What's the consensus on a standard bid?

Amen, brother.  That’s why I don’t like FIDA.  I want two units on the ground, but in FIDA that means paying for those units twice.  I’m happy to have the money, but my actual bid isn’t changing at all, I’m just getting bonus bucks.  It’s like playing Monopoly at McDonald’s.  I’m getting a premium chicken sandwich, but you’re giving me a bonus buck at Toys R Us.  I’m getting the sandwich anyway, but I’ll take the free dollar too, thanks.

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.

That’s an interesting point about using 1 inf instead of 2 inf to attack one inf. But I think if the territory is worth 2 IPCs or more than I’d rather assure taking the territory. The 2 IPCs from the territory and the 1 IPC average damage that 1 inf will do on defense makes up for the cost of the extra inf you throw in, and also against most people it will have them throwing 2 inf as well to take it back.

You’ll find though that people will commit 2 Inf on the retake whether you have 1 or 2 Inf there.

And the extra Inf does not net you the full 2 IPCs of the territory. It boosts your chance by 30-40% maybe. So that increase is worth 1/3 of 2 IPCs, or 2/3s of an IPC, not 2 IPCs. So committing the extra 3 IPC unit to “ensure” taking a 2 IPC territory only brings a return of about 1.7 IPCs.

Run it on frood.net and see the avg. IPC losses for both sides, you’ll see. I like to trade 1 more Inf preserved over against an additional 1/3 chance to capture a territory. Unless the territory has tactical importance of course. But if it’s just for the money, I’d rather risk a 39% chance of not taking the territory than send an extra front-line unit to certain death.

I know the feeling of kicking myself when I fail to take a territory (“Why didn’t I send 2 Inf?”) but then I console myself with the fact that I saved one more Inf in my main stack. That’s 3 IPCs not only in the bank, but right on the front line, and in itself is worth more than the 3 IPCs gained from taking the territory PLUS the avg. 1 IPC damage it will inflict on defense.

It’s counter-intuitive though, not many people understand it.

There are however reasons to put more units in: if you have the unit lead, and want to whittle down both sides so your lead becomes proportionally larger, or if you want to tie up enemy air units to distract them from other targets.

Oh, they have some good strategy there.  Not a lot, but some.  Problem is, the good players realize that to get the two units that they are accustomed too, they have to bid for four units.

Anyway, I find everytime I need the attacks to win, if I go Fighter/Infantry vs Infantry I always lose my infantry.

Your sim shows you win 90% of the time, but you win with the FIGHTER only for some of those.  In 1.7 rounds you will win with fighter only 37% of the time.

More realisticly looking at the attack, you only have about a 50/50 shot at winning the land if you attack Inf/Fig vs Inf.

If we’re talking Evenki, Persia, Trans-Jordan etc then sure.  It’s only 1 IPC and I really just wanna kill the enemy, not take the land per se.

@Ender:

You’ll find though that people will commit 2 Inf on the retake whether you have 1 or 2 Inf there.

And the extra Inf does not net you the full 2 IPCs of the territory. It boosts your chance by 30-40% maybe. So that increase is worth 1/3 of 2 IPCs, or 2/3s of an IPC, not 2 IPCs. So committing the extra 3 IPC unit to “ensure” taking a 2 IPC territory only brings a return of about 1.7 IPCs.

Run it on frood.net and see the avg. IPC losses for both sides, you’ll see. I like to trade 1 more Inf preserved over against an additional 1/3 chance to capture a territory. Unless the territory has tactical importance of course. But if it’s just for the money, I’d rather risk a 39% chance of not taking the territory than send an extra front-line unit to certain death.

I know the feeling of kicking myself when I fail to take a territory (“Why didn’t I send 2 Inf?”) but then I console myself with the fact that I saved one more Inf in my main stack. That’s 3 IPCs not only in the bank, but right on the front line, and in itself is worth more than the 3 IPCs gained from taking the territory PLUS the avg. 1 IPC damage it will inflict on defense.

It’s counter-intuitive though, not many people understand it.

There are however reasons to put more units in: if you have the unit lead, and want to whittle down both sides so your lead becomes proportionally larger, or if you want to tie up enemy air units to distract them from other targets.

Another inherent disadvantage to bringing only 1 inf is that if you fail to take the territory, your opponent can immediately land fighters for defense there combined with a ground unit push which may be enough to hold that territory and permanently remove your ability to continue trading it. It’s not an everyday occurance, but you do have to take that into account.

Bringing 1 inf is almost strictly an Allied advantage because in most cases there is usually another Ally ready to follow up to take the territory in case the initial attack fails to take it. The Axis can do it, but their opportunities are much more limited.

Good points. There are disadvantages to bringing just one inf.

But assuming that perhaps 5 territories are traded each round, that’s 5 extra Inf saved for your main stack each round. After 5 rounds, you’re suddenly ahead 25 more Inf for the Allies than you would have been otherwise. That can also enable you to hold territories that you wouldn’t otherwise, even more than being able to land an extra couple air units.

Caveat: If the territory is held with 2 Inf, I will attack with 2 Inf + air. Don’t want to take that 1/9 chance of losing a ftr.

My goals are to kill enemy units and  not lose my own units. Taking/holding territory is a lesser priority. Still important though, don’t get me wrong.

@nuno:

Actually even in Classic one can win without a Bid, since outcome depends far more on the quality of the strategist involved(like in Revised) than in material advantage.

Yes u can win in classic without bid, if u r playing allies…lol.
Also in revised that is, and most players here use reg dice, so the variance will be higher than LL.
This means that without bid, the odds to win with axis is better than with LL.
I still have not met anyone who will challenge me and play axis without bid.
I’m noob so it will be an easy victory…even without bid :)

Seriously, I think I will win more than 50% of games if I play allies against anyone who play axis without bid.

The smallest bid I have made is $4.

The smallest bid I have won with as the Axis is $5.

As the Allies, I have defeated a $20 bid Axis (glitch at DAAK gave the bid win to Trigger with $20 though i had bid only $7, but Trigger was not a skilled player, and he surrendered in Turn 2 after UK capitalized on massive G1 mistakes.)

I have won with axis in revised with no bid, at least once.
But me and my friend were both noobs, at that time.
We both played classic maybe hundreds of times, but revised was new for me until 2006.

The lobby thats a funny place. U meet al kinds, literally.
Some ppl r totally noobs, and others r really good.
Against the best players, I’m a mismatch, but I also met players who wanted to continue after I took Berlin rnd 4-5 with 4 tanks left….!
I met “decent” players who wanted to play axis without bid.
I played a few games as allies, multiplayer, without any bid, and one game was really tight, but I cannot recall that we lost
as allies against a no bid axis player(s).
I also have been “sealioned” G2, and thats not funny, but sometimes I have to use the battlecalc  :|

My point is that if u have somewhat experienced players, a bid is necessary.
I think that the best players would beat me with 6 bid or more, more than 50% of all games. 3-5 ipc, I don’t know.
Axis without bid, that only works if the allie player is new to revised.

As most players here use open bid, I would have 8 ipc for G, no naval, 1 inf + 1 tank in ukr, is that allowed?
Imo that is perhaps even better than 9 ipc 1 unit pr. TT.

a 2 unit bid to Ukraine is a fairly common bid… but also pretty easily countered.

Russia can adjust their R1 purchase and combat, and Germany has no real choice but to retreat the units to Eastern.

It bogs down Central Europe a bit more, but overall is a pretty weak choice for the German bid (other $8 bids work better than 1 INF, 1 ARM Ukraine).

@ncscswitch:

a 2 unit bid to Ukraine is a fairly common bid… but also pretty easily countered.

Russia can adjust their R1 purchase and combat, and Germany has no real choice but to retreat the units to Eastern.

It bogs down Central Europe a bit more, but overall is a pretty weak choice for the German bid (other $8 bids work better than 1 INF, 1 ARM Ukraine).

I concur.  However, if you think the Russian is aggressive and will attack the Ukraine, it might dissuade them saving you a fighter.

Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine.  Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.

@Cmdr:

Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine.  Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.

Took you guys long enough to put that one together…  It makes so much sense when you put it your way :-D

That’s been my standard opening for a long time.

You’ll find though that people will commit 2 Inf on the retake whether you have 1 or 2 Inf there.

And the extra Inf does not net you the full 2 IPCs of the territory. It boosts your chance by 30-40% maybe. So that increase is worth 1/3 of 2 IPCs, or 2/3s of an IPC, not 2 IPCs. So committing the extra 3 IPC unit to “ensure” taking a 2 IPC territory only brings a return of about 1.7 IPCs.

Run it on frood.net and see the avg. IPC losses for both sides, you’ll see. I like to trade 1 more Inf preserved over against an additional 1/3 chance to capture a territory. Unless the territory has tactical importance of course. But if it’s just for the money, I’d rather risk a 39% chance of not taking the territory than send an extra front-line unit to certain death.

I know the feeling of kicking myself when I fail to take a territory (“Why didn’t I send 2 Inf?”) but then I console myself with the fact that I saved one more Inf in my main stack. That’s 3 IPCs not only in the bank, but right on the front line, and in itself is worth more than the 3 IPCs gained from taking the territory PLUS the avg. 1 IPC damage it will inflict on defense.

It’s counter-intuitive though, not many people understand it.

There are however reasons to put more units in: if you have the unit lead, and want to whittle down both sides so your lead becomes proportionally larger, or if you want to tie up enemy air units to distract them from other targets.

I remembered why I do like to take territories, so let me expand on the reasons you hint at for wanting to take a territory. First, you are not sending your inf to certain death, bad luck can happen to the enemy too, they might send 2 inf 2 figs and come out with 2 figs. Second, if you console yourself with “well I saved an inf” you have to realize you saved the enemy an inf too, if not 2 inf, since he only has to send 1 inf there to prevent a free taking. Third, some territories are worth more than 2 IPCs.

Fourth and best, sometimes you don’t want to allow the enemies after you to be able to reinforce that area with figs. You can’t land figs in areas you just captured or cleared, but if allow for 39% of not taking a territory that could really mean the next turn you see 10+ figs from the powers that come after you land there to reinforce his buddies. I wouldn’t be too happy if say I were Russia and didn’t take Ukraine, then suddenly wtf is this 6 German figs land there along 6 Japanese fighters with the pile of inf? Or the opposite if I were Germany and didn’t take Ukraine, now UK has 6 figs there, compounded with a pile of 20 Russian inf and 3 figs and America’s figs. Or if I were Russia and didn’t Novo, now I see 8 inf + 6 fighters on defense there. All because I didn’t take a territory. It is usually difficult to reinforce an ally’s front territory with fighters due to the limitations on fighters landing and also because sometimes you simply don’t have land forces to clear the area for your buddies, but if the enemy doesn’t take the territory then it becomes very possible.

Your math is good and pure and I got it when I saw the concept, and I would definitely do it (and have had it done to me) in small consequence areas, but one simply must be think about which is the better of the options at the time, not choose to use one theory in all situations. Using 1 inf + airforce is more economical in terms of pure math for some territories, but there are other very important considerations to keep in mind.

@Ender:

@Cmdr:

Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine.  Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.

Took you guys long enough to put that one together…  It makes so much sense when you put it your way :-D

That’s been my standard opening for a long time.

Mine as well. Russian armor is far more valuable to me than German armor, whether destroying them or preserving them, no matter which side I play.

@U-505:

@Ender:

@Cmdr:

Honestly, most of the better players I’ve played against have not attacked Ukraine.  Belorussia/W. Russia seem much more prevalent now as they are more certain victories and don’t result in the loss of three Russian tanks.

Took you guys long enough to put that one together…  It makes so much sense when you put it your way :-D

That’s been my standard opening for a long time.

Mine as well. Russian armor is far more valuable to me than German armor, whether destroying them or preserving them, no matter which side I play.

I put that opening into a win-win for both sides.
As Germany, I love having an extra ftr, an extra art and an extra tank.

There are two schools of thought to the “UKRAINE or not to UKRAINE”. dilema.

One is to trade your attacking units for your opponents key units and get income to replace them.  In a KGF move, this might be better as you can bleed Germany dry with this method.

The other is to only attack with your key/expensive pieces when you know they will be preserved.  You’ll be safer and play defense, which is a good long term allied strategy.  You do allow your opponent to play the same way though.

The answer to the Shakespearian question is ……
“Personal preference”

I don’t think there is a ‘mathmatical or statistical’ way to meaure the difference between belo/wru and ukr/wru Russia 1 combat.

Just like in computer programming, there are many ways to code a solution, and style comes into play even though there are certain programming ‘standards’ to which all programmers adhere.

Maybe the Ukraine attack can be seen as trading central pawns in chess - it really opens up the game, instead of it getting locked down into defensive positions.

@Bean - Of course YOU get it. Me and you are the two brightest kids in Battle School, after all :). And I get it too - the 1 Inf trade is not for all situations. When there is a TACTICAL or STRATEGIC reason that a territory needs to be taken, then I up the attack.

Just to be clear, tactical or strategic reasons can include:

1. Bleeding off more enemy units (when you have unit lead)
2. Over-tasking enemy AF
3. Preventing a tank blitz through the territory.
4. Preventing the enemy from landing air units there next turn
5. Preventing the enemy from building an IC there next turn
6. Enabling your allies to land AF there before next enemy turn.
7. The territory will be sheltered from counter-attack anyway so you don’t have to worry about losing the units you send in.

But when the ONLY reason to take the territory is economic, ie. for the IPCs, then I don’t consider it worth it.

As I said, I, personally, don’t like the Ukraine battle.  But I also, personally, like to buy a fighter with Germany on G1 (instead of a carrier.)  So if Russia DOES hit Ukraine then I net 0 fighters for the game turn (+1 built, -1 destroyed.)  Not really a bad thing for me.  However Russia loses 3 tanks in Ukraine, period.  It’s the only way to get the German fighter there.  Why?  Because I guarantee my people will come down there and kick you out of Greece, thank you very much!

So what does Russia gain?  It’s easy to tell what Russia loses:  3 Infantry, Artillery, 3 Armor (28 IPC.)

What’s nice is if you start with a 3 inf 3 arm build and don’t attack Ukraine, you have a fat stack of 7 tanks in Novo on round 2 ready to hit Ukraine, India, China, and Yakut  :mrgreen: Makes Japan walk on eggshells while also keeping the pressure on Ukraine. That’s been cute enough for me to stop doing the Ukraine attack for the moment.

@Cmdr:

As I said, I, personally, don’t like the Ukraine battle.  But I also, personally, like to buy a fighter with Germany on G1 (instead of a carrier.)  So if Russia DOES hit Ukraine then I net 0 fighters for the game turn (+1 built, -1 destroyed.)  Not really a bad thing for me.  However Russia loses 3 tanks in Ukraine, period.  It’s the only way to get the German fighter there.  Why?  Because I guarantee my people will come down there and kick you out of Greece, thank you very much!

So what does Russia gain?  It’s easy to tell what Russia loses:  3 Infantry, Artillery, 3 Armor (28 IPC.)

Your assumption is not always correct.  I prefer to attack ukraine with only 2 russian tanks.

that adds 1 more tank to west russia.  faster kill, less units risked in ukraine.  more germany key units lost. $3 income versus $2 (belo), Cacuasus safe®.

Again, down to personal preference.

@axis_roll:

Your assumption is not always correct.  I prefer to attack ukraine with only 2 russian tanks.

that adds 1 more tank to west russia.  faster kill, less units risked in ukraine.  more germany key units lost. $3 income versus $2 (belo), Cacuasus safe®.

Again, down to personal preference.

The ukr attack with 2 tanks is almost standard by most LL players. But in reg dice it will fail much more often.
And many reg dice players will only attack WRU in R1.
In LL it fails only 9% or 10%.

The sz 59 fails 1 on 6…:)
That is with only DD ofc. This is sad when u stacked bury with 6 inf.

Has anyone done a economical calc of the ukr attack?
With 2 tanks, or 3 tanks, based on average dice?
G and R losses etc.?
Compare this with the Arch blitz…?