I agree, 1 extra inf here or there doesn’t matter, that can be made up in any trading scenerio, or an extra hit here an there.
Likewise, I don’t the the 3rd edition rules do much to shift bid amounts, or should do much to shift your play.
You’re example about UK 1 is spot on. I’ve played plenty of 3rd ed games and you can go 3 trns on UK 1, this certainly doesn’t help the Axis.
I like the Canada change, but you can easily work around it.
I see why LL would change bid amounts, b/c it is all about numbers, the battles are decided thus you can get very formulaic and say, well I bought 10 inf now and they reach the front next turn giving me enough to win the battle regardless of what I do elsewhere. Very predictable.
But 2nd ed vs. 3rd, I don’t see much of a change.
I think an Aggressive Allied player will always win regardless of Ruleset (2nd or 3rd) and regardless of bid amount. There is an inherent adv to being the attacker, b/c you can always retreat. The defender has no such luck.
I also think Germany must be defensive in Europe regardless of Ruleset (2nd or 3rd). They simply don’t have the numbers to do damage early and must preserve their armor and air for when Japan really gets rolling.
Which brings us to Afr,
Personally I’ve always thought of Afr as overrated. You should take what you can for as little as you can, then as the Allies land, you fall back, (maybe you get a Jap landing to help, maybe not), then shift your early winfall from rds 1-4 into postion in Europe as Japan Apporaches Moscow.
Every game is different though and if you can hold some of Afr for more, then great! Send another inf or 2, then great! But not at the expense of Europe.
That being said, my generic Allied strat has always been and will always be this:
1 - kill German ships
2 - reclaim Afr
3 - box Germany in in Europe
So, I will kill the German Med fleet in rd 1 or 2 regardless of cost to the Allies. If that means 2-3 planes must die, so be it.
I will land in Afr in rd 2 or 3, then I will work through the CAUC from then on. You can get to Egy, almost as quickly by going UK to Kar to Cauc to Per.
I do not like attacks on WE by the Allies, and perfer to go to Fin or Kar directly. This gives the Allies the 1-2-3 on EE and UK/US the ability to reinforce Mos and Kar, as well as send inf or arm to Per (via cauc), to cut off the Germans.
If I can defeat Axis giving up 21-22 (not PE) 2nd ed, then I can certainly defeat Axis giving up 17-18 3rd ed.
I can see why the the bid would be about 21 though, as you start to approach people just playing PE, but that would be my bid every game and I don’t know how people in the club wouldn’t start off at that. I’ll bid 21, if I lose the bid, hey I’ll happily give up 20, and if I win the bid, I got 7 inf to place.
Thus I would expect, the avg bid to be about 20.5 not 17-18.
Even looking at the 2nd Ed avg bid, posted in the link by warman the 2nd ed avg was right around 3rd. So the ruleset doesn’t mean lower bid for 3rd ed CD.
I think just like 2nd ed players can get stuck in looking at things a certain way, I think that can easily happen in the CD club.
If the goto Afr, reinforce Afr, (then possible Tech with Japan) strat works, then it works, but are the players really trying to find a way to beat this or are they just all content with taking their own shot at winning that way?
Sort of going along with the status quo?