Is there a consensus about a bid?

Thanks for your reply. Makes perfect sense.

Thanks SS!  This helps tremendously!

Ive never heard of bids til recently. I can see both sides as it relates to classic 2nd ed. The game was more challenging for the axis and therefore i always played the axis cuz nobody wanted to. A bid system would have changed the human line up but it would have also biased the game. As it was…i got to be a strong axis player due to experimenting with different stratagies, deciding when to pull back, when to feint, and especially in the opening turns to push my numerical superiority to gain ipc and close the income gap before the allies could get mobilized. I cant speak to the other varients because i have limited play time in them, but i would imagine this to hold true. Im not knocking the bids but from my experience with classic, I see it as a custom rule that could be taken or left, but not necessary if you put in the time to play learn and stratagize.

@zooooma:

I was never a big fan of the unit bid.  I posted years ago about bidding for NAs in revised.  Also I wanted an option to play minor victory, which I think also helps the Axis.  I used to like to play Classic with Restricted russia and Weapons Development Bonus.  If this doesn’t eliminate a bid it should at least reduce it.  I used to advocate for that option in the Axis & Allies Member’s Cluib (AAMC), but there wasn’t much interest.

Best of luck in your endeavors!

Alot of people played this way on the CD version (when those old gaming rooms were around).

I have read this thread and I have to chuckle as I think people have lost the purpose of the bid. People are concerned about how the placement of immediate units imbalances the game but who allowed that opponent to walk off with so much cash in the bid.

If I think I can win with the axis straight up (no bid) when why would I bid more than zero? The bid is like “name that tune” where you challange your opponent to beat you with less. I am reading bids of 12 or more and I think that is nuts (who allows someone to walk off with 12 IPCs? I wanna play you!)

As for the play testers, Larry Harris is far from perfect. I know far more complicated systems that let have huge amounts of play testers and even they let some things through.

Over all, I like the bid system for if you really want to play the axis…bid low!

@Funcioneta:

What’s the problem? Bid a tank in alg if you really think axis need a bid  :roll:

I frankly don’t think a bid is needed at all. But a player I am playing against said we could use one, and since I took the axis, I was wondering where to put my bid. In Triple A, as I said, I couldn’t stick anything in Libya, so I did end up putting a tank in Algeria.

@Flying:

I see no strategy evolving that includes fighting Japan with a large enough effort that simulates the real war. It will be KGIF. I do think KGIF can be defeated by Japan buying large quantities of bombers and using them to blast Russian ICs. This would give the Germans an opening to crush Russia.

Japan can make America fight.

I am beginning to wonder if the Heavy Bomber rule that has some people bent so out of shape is in there to compensate for the large boost that attaining National Objectives gives the Axis.  As a guess, it is going to be easier for the Axis to attain their objectives, and more productive to them than for the Allies to attain their objectives, which do not appear to give them anywhere the same boost.