What are "Bids"?

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.

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).

I used to think the Allies sucked balls when I first started; I just kept massing tanks with Germany and threw Russia back (same with Japan, double complex + mass tanks LOL). They really are harder to learn to play/coordinate.

For the record, letting the allies keep W. Europe is worse then E. Europe but both should be avoided at all costs.

=)

Oh yea, and never let America take Norway.  Better to let England have it.  Odds of them affording an IC and putting out 3 armor a round there is much smaller. =)

@ncscswitch:

I like the logging option.

I know I did not care for the argument that brought the issue up.  And it would be nice to have had a way to drop you a note and say “Hey!  What were thsoe dice?” :-)

Okay, I have created a “Make game record page” which creates records that AACalc will soon be able to log to - another couple hours coding should do it. This also incorporates an optional bidding function.

One question that was raised about bidding in software development forum was whether we should use an “Ebay” style bid where the winning bidder gets their optimal bid - ie. if you bid 0 and the other guy bid 10, then you would get it for 9 - so your bid is how low you are willing to go, but you don’t necessarily have to go that low. It’s an interesting concept, and I could just make a choice on my page for which bid system to use.

Thoughts? Would A&A.org consider switching to this bid? It would make the bid less nerve-racking because you know you won’t be leaving money “on the table”. Eg. I just bid 7 for my round 2 game against a player who took the bid for 10 in round 1. If he bid 10 again this time, I could have had it for 9. Of course with that you can’t declare your bid placement with your bid (or you could just get the change in $ to the bank) because you don’t know exactly what it will be yet.

@Craig:

c) Naval units can be placed with other naval units or in territories adjacent to a power’s land

This would create some interesting bids… in games where the bid was high enough
(but with the auction bid system, I doubt there are many bids of + or - 8 or more to allow naval units)

Problem with a live bid with online games is that it can take weeks just to determine who’s on what side. :(

I like to bid 33 IPC.  1 Battleship, 1 Transport, 1 IPC to Japan. :)

muhahahaha

this tactic works well against the group i play with… they go after germany with a vengance… they retreat everything from all the corners of world for the most part and pull to the atlantic just to put a wrench in the works for germany… they buy nothing without germany in mind… its 100 % devotion… it took 5 turns last game before i felt i could even make a real run at russia because i had to hold strong while japan got going…

Edit: holding strong meant staying at 40 or above… i fell to 37 one turn but rebounded back after a little regrouping…