitely needed.

  • '16 '15 '10

    To balance the game out is one reason for giving the allies a bid. To make the allies more exciting is another good reason.

    In the global tournament, the axis win a majority of games and the allies have received bids.

    Same thing in league, allies receive bids and the axis usually win.

    So there is empirical data to back up the claim that bids are necessary.

    I understand the criticism that the allies might not be playing well, the problem is that there is no evidence to support that claim. Even with bids the allies are losing, so the allies have to be making substantial mistakes to be losing…

    Well said.

  • TripleA

    USA loses out on 45 ipcs at war, when you combine the boards.

    Russia gains 18 inf and 2 aa guns. Egypts gets 2 anzac infantry. So in the long run the allies are losing out when the boards get combined.

    Pacific alone is rough. Freaking West USA can get conquered, it only places 3 units when not at war, it is stupid.

  • '12

    @Cow:

    Egypts gets 2 ANZAC infantry…

    And don’t forget the fact that as punishment for this, UK loses an Infantry!

  • Official Q&A

    @Cow:

    Pacific alone is rough. Freaking West USA can get conquered, it only places 3 units when not at war, it is stupid.

    US ICs all start as majors in Europe and Pacific.


  • @builder_chris2:

    the pacific side of the g40 game is too weighted in japans favor?!?!? how?!

    the set up between the G40 and P40/E40 is EXACTLY the same with very minor differance in 99% of the board.  the big differance is russian units on the pacific map in the g40 that are not in the p40 game.  so in the p40 game japan will NEVER be faced with the possiblity of facing 5 enemies like they can in the G40 game.  also, in the G40 game, the USA (if they dump ALL thier IPC into the pac side of the map) can dump 114 more ipc in the G40 game onto the pacific map by the time their auto DOW kicks in on round 3 than they ever could in just the Pac40 game.  if the USA goes to war on J1 than they can dump 17 more IPC per turn into the pacific (on average) than they can in just the P40 game.

    The main difference between the setup is that west USA does NOT become a 50 IPC terr…… that should be a pretty glaring difference

    (unless they changed it for P40.2)

  • '12

    @Krieghund:

    @Cow:

    Pacific alone is rough. Freaking West USA can get conquered, it only places 3 units when not at war, it is stupid.

    US ICs all start as majors in Europe and Pacific.

    We’re talking about Global.  Japan can easily conquer West USA in the stand-alone Pacific where that IC is a major pumping out 10 units a turn, but now with the combined boards you’re down to 3!

    EDIT: I can also point out that pre-war, the three USA ICs combined in Global still gives you 1 less unit a turn than you would have gotten from either Pacific or Europe alone.

  • TripleA

    Oh wow they made it majors to start with, haha, I did not notice this. Been awhile since I played pacific or europe by itself.

    Still I remember the pre war money for USA not being so great.

    Anyone take over West USA in the pacific by itself? I have a vague memory of doing that a long time ago when the Pacific board first came out before the Europe board was released.


  • @Eggman:

    @Krieghund:

    @Cow:

    Pacific alone is rough. Freaking West USA can get conquered, it only places 3 units when not at war, it is stupid.

    US ICs all start as majors in Europe and Pacific.

    We’re talking about Global.  Japan can easily conquer West USA in the stand-alone Pacific where that IC is a major pumping out 10 units a turn, but now with the combined boards you’re down to 3!

    EDIT: I can also point out that pre-war, the three USA ICs combined in Global still gives you 1 less unit a turn than you would have gotten from either Pacific or Europe alone.

    US starts with a 52 ipc income, combine that with the starting units, japan will have a much harder time taking san fran and holding it

  • '12

    @ghr2:

    US starts with a 52 ipc income, combine that with the starting units, japan will have a much harder time taking san fran and holding it

    Yes, being able to move the starting units over from the Europe board is about the only thing that will save the US.  So Germany probably has to be in Gibraltar turn 2 with 3 full TTs to force the US to keep just enough in the Atlantic.

  • TripleA

    USA only makes 17 on the pacific map alone.

    I think Japan can take it.

Suggested Topics

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

71
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts