Fair Bid for Novices/Sleepers

😄
2 more votes for me! thanks guys 😄

@Bunnies:

@Cmdr:

Protecting the S. African complex is a synch, really.

The problem is defending South Africa AND Moscow.

Easier to do then not having units producing in S. Africa.

1)  Instead of driving units to Algeria to reclaim Africa, you can start off the bat dumping units into Arkhangelsk on UK 1.  That means at least 3 rounds more unit drops in Russia then otherwise.

2)  With America going through Africa, America has already saved 40 IPC on Transports AND saved on warships. (2 Destroyers, Battleship, 5 Transports is a pretty good deterant in and of itself, against the Luftwaffe.  The Kriegsmarine should be made short order of with the US Air Corps (3 Fighters, Bomber + I like to have two more bombers out of the saved 40 IPC, netting me 10 IPC.))

3)  2 Transports, Carrier, Destroyer, Submarine in SZ 28 (British) + 2 Infantry/Artillery/Armor in S. Africa per round is plenty to stop Germany from even getting the land in the first place, saving cash for England.  And once you get 24-30 IPC in equipment in place down in Africa (I like Egypt, close enough to run south if Japan comes close, far enough to run to Caucasus in a hurry if needed) for England and Africa’s yours forever.  (Don’t forget, America’s landing 10 Ground Units a round into North Africa as well, it’s not JUST the 24-30 IPC worth of British units there.)

If you can add several bid units to same area, then yes - 2inf 1arty in Ukraine are way better than 1 fighter there.
And even if not, 2inf 1arty can help several theaters - like arty Libya, inf Ukraine, inf Belorus (or EEu).

Russia looks hosed. Why your opponent didn’t build the second IC on J4 is beyond me, but it doesn’t look like he or she will need it now.

I think the game is close to balanced, but there is good reason to think it might not be.

basically, if russia were any weaker (or either axis player any stronger), there might be a high number of games where a) novice players would have a terrible time as russia gets pwned, or b) early bad luck by russia would allow for allied defeat even with superior play.

In other words, if germany has the ability to force a battle early in the game against the least resilient allied power, then even when played badly the axis always have a chance of an upset win in that battle.  The stronger you make the axis initially, the more risk that the game is decided by luck in spite of any allied skill very early on.

Having said all that, I think it’s pretty darn balanced and I’m just suggesting theories for why it might intentionally have been left with some imbalance.

@Wazzup:

@axis_roll:

There’s two perspectives on this.  One is, as you state, extra pieces are added to initial game set-up to even the score.

Another bidding system (called the FIDA bid, initials of a number of online A&A clubs), splits the bid into at no more than 50% of the bid can be added as initial set-up extra pieces; the rest is cash to be split amongst Germany and Japan (you can give all the $ to one side if you want)

An example FIDA bid would be 15:  inf, tank in Libya (Germany), $2 to Japan, $5 to Germany.

Actually, in FIDA, this bid would not be allowed.  the Inf/tank is 8 IPC, which is more than 50% of the 15 bid.  In this example, you would be able to place inf, rtl at the most.

Whoops!!

Math error… math error.

Thanks for pointing that out.  My description says <= 50%, but my example was incorrect.

I like it.  Germany is more free, but they can’t just get away with putting a transport in SZ 15 without cover because England can hit it with a Fighter and a Bomber if they want too.