• I have been playing some AA50 - 41 on TripleA lately. Dice, tech, NOS, and a bid for Allies.

    The lowest bid for Allies has been 5, and the highest 8, with 6 being common.

    My initial instinct was to give the bid to Russia, typically a tank in Karellia. This worked out ok, but it occurred to me a tank in Egypt would be even better, and I have been going with that since.

    The addition of the tank in North Africa is profound. First off, the Egypt attack on G1 goes from risky to foolish, and the influence the UK can maintain in Africa lasts the rest of the game. A bid as low as 3 with an inf for UK in EGY might be sufficient as well.

    The time I got 8 I bought a destroyer for UK in an effort to keep my battleship alive. I regretted this because it doesn’t really reduce G1 options that much - there are plenty of naval targets to choose from, and Germany always has to skip at least one anyway - so the destroyer became ‘just a destroyer’. Given such a high bid in the future, I think I would put a tank in EGY and an inf in Karellia.

    Opinions? What’s the lowest bid you would take Allies for in a competitive game and what would you do with it?

  • Customizer

    generally speaking in a competitive game, the lowest i would take would be 6 ipcs
    maybe 5
    also, I would not take more than 8 as that would be too high


  • I will never let my opponent play allies with a bid.

    If forced to play a bid game, I’d rather play allies at 0 bid, I feel it’s easier to win with them than with axis.

    In all cases, for me, the game is balanced.


  • I regularly play competitive games without a bid for either side. If there is going to be a bid I will bid zero as I am already convinced the game is balanced and can be won by either side.


  • Personally, I don’t think that a free-placement bid is needed.  Egypt and Karelia are both balanced, but if free placement is allowed, then that is where any extra units will probably be placed.  If anything is needed, it may only be 1 or 2 Chinese infantry, or a slight setup change, such as, upgrade the US transport in sz56 to a cruiser.


  • The bid should be limited to chinese infs. The other theaters are well balanced, as Bardoly says

    I guess at least 4-5 chinese infs, all to Yunnan

  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    The game is totally balanced.

    Only play style/strategies are unbalanced.

    I would only allow bids in AA50 for newer/unfamiliar disadvantaged players, to make them more formiddable opponents. And to keep things fun and exciting, so they feel the desire to play again.


  • @Gargantua:

    The game is totally balanced.

    Only play style/strategies are unbalanced.

    I would only allow bids in AA50 for newer/unfamiliar disadvantaged players, to make them more formiddable opponents. And to keep things fun and exciting, so they feel the desire to play again.

    It would be a fantasic coincidence if any game with such a large variety of units, potential setups, and on an incongruent board (i.e. the world) would be objectively balanced to an accuracy smaller than 1 IPC. Part of the interest of the game is deciding just what one would accept as compensation for the weaker side, and which side is weaker. If you think it perfectly balanced (or nearly so) then you would be happy with either side. Others differ.


  • For China, I think it’s mostly it’s rules rather than number of initial units that makes them so bad. ( Except that fighter who should get to place where you want )

    • Remove the unit limit reinforcement per territory if there is already units in it.
    • Divide by 2 and not 3 for the number of reinforcement infantry.
    • Place fighter where you want or at least not in range for Japan turn 1.

  • @Corbeau:

    For China, I think it’s mostly it’s rules rather than number of initial units that makes them so bad. ( Except that fighter who should get to place where you want )

    Yes and not. Of course, the rules gives China all disadvantages and Japan all the advantages. This would happen also with more units as you say (you can observe it in 1941 scenario or if you bid, say, 2 inf to Yunnan). But 1941 makes that trouble even worst than it is. Having only chinese 1 inf after a full attack of J1 is ridiculuos because China had a horde army, and of course Flying Tigers should be out of danger since you cannot rebuild them

    So I think China problem is a combo of crappy rules and (a bit less but still very important) crappy setup


  • I thought it was 1 Chinese infantry for every 2 territory not 3?

    @Corbeau:

    For China, I think it’s mostly it’s rules rather than number of initial units that makes them so bad. ( Except that fighter who should get to place where you want )

    • Remove the unit limit reinforcement per territory if there is already units in it.
    • Divide by 2 and not 3 for the number of reinforcement infantry.
    • Place fighter where you want or at least not in range for Japan turn 1.

  • What if we let America rebuild the Flying Tigers for an increased cost, and they would be deployed when China places their infantry? Somewhere in the 12-15 IPC range seems about right. That would certainly give China a chance to hold off the Japanese.


  • Would there be a limit as to one Flying Tiger at one time?

    @Butcher:

    What if we let America rebuild the Flying Tigers for an increased cost, and they would be deployed when China places their infantry? Somewhere in the 12-15 IPC range seems about right. That would certainly give China a chance to hold off the Japanese.


  • Yeah, there is a limit of one, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Either that, or if the U.S. can fly a fighter into a Chinese controlled territory, it comes under Chinese control when they place their units. Again, there is a limit of one Flying Tiger.

    Or to keep it alive at the start, the Flying Tiger could start in Sikang.


  • Sort of like a Chinese-US lend & lease?  I like that idea.  It  would take some time but at least the Flying Tiger can be replaced.

    @Butcher:

    Yeah, there is a limit of one, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Either that, or if the U.S. can fly a fighter into a Chinese controlled territory, it comes under Chinese control when they place their units. Again, there is a limit of one Flying Tiger.

    Or to keep it alive at the start, the Flying Tiger could start in Sikang.


  • I think it makes sense. The U.S. can provide support to China, but they have to actually get the fig there.

    Maybe both options could be included. Pay 15 to have it placed with China’s new infantry, or pay 10 and have to move it there. Limit one Flying Tiger at a time.


  • i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?


  • If Japan kills China J1, as they should, USA’s figs will not arrive there at time to even land in China. And India will be soon another japanese puppet

    China needs a total change of rules and setup if we want this game working


  • Never thought about that.  If there are no Chinese territory, no US-Chinese lend and lease.  No Flying Tiger.

    @Funcioneta:

    If Japan kills China J1, as they should, USA’s figs will not arrive there at time to even land in China. And India will be soon another japanese puppet

    China needs a total change of rules and setup if we want this game working


  • @rockrobinoff:

    i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?

    Why didn’t I think of that?

Suggested Topics

  • 44
  • 9
  • 8
  • 3
  • 31
  • 12
  • 5
  • 30
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

21

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts