@arthur-bomber-harris I am not really trying to discuss the merits of any specific building, was just provided as an example. Rules should be determined based on more than one example, or perhaps how they can change the starting position of the board. In this case in a way that might be considered “against the spirit” of the map design. I’m not trying to sound dramatic or something, but this is the thinking behind the bid rules from earlier editions. I just think a consensus might be a good thing to reach. I don’t really know if “I can handle any placement they make, so whatever” is the right way to look at it, but I could be wrong. Are you specifically for or against a clarification?
B
Latest posts made by Bung
-
RE: Allied Bids - What are the common rules on placement?posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
-
RE: Current Allied bid for Global 1940posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
TripleaA lobby is seeing a lot of bids between 16-24 on average? In LL I agree with what’s been said, I really am starting to come to the conclusion that even mid-20s makes it a very tough match for Allies. I am not surprised the league is going higher than that. But I really do think you need to guage the skill level of your opponent. If you get a newbie in your triplea lobby, maybe cut them a break. It’s the somewhat experienced guys that always throw me, strong for about 3-5 rounds but then don’t really have any mid-game strategy experieince. It’s hard to know how much to bid in those cases too.
But anyway, back to what units are getting bought: Subs/DDs around the Med for UK. Sometimes fighters for UK (Scotland, Malta). Other threads have answered this question as well, from recent memory: Inf in Yunnan for example, and ground units in africa.
Less often variations: Russia bomber, UK transport in South Africa. UK sub in Malaya. I’ve also seen Subs in the north atlantic.
Some people dump a bunch of ground units in Russia. Whether or not that actually does anything I doubt.
I am also going to take this opportunity to plug this thread about Bids and bid rules: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35874/allied-bids-what-are-the-common-rules-on-placement … I do so to personally recommend not allowing facilities for bids.
-
RE: Allied Bids - What are the common rules on placement?posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
Just going to bump this thread since it’s one of the ones that comes up on Google…
There’s some question about what “units” are sometimes, and a lot of variations from different players and different clubs. Specifically in Global 2nd, the bids are now high enough that people can buy buildings.
In my mind I wanted to get an answer about if I generally felt OK about people buying buildings.
I was looking at the League’s rules mentioned above, as well as my old rules from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160810212318/http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/comp/rules.php?lid=6
And in both cases it doesnt explicitly state what “unit” means. Furthermore, the old rules I linked were from a time when bids weren’t high enough to even bother making the distinction.
Anyway, I took a look at a 1940 2nd edition rulebook. All purchase-able units: Facilities, Land Units, Naval Units, and Air Units are listed under a section called “Unit Profiles”. To my surprise, Facilities is listed under “Unit Profiles” rather than two sections, say, “Buildings” and “Unit Profiles”.
I havn’t been around as much the last few years, but I do recall people generally not allowing Buildings. I know there also seems to be players now who allow units to be placed anywhere, and they don’t seem to care what bids are used for.
For me, I think I would not want players putting buildings down, I feel like the ability to place new units on UK1 around Egypt for example, is pretty far beyond adding a few units here and there to help the battles on the board, and the general strategies which the board was designed for.
Let me know what you think, maybe if the League is still active you should consider being explicit in your rules. Hopefully for others this serves as a reference place that in my opinion Factory bids should not be allowed. (FWIW if you even know me lol.)
-
RE: The Japan Playbookposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
You also have two fleets going to sz35 listed, was one supposed to say sz36?
-
RE: The Japan Playbookposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
My apologies if this is already posted,
I’m not completely convinced one should do either of these:
- 1 korea fighter -> sz 35
- 1 mech inf manchuria -> chahar
Re 15: By sending the korea fighter to sz35 you actually are putting 3 air that have to land in sz35: the two that attacked manila and this one. Which means how can the carrier from Carolinas go to sz43? There should be enough ships without needing the fighter in sz35 in combat?
Re 21: If/When china/UK counters yunnan, you have little (hunnan inf maybe) to no ground left to attack, it might be nice to have a piece of fodder. If you leave the mech inf move till noncom, then if Hunnan inf attack survives, or they fail to recapture the territory, you might move the mech inf to anhwe, that way there is a glimmer of hope you have a unit for casualty rolls when countering Yunnan in J2.
-
RE: The Japan Playbookposted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
Hey Cow,
Could you update your original post and remove the “/artillery” from the j1 dow j1 purchase. If you don’t capture Hunnan, you only collect 41, and you need 42 for the J2 buys you suggest.
Cheers,
Bung -
RE: Copy of Anniversary Edition for Saleposted in Marketplace
if i sold a used copy, what should i sell it for?
-
RE: What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
When you say “we” do you mean A+3?
-
RE: What is making Alpha 2+ unbalanced?posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
@Cmdr:
I go so far as to not even bother defending the Italian fleet iwth German planes.
Yes I would hope this is common now, I do this as well. If you think it through it makes the most sense.
Suggested Topics
