Balancing Bids… using Time as a part of the Bid

@squirecam
Its not if you win or lose a fight but how you win or lose a fight.
If germany does its normal france attack and wins with 1 tank left they got diced pretty badly.
But since they still won you dont consider it being diced?

But with dice the problem is that on average you get the right results but if you get an outlier on the wrong point in the game you will lose the game because of that. And there is nothing you can do about it.
Germany attacking moscow with 90% odds and losing, sure russia might have had bad luck before or you might have gotten lucky somewhere else but that 1 battle makes or breaks the game.

I dont like Low Luck because its basically deterministic to the point where you know the outcome of battles. Its 2 much like playing chess. But i dont like the idea of extreme dice as well. Ideally you want to cap the outcome of a attack/defence roll to like 30-50% of the bell curve of most odds. But doing that would require some app to calculate.

There is an A&A game with similar rules. Axis & Allies Europe (the original one, not the Europe 1940 games) gave Germany 12 IPCs at the very beginning of the game, to spend as Germany saw fit. Then the Allied powers were given 12 IPCs to spend as the Allies saw fit. Then the rest of the game commenced.

So, I would guess you are suggested something like that for G40, with an Allied bid to go on top of the extra Allied money. If I were to do something like that, I would have the Allies go first, then the Axis, then the Allied bid. It would make for a wild setup, that’s for sure.

-Midnight_Reaper

@groskopf said in Losing as the Allies every time!:

@AndrewAAGamer , No bid.

Well that is a major issue right there. It is generally accepted the Axis have a major advantage in Global 1940 OOB. Bids of 30-50 are typical and I have seen them and played them higher than that.

Check out our Tutor Game below where there is a discussion of where the bid should go and why.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35254/tutor-game-andrewaagamer-x-vs-trulpen-and-everyone-else-a-50-oob/367?page=15

@akreider2 it might give you a certain flexibility you may need or it hinders you to grow with euro Axis.
It depends much likely on how you play Japan.
Fir a J1DoW I personally would not recommend it, since you are boosting the US in no time.

I will try it next game I play, probably use it for Italy, since they need the Navy the most.

Hi Pherman. Like The Methuselah said, nothing is official.  That said, not many (no one) here would allow an Anzac Inf on Egypt. The accepted rule is that the territory needs to be owned by the nation placing the bid unit. Ultimately, is between the players to decide.

How a cheaper Navy helps the allies is this. The US comes in after turn 4. With a cheaper navy, namely transports, Japan could be a real threat to Australia, forcing the US to pay attention to it, making it historically accurate.

The US paying some attention to Japan helps the Germans.

Lastly, IMHO, the game is close enough that these changes don’t ruin the game. But seeing your point, to go along with this, you would also have to fix the sub problem which is horrible. The advantage Germany had in the beginning of the war with their subs just doesn’t exist in the game. They need to make the subs more stealthy, like rolling the dice to locate them before attacking them, (destroyers would have a better chance than other units) and greatly expanding the areas they can convoy. Also giving the Germans a wolf pack advantage that the US copies and made use of much later in the war against the Japanese.

This whole incredible aspect of WW2 was somehow left out of the game.  A real shame. That would bring some balance.

Any naval battle occuring in the seazone presents the opportunity for a scramble, even an unescorted transport landing.