Darth, thanks for your first post above - some very interesting thoughts. You raise some good reasons for why unit bids might be a helpful solution. I think unit bids should remain a last resort however, only if more agreeable (less game changing) fixes can’t be found.
I agree whole-heartedly with your impression that Egypt G1 is important. In fact, I think it is largely determinative of the game. But I don’t think it’s so much about the assets that remain as a result (i.e. the british fighter, or the BB in sz2 etc.), but the income difference dictated by who gets early control of Africa. The problem is that there are so few units in Africa, it is so far out of the way and it is worth so much. A 20+ IPC swing rides on who controls (I’m talking relative income difference, not territory/cash value. I.e. if both sides were on 100 income and then africa changed hands it would become 90/110). And it’s not worth seriously contesting africa after the opening becuase those assets are more needed and useful at the proximate fronts. So whichever side ends G1 with armor(s) in Egypts looks good to win I’d say - as in previous editions, he/she who holds Africa wins the war.
If you’re with on this up to here, then neither a cash bid or a unit bid will be a terribly effective balancer. You’ve highlighted well some deficiencies with the cash bid above. The unit bid will result the same way - however it turns out, whoever gets the extra units in Egypt wins the war.
It’s clear there’s a dynamics problem here, not a balance problem (in fact I believe the rest of the board is extremely well balanced). You can basically flip a coin (well, a biased 70/30 one for the axis…) on who starts the game with the advantage - i.e. wins in Egypt G1. A cash bid of 20 or 30 to USA for example will still come down to the same to a coin flip (and if allies win egypt, the game will be close, if they lose it they will instead get trounced).
Solution
I think a more appropriate solution would be reducing the value of all those central african territories. I don’t think it improves the game that Africa is worth so much - it certainly doesn’t help game dynamics, and I’d welcome the views of people with good historical knowledge whether it is even accurate that it was so valuable income-wise during WWII.
For example, make all African territories worth zero except the three north african ones + Saf. You’d then have to rebalance the UK’s income. The value of Australia could be increased (perhaps splitting Australia into two territories with WA worth 1 and the east/south worth 3), which is both more realistic and has the added benefit of keeping the US interested in the pacific (and thus improving the dynamics of the game).
Darth, if you’d like to workshop these ideas (maybe try a game?) i’d be keen. I think something along these lines would sort out what is nearly a masterfully designed game, but is just not quite right…
