What's the consensus on a standard bid?

@Bean:

I’m not really surprised 8 is popular, but among the “upper class” that I perceive in these forums, 8 is out of the question.

The figures shows the allies are still winning more than losing, so the bid will go up.

Allied strategies are getting so tight, it’s hard for the axis to win, especially if they get poor early dice.  The allies can overcome bad early dice.

@axis_roll:

@Bean:

I’m not really surprised 8 is popular, but among the “upper class” that I perceive in these forums, 8 is out of the question.

The figures shows the allies are still winning more than losing, so the bid will go up.

Allied strategies are getting so tight, it’s hard for the axis to win, especially if they get poor early dice.  The allies can overcome bad early dice.

I disagree.  If the Allies really get stomped on round 1 and suffer poor defensive and offensive results on round 2, they may never recover against a machine of an axis player.

Strategies overall are improving.

But as has been mentioned, the Axis is more vulnerable to bad dice early than the Allies, thus the slight elevation of the bid from the 6-7 to the 7-8 range.

The fact that, after so many games have been played, that the bid is still averaging only a fraction over $7, and that the Axis still wins 9 out of 20 games means that things must be pretty well balanced at this point.

@Gamer:

I think good players can win with almost any bid as the Axis, whereas less experienced players probably need the greater options available in the 8-9 range.  Just my two cents.

Good players “can” win with any bid as axis, or allies, as can any player, good or bad.
This does not apply in general, though.
I said in another thread I’m pretty sure that even the best lobby players would not play me without any bid, If I
play allies. I didn’t care to ask.
And most unfortunate, I must admit that atm, for me to play against the top 5 lobby players would be a mismatch.
I have also no reason to believe that the best lobby players are any better than
the best players in other playgrups, if a playgroup is big enough, and have many players who been playing revised for many years.
The triplea lobby isn’t really a playgroup as such, but for convenience sake we can regard any place in reality or
virtuality where ppl meet and play games as a playgroup.

I have already challenged Ncswitch for game, I play allies, he plays axis with bid 1…  :mrgreen:
I will challenge anyone who wants to play axis without bid or bid 1, I can give 1, I’m not greedy, no…?
TripleA, u host, TTL, no tech, I prefer LL but with bid 1 for axis, or without bid, I believe I can the handle teh uncertainty
of reg dice.
Seriously, that’s what I’m talking about. Axis need bid. Eod.

@ncscswitch:

Strategies overall are improving.

But as has been mentioned, the Axis is more vulnerable to bad dice early than the Allies, thus the slight elevation of the bid from the 6-7 to the 7-8 range.

The fact that, after so many games have been played, that the bid is still averaging only a fraction over $7, and that the Axis still wins 9 out of 20 games means that things must be pretty well balanced at this point.

The reason why I brought this thread up again, was that I was wondering what bid system were used
by players on this forum, in PBF, and generally. I understand it is a fullplacement bid, which means that u can place any unit anywhere on your own TT’s, and u can bring over ipc that are not spent.
Imo it’s better to have bid system which makes bids as low as possible, and if axis or allies victories are near 50% with a 7-8 ipc
fullplacement bid, then this system is slightly better then the warclub ladder bid system.
The only problem that I see with this system, is the possibility to place 3 inf in ukr. That makes an advantage for axis
victory which is more than acceptable imo.
It was meant as a joke that I challenged u, but this is also meant seriously, because even if revised 4th.ed is much better balanced than classic, it’s still not balanced good enough, and my initiative to challenge players who are generally better than me, illustrates this
point very good.

The masters over at Csub don’t allow more than one bid unit per territory under the reasoning that more than that changes the balance of the board too much; they are minimalists in that sense. The bids might be higher, but you don’t see insane things like 3 inf Libya or Ukraine. The last time I lost to them they said their bids are in the 9-11 range, but that was over a year ago. I’ve never even come close to beating the author that I played.

Back in the day at AAMC and FoE I remember FIDA bids (so free placement but only 1/2 on units) were 6 or so–essentially enough to get an inf or art into Lib and throw some IPCs to both powers. And as far as I can tell, I think that’s a pretty good place for the Axis to be. Maybe even something smaller like 3-4 IPCs to be spent anywhere.

I agree that giving the Axis 8+ IPCs that could potentially be spend on an Atl sub or a Med trn is just too potent. And look at AAR in general. It has more strategical and tactical options than A&A, but I think the Axis definitely have more powerful strategies–namely Germany’s.

Perhaps this could change with some better Allied strats, especially in the area of UK1 options (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10443.0)
but for now it looks like the Axis just need an inf/art or two, not an extra naval unit.

@Bean:

The masters over at Csub don’t allow more than one bid unit per territory under the reasoning that more than that changes the balance of the board too much; they are minimalists in that sense. The bids might be higher, but you don’t see insane things like 3 inf Libya or Ukraine. The last time I lost to them they said their bids are in the 9-11 range, but that was over a year ago. I’ve never even come close to beating the author that I played.

Recall too that C-Sub doesn’t allow a capital to be attacked on round 1.

This only applies realistically to G1 on London, but it does alter the bid in allowing more than 7…. (tpt to baltic)

@hyogoetophile:

Back in the day at AAMC and FoE I remember FIDA bids (so free placement but only 1/2 on units) were 6 or so–essentially enough to get an inf or art into Lib and throw some IPCs to both powers. And as far as I can tell, I think that’s a pretty good place for the Axis to be. Maybe even something smaller like 3-4 IPCs to be spent anywhere.

I agree that giving the Axis 8+ IPCs that could potentially be spend on an Atl sub or a Med trn is just too potent. And look at AAR in general. It has more strategical and tactical options than A&A, but I think the Axis definitely have more powerful strategies–namely Germany’s.

Perhaps this could change with some better Allied strats, especially in the area of UK1 options (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=10443.0)
but for now it looks like the Axis just need an inf/art or two, not an extra naval unit.

FIDA bids are now around 14-17 these days.

Allied play continues to improve.  Remember this game is won with defense, it’s easier to defend than attack.  It’s also cheaper to defend than expand.  Even if a game has become balanced economically, the allies have that defensive advantage.  Also forgot to mention the 3 on 2 advantage.

Personally, unless I know the other player is horrible with the allies, I rarely bid less than 8 for the Axis.

I think a standard bid of 8, with leftover IPCs not lost, and any number of units built where another unit controlled by that power already exists - IF LHTR is in effect, which I would hope would also be standardized.

I don’t think a Baltic transport buy or an Atlantic sub buy is too horrible for the Allies.  Bad, yes, but nothing the Allies can’t handle.

Best solution I found for the Submarine in SZ 8 bid is to have Russia attack Norway straight off.  Even if you lose a fighter, you are better off then losing the Transport and Battleship in SZ 2.

And USSR doing Norway on R1 certainly balances central europe…  Axis can solidify well before Russia gets to build with the extra income… making Europe more of a battle for Stalingrad/Gates of Moscow (West Russia) instead of trading Belo and Ukraine…

Ummm - is it just me or should these posts read “Axis” everywhere they say “Allies”. Otherwise the Allied chance of victory improves with a bigger Axis bid.  :?

@DarthMaximus:

@DarthMaximus:

This is full bid placement (no restrictions)

5 bids - 5
6 bids - 19
7 bids - 31
8 bids - 28
9 bids - 6

Winners (Allies/Axis):

5 bids - 2/3
6 bids - 8/11
7 bids - 18/13
8 bids - 16/12
9 bids - 3/3

Percentages (Allies win %):

Overall - 47/42 - Allies win 52.8
5 bids - Allies win 40% (too small of a sample)
6 bids - Allies win 42.1%
7 bids - Allies win 58.1%
8 bids - Allies win 57.1%
9 bids - Allies win 50% (too small of a sample)

Eliminating the 5 and 9 bids and focusing on 6, 7, 8 we get:

6-8 bids - 42/36 - Allies win 53.8%

And if we just focus on 7 and 8 bids (which seems to be the norm now):

7-8 bids - 34/25 - Allies win 57.6%

Okay, I went back and went through games up until early Oct. (58 more games).  So, now thru 147 games:

This is full bid placement (no restrictions)

5 bids - 5
6 bids - 27
7 bids - 39
8 bids - 58
9 bids - 16
10 bids - 2

Winners (Allies/Axis):

5 bids - 2/3
6 bids - 15/12
7 bids - 23/16
8 bids - 32/26
9 bids - 10/6
10 bids - 1/1

Percentages (Allies win %):

Overall - 83/64 - Allies win 56.5%
5 bids - Allies win 40% (only 5 games played)
6 bids - Allies win 55.6%
7 bids - Allies win 58.9%
8 bids - Allies win 55.2%
9 bids - Allies win 62.5%
10 bids - Allies win 50.0% (only 2 games played)

Eliminating the 5 and 10 bids and focusing on 6, 7, 8, 9 we get:

6-9 bids - 80/60 - Allies win 57.1%

And if we just focus on 6, 7 and 8 bids:

6-8 bids - 70/54 - Allies win 56.5%

Well, taking into account more games fixed the 6 bid anomaly.  It now falls more into line with the 7 and 8.  Probably do to that fact that 5-6 bids may have won early but later showed to be beatable and the bid moved up to the 7-8 range.  97 games have had a 7 or 8 bid with 58 games having an 8 bid.

@ncscswitch:

And USSR doing Norway on R1 certainly balances central europe…  Axis can solidify well before Russia gets to build with the extra income… making Europe more of a battle for Stalingrad/Gates of Moscow (West Russia) instead of trading Belo and Ukraine…

I agree, going for Norway in almost any other game with Russia on round 1 is not a good idea.  But we’re talking about saving 40 IPC in fleet to have your tanks in Norway instead of in W. Russia for a round.  They’re not destroyed, necessarily, not in a great position either, but at least England isn’t buying a battleship on Round 1, transports on Round 2, Carrier on Round 3……

Ya know?

@Ender:

Ummm - is it just me or should these posts read “Axis” everywhere they say “Allies”. Otherwise the Allied chance of victory improves with a bigger Axis bid.  :?

Nope, just you.   :-D

I’d completely ignore the 5 bids and the 10.  The 9 are highly suspect as well since it is only 16 games, one more Axis win drops it down to 58%, and two wins to 55%.

All the numbers are still highly fluid since it is such a small sample, esp when it gets broken down to specific bid amount.  The better number might be overall 83 Allied wins to 64 Axis, for an Allies Win % of 56.5% in 147 games.

Also many of the 6 bid Axis wins were early on.  In my first post I only had time to go thru June-July and at that point the Axis won 58% of 6 bids BUT in the next 8 games from July to early Oct with 6 bids. the Allies went 7-1 in 6 bid games.  Meaning players learned they have to bid more than 6.  I think the same thing is happening at 7 (maybe even 8 ), where once you start seeing a lot of games with the Allies winning players start to up their bids naturally and you see less and less of the games with lower bids.

Finally there is a good chance that the good Allied players bid relatively high knowing they can deal with giving up 8 or 9 and still win a lot.  It might be interesting to see who has the 10 wins as the Allies with the 9 bid.  I didn’t pay that close attention but it could be one person that is just really awesome as the Allies.  I know when Wazzup was playing he never bid lower than 9 and was 9-0 at one point and I don’t think JWW bids below 9 and he was 13-1 last I looked.

part of the FIDA bid rules require:

@FIDA:

Germany can place units in territories and sea zones that already contain German units.  Japan can place units in territories and sea zones that already contain Japanese units.  Neither Axis player can place units in territories or sea zones where it does not already have units

Does this hold true for triple a or play by forum bid placement?

Specifically could Germany bid a transport into sz7?

I can’t speak for TripleA, but our forum games abide by the same rule.

I think that rule/stipulation is generally understood, but I’m not 100% sure on that.

And to follow-up on a point Switch mentioned earlier, our overall League Avg bid is 7.4, and based on the Allies win % thru these 147 games, I’d expect to see a lot more 8-9 bids in the future, unless the Axis go on a run here late in the year and start to pile up wins.

It is probably safe to say if you really want the Axis you can safely bid 7.

My view on the matter is that the bid AMOUNT is really not that significant. It certainly is much less important than the bid placement.

Every round of the game, every battle, you roll dice. Any one of those dice results in a difference of minimum 3 IPCs.

So whether you add 1 Inf 1 Art to the G1 attack on Egypt, or 1 Inf 1 Art really in the grand scheme of the game is much less significant than how many hits the UK gets in defence. My point is that an extra 1-3 IPCs in a bid is probably lost in the noise of the dice by the end of UK1 at the latest.

However, there’s another lesson in the question of bids and bid placements. I keep railing on about how the key to the game is not territory, but achieving local force superiority, which means maintaining TUV is a priority over capturing territory. That’s why I use only 1 Inf + air in trading territories. Gaining a 3 IPC territory is not worth sacrificing an extra 3 IPC forward unit.

I keep arguing that a front line unit is worth much more than its equivalent of IPCs in the bank - hence I argue against the G1 tank blitz to Archangel. The truth of this is shown in the reality of bid placements. People don’t place the bid in Berlin or Southern Europe. They place it right on the front line, and not just anywhere on the front, but at key locations such as the Suez Canal.

This shows that most players appreciate at some level that an Inf at the front is worth more than an Inf in your capitol (unless your capitol happens to BE on the front…). But people get so caught up in on-paper IPC values and in capturing territory that they expend units they can’t afford to waste on taking territory that they won’t be able to hold.

Don’t get me wrong, I still trade territory, but I do it economically. If I can capture a territory with 1 Inf + air (about 66% chance) that’s good value, better than a 95% chance of capturing it with 2 Inf + air.

Sum up: front line units are worth more, as shown by all the thought that goes into bid placement. A straight-line comparison question would be this: how much would you bid if the requirement was that the bid could only be placed on an IC and only at the end of G1? The answer to that will show how much more valuable front-line units are. Save them.

Ender,

I believe there are two theories on bids.

1)  They can be used to give Germany an additional boost to results securing a better chance of victory in a risky battle (ie Egypt, bidding Inf/Art to Libya almost guarantees you will take Egypt) allowing for the trickle down effect of a stronger nation.

2)  They give the axis power a better chance at defense making a secure chance of victory by an ally less secure which also allows for the trickle down effect of making that nation more powerful.

Both are short term results.  As you mention, one bad throw of the dice for you and you’ve lost more then your bid. :P  It’s just a way to hedge your bets, I think.

As far as bid placement, I know in Classic a common tactic was to bid a German infantry in Manchuria and then violate Mongolia so Japan didn’t have to pay the fee.  I think after that became more commonplace, people started limiting bids to territories you normally start with anyway.

@Cmdr:

Ender,

I believe there are two theories on bids.

1)  They can be used to give Germany an additional boost to results securing a better chance of victory in a risky battle (ie Egypt, bidding Inf/Art to Libya almost guarantees you will take Egypt) allowing for the trickle down effect of a stronger nation.

2)  They give the axis power a better chance at defense making a secure chance of victory by an ally less secure which also allows for the trickle down effect of making that nation more powerful.

Both are short term results.  As you mention, one bad throw of the dice for you and you’ve lost more then your bid. :P  It’s just a way to hedge your bets, I think.

Agreed. My point is, bid units can only serve those purposes if they are placed on the front line. That makes them more valuable than IPCs in the bank. If IPCs in the bank were worth the same as IPCs on the front line, you’d see a lot more people banking their bids.