And actually I’ve just noticed that there’s also a forum thread devoted to setups:
Bonehead European setup?
-
And again, in my experience, and I think safe to say most everyone else’s here, the Allies usually win.
If the Allies usualy win, then why is every bid I’ve seen given for games here always for helping the Allies?
Never played with one myself and the Allies do fine. Seems to be the same consensus here, so I am not sure where you are getting your “every bid for the Allies” comment: � � � http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28609.0
LHoffman, while i agree with a vast majority of you points, i just don’t understand at all the reasoning behind those comments…
On the given link, the poll clearly shows that half of the voters think that a bid is not necessary, while the other half think a bid is necessary for allies.So, if this poll shows anything, it is that the Axis have the advantage. There is not a single vote for an Axis bid…
Go into the "play boardgames"section of this forum, and you are going to find dozens of games with a bid for allies, while you may not find any game with a bid for Axis. -
^^^ so true.
I am at a point where I am usually not bidding below 10 and I just take the axis and give it to the allies.
When I am in the mood to play the allies, I don’t like going below 8, I want the full 10 inf for uk 1 and a sub.
-
I agree; 8 seems to be the magic bid for allies. With $8 you can get a UK sub and build 1 more inf in London (if allowed to keep the $2 change), or you can get 2 artillery in Alexandria or Szechwan (if allowing chinese units in the bid), or perhaps a destroyer somewhere. My pick is still the destroyer in z104 for its effect on sealion.
-
I prefer 1 unit per territory, no china, no france, place units belonging to a power where that power has existing units (in other words place where you have units already with the same country). Leftover income is saved.
That keeps funny things from happening. Some people do 1 unit per territory + country must be at war. Leftover income is saved.
Once in awhile you will run into someone that says bid must be fully spent and no restrictions to bid.
In which case I just roll korea round 1 and forget about it.
-
In that case an extra UK destroyer in z106 might do the trick. Either 3 subs go to 106 and Germany takes air losses in z111 and z110, OR the Canadians reinforce London (plus z109 destroyer not needed to clear z106 convoy raid), OR luftwaffe preserved and no Canadians but z111 fleet survives. All 3 options negative for sealion.
-
Well, thing is… usual G1 involves 2 subs to hit the destroyer transport… all an extra unit in 110 or 111 does is shift 1 sub over to 110 or 111. That is it. Yeah it does screw with sea lion a bit.
-
Never played with one myself and the Allies do fine. Seems to be the same consensus here, so I am not sure where you are getting your “every bid for the Allies” comment: � � � http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=28609.0
LHoffman, while i agree with a vast majority of you points, i just don’t understand at all the reasoning behind those comments…
On the given link, the poll clearly shows that half of the voters think that a bid is not necessary, while the other half think a bid is necessary for allies.So, if this poll shows anything, it is that the Axis have the advantage. There is not a single vote for an Axis bid…
Go into the "play boardgames"section of this forum, and you are going to find dozens of games with a bid for allies, while you may not find any game with a bid for Axis.Axisplaya, et. al. :
When I posted the link I had not voted so could not see the results. Here is the situation as of Oct 4 (according to the poll):
51% believe no bid is necessary
49% believe that some bid is necessary for the Allies. The vast majority of those think that 6-10 IPCs is best.
0% see the need for an Axis bidObviously, my word choice in using “consensus” was poor. There is a majority believing no bid is necessary, but not a consensus. For that I apologize. My evidence was formed by looking at the comments of the thread and seeing that Wittman, Questioneer, Special Forces and Loki17 were all for no bid, while only you, Cow and Allweneedislove saw the need for an Allied bid. However, even though he said a bid was necessary to balance the game, Allweneedislove brought up an important point of consideration: the poll does not show that a bid is necessary for balance alone but that it is necessary for balancing players of lesser experience, or preference. Cow is a good example: he wants an Allied bid because he thinks the Allies are boring and doesn’t like to play with them, not because he thinks it is unbalanced. You on the other hand admitted that the Allies need a little “buff” but also that your strategy with the Allies is less perfected than yours for the Axis. You thus have a propensity to play the Axis; hence your name. So, neither you nor Cow has brought up solid reasons for the game being unbalanced and thus the need for a bid, but more because you don’t like playing the Allies and your play is poorer because you have not developed it as much.
So, no; because there are no votes for an Axis bid does not necessarily mean the Axis have an (unfair) advantage and the Allies need help. Who knows all of the reasons why the faceless (and commentless) poll takers voted for an Allied bid. We do know that the ones who are in favor and commented said they did so because their Allied startegy was admittedly not good or they had little experience. How are we to know that a similar situation was not at work with the 49% who voted likewise? I am saying the poll is not scientific enough to draw the conclusions you have.
If anything, the game will always appear that the Allies need a bid to begin with because they are vastly underpowered and underprepared compared to the Axis. The Allies are designed to get their butts kicked for at least the first 2 turns, but usually 3 or 4. If the Allies can all hold out until Turn 5, it becomes very, very difficult for the Axis to win. The Axis have the advantage in the beginning and if they make good use of that and roll well, they can win, I do not argue that. What I dispute is that because the Axis can convert early does not mean the Allies are weak and need a bid to survive. What the hell does a 6 IPC bid really give you anyway?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=21057.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20964.0The first two threads illustrate my point that OOB initially the game was viewed as favoring the Allies. And I confess that I could not find the thread I was looking for in which nearly everyone was complaining of the game being broken because the Allies were too strong. I know it exists somewhere because I read it when it was in discussion. If someone could post it, that would be great. But per some of the comments in the poll on bids, it seems that experienced players find an Allied bid unnecessary. I know that Cow and Axisplaya are experienced, but less so, by their own admission, with the Allies. Unfortunately I cannot give you evidence of “my experience” which I have referencd, but in it and in the hands of several experienced players, the Allies usually end up winning.
This last link explains my position in its overall context: with experience and good strategy either side can win, but it is an uphill battle for the Axis, as it should be.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20597.0
Again, these conclusions are based on OOB setup and rules not any of the Alphas or G40.2, which I understand is very similar to G40.1. -
Wittman, Questioneer, Special Forces and Loki17 were all for no bid, while only you, Cow and Allweneedislove saw the need for an Allied bid.I crushed loki17 so bad, not once but twice, yet he still insists the allies don’t need a bid.
Some people just like to play the way it was set up, they don’t want to bid or change anything, they just want to play the setup. Which is fine.
allweneedislove would destroy everyone on this thread - except me :).
-
Seems as though the point of this thread got lost somewhere along the way. :wink:
I think the original comments were not directed at whether or not one side over the other needed a bid, but rather that the European game setup was very limiting and a bit silly.
In almost all games the Allies are designed to “hold out” or at least wait while they gain the units needed to press any front. I’m not sure that is what is in question. The fundamental flaw (if you don’t like the scenario of the “Worlds largest Navy” being wiped from the map on turn 1) is due to the limitations of the game based on the map design, unit structure and D6 configuration.
From my vantage point I would have thought that after all this time a new game being released would have more to it then Global offers, especially in terms of making a more realistic game from a Historical perspective.
-
I concur Hepps. The allies is very limited due to the # of spaces between usa and anything of significance, # of spaces on north africa, and the fact that london has to buy strait inf round 1.
Not to mention at the end of round 1, the allies barely have a total unit value lead when buildings are excluded from value.
It is as if a country on the allied squad is a whole round behind. Hence the high bid value.
The allies just cannot get units on to the battlefield which is why it is very rare to see 10 man drops from london on europe every turn.
-
You on the other hand admitted that the Allies need a little “buff” but also that your strategy with the Allies is less perfected than yours for the Axis.
How are we to know that a similar situation was not at work with the 49% who voted likewise?
I know that Cow and Axisplaya are experienced, but less so, by their own admission, with the Allies
The less one could say is that you have put some emphasis on this aspect…So let’s talk about it for a minute.
You do realise that this is true for the huuuge majority of players right ?
The Axis is just plain easier to play than the allies. Playing allies demand more calculation and more tactical awareness than playing axis.
The way the game is structured, i’m not saying it’s a good thing to do, but you could play a whole game with axis without ever using a can opener, a concerted defensive NCM with one of your ally or without building any facility (AB, NB, IC) to “help” any of your ally…Now if you do that when playing the allies, you’re going nowhere.
From what i have observed, this is also true for experienced players. I mean, most of them handle the axis better than the allies, even if they score very well with the allies.If anything, the game will always appear that the Allies need a bid to begin with because they are vastly underpowered and underprepared compared to the Axis. The Allies are designed to get their butts kicked for at least the first 2 turns, but usually 3 or 4. If the Allies can all hold out until Turn 5, it becomes very, very difficult for the Axis to win. The Axis have the advantage in the beginning and if they make good use of that and roll well, they can win, I do not argue that. What I dispute is that because the Axis can convert early does not mean the Allies are weak and need a bid to survive.
I agree with you, exepted for this :
@LHoffman:If the Allies can all hold out until Turn 5, it becomes very, very difficult for the Axis to win.
I think this comes from experience (maybe numerous years) of AA original, revised, 42, anniversary, whatever….
When you’ll have played something like 30-50 games of Global, you will perhaps change this number, or at least be much less categorical about it. :wink:What the hell does a 6 IPC bid really give you anyway?
Great question ! It will give me the ocasion to get back on the topic.
If you read my answer in the poll, i say that i would only play the axis with +10 bid. Less than that, you can have allies against me 100% of the time.A 6 IPC bid makes about no difference, i agree with you.
Now a 10 IPC bid is a fighter in Scotia.
This thread started as “the complaint of poor UK fleet sunk G1”.
I’m not saying a fighter in Scotia is THE answer to this, but it helps a lot. This figther makes the situation more complicated for sz111, sz110 and even sz106 when you think about it.Now, a fgt in Scotia will not save the UK fleet against a determined axis player, we’re clear on that, but it makes thing much more interesting.
Maybe much better players than i am will say that 10 IPC is too much of a bid for Allies, and maybe one day i’ll change my mind about it and i will be more confortable with allies. I don’t know.
Actually, i’m all ready to believe you that for a really good player, Allies wins more often. I’m just not there at the moment. -
You can play the allies perfectly, but my axis will floor you. I insist on giving allies 8-12 in my lobby dice games.
Europe is really stupid. Check it out. Everything germany needs to take over russia is bought within the first 4 rounds… the allies got nothin on germany, so germany is putting his full income into kicking russia’s ass and nothing is europe except air, units placed, and a few aa guns. At some point germany gets some bombers and a bunch of inf to defend europe, then russia goes broke, G6 or G7 moscow is done.
Meanwhile Japan requires the full might of america to stop from winning.
-
You on the other hand admitted that the Allies need a little “buff” but also that your strategy with the Allies is less perfected than yours for the Axis.
How are we to know that a similar situation was not at work with the 49% who voted likewise?
I know that Cow and Axisplaya are experienced, but less so, by their own admission, with the Allies
The less one could say is that you have put some emphasis on this aspect…So let’s talk about it for a minute.
You do realise that this is true for the huuuge majority of players right ?
The Axis is just plain easier to play than the allies. Playing allies demand more calculation and more tactical awareness than playing axis.
The way the game is structured, i’m not saying it’s a good thing to do, but you could play a whole game with axis without ever using a can opener, a concerted defensive NCM with one of your ally or without building any facility (AB, NB, IC) to “help” any of your ally…Now if you do that when playing the allies, you’re going nowhere.
From what i have observed, this is also true for experienced players. I mean, most of them handle the axis better than the allies, even if they score very well with the allies.Perhaps it is true for the majority. And maybe I have made it seem like the Allies are unbeatable if you experienced enough… if so I wish to clear that up and say that I did not mean this discussion to be like that. I was speaking only from my own experience. I will say that it is not necessarily easier to play with the Axis, even though it may be simpler. If you dally or make a couple poor decisions which put you back a turn or two, it will likely cost the Axis the game.
If anything, the game will always appear that the Allies need a bid to begin with because they are vastly underpowered and underprepared compared to the Axis. The Allies are designed to get their butts kicked for at least the first 2 turns, but usually 3 or 4. If the Allies can all hold out until Turn 5, it becomes very, very difficult for the Axis to win. The Axis have the advantage in the beginning and if they make good use of that and roll well, they can win, I do not argue that. What I dispute is that because the Axis can convert early does not mean the Allies are weak and need a bid to survive.
I agree with you, exepted for this :
@LHoffman:If the Allies can all hold out until Turn 5, it becomes very, very difficult for the Axis to win.
I think this comes from experience (maybe numerous years) of AA original, revised, 42, anniversary, whatever….
When you’ll have played something like 30-50 games of Global, you will perhaps change this number, or at least be much less categorical about it. :wink:My experience is not as vast as you assume, so you give me a little too much credit. I am fairly young, most likely younger than you, so I have not played years of A&A Original (only one game in fact), but I have played the others extensively. I have played perhaps 20 live games of Global, but not 30-50. Again, I do not, or have not, played online. That being so, you are probably much more experienced than I. So I give your insights a good deal of weight. Maybe I will change my numbers if I play a significantly greater number of games, but as of now that is my perspective, and that of some others too which I have pointed out.
What the hell does a 6 IPC bid really give you anyway?
A 6 IPC bid makes about no difference, i agree with you.
Now a 10 IPC bid is a fighter in Scotia.
This thread started as “the complaint of poor UK fleet sunk G1”.
I’m not saying a fighter in Scotia is THE answer to this, but it helps a lot. This figther makes the situation more complicated for sz111, sz110 and even sz106 when you think about it.Now, a fgt in Scotia will not save the UK fleet against a determined axis player, we’re clear on that, but it makes thing much more interesting.
Maybe much better players than i am will say that 10 IPC is too much of a bid for Allies, and maybe one day i’ll change my mind about it and i will be more confortable with allies. I don’t know.
Actually, i’m all ready to believe you that for a really good player, Allies wins more often. I’m just not there at the moment.Would a fighter in Nova Scotia for bid deter you Axisplaya? If you would agree that Germany needs to take out the UK fleet to be successful, I don’t think the possible counterattack from an extra fighter would be a deterrant to sinking all the UK ships. It would not be to me. It could make a Sealion invasion a bit more difficult, but that apparently is a seperate issue from the topic of this thread. Did you mean a fighter in Scotland, or United Kingdom? Those seem like much more logical and effective choices. A fighter in Nova Scotia cannot even counterattack SZ 111 or 110 on turn 1.
Getting back to topic, which I apologize for having derailed… maybe a bid can be a solution for some people; Der Kuenstler for instance. In his case it is more likely that a change in the rules or setup will be needed… because from my perspective, … well, you already know my perspective. Maybe you predominantly Axis players can back me up on it. It is not historical for the UK fleet to be destroyed, but that is only because Hitler never attempted it. We can debate if Germany was even prepared to, but it will not change the fact that it is necessary in the game. Perhaps Der Kuenstler would need an even larger bid than 10; to throw some more significant deterrents in the mix?
-
Sadly I think the bid is being upped to 15, because in the re-release they took away an inf from egypt. I will have to play the axis and give opponents 15 to see how things go. Not sure how a sub and dd or 5 inf or whatever the allies get will impact the game in the long run.
Yes, the setup is really silly to watch the strongest navy go poof right away.
-
@Cow:
Yes, the setup is really silly to watch the strongest navy go poof right away.
Silly or odd, yes it is. But is there a solution for having that not happen? That is the question, which no one has definitively answered yet.
-
Would be interesting to see 111 moved to the dd transport, but I take it they don’t want the fleet to merge into the med with the other fleet.
hmm. Just bids I guess or put 111 in iceland or something.
-
I wouldn’t want to play axis against anyone with a $10 bid (especially someone like Axisplaya!). An extra fighter in scotland would ruin all my wicked plans. 6 or 8 is probably fair.
The hard thing about playing allies is that you have to coordinate all the powers and always be thinking several turns ahead when you do your builds. The axis can just play two more or less separate games - Europe and Pacific. The difference gets multiplied in a team game, where the allies have to be really on the ball with coordinating their moves. Axis can get away with a broad strategic plan (e.g. you take India, I’ll take Leningrad, we’ll met up in Stalingrad), where the allies have to coordinate every tactical move and not screw it up (e.g. US will clear the sea zone and take losses on planes, ANZAC will take the island and land planes on the US carrier, reinforce the fleet with cruiser and destroyers).
-
Would a fighter in Nova Scotia for bid deter you Axisplaya? If you would agree that Germany needs to take out the UK fleet to be successful, I don’t think the possible counterattack from an extra fighter would be a deterrant to sinking all the UK ships. It would not be to me. It could make a Sealion invasion a bit more difficult, but that apparently is a seperate issue from the topic of this thread. Did you mean a fighter in Scotland, or United Kingdom? Those seem like much more logical and effective choices. A fighter in Nova Scotia cannot even counterattack SZ 111 or 110 on turn 1.
Oops. You’re right. It was meant to be Scotland. From where it can scramble in sz111. It was late, and english is not my 1st language (in french, Scotia and Scotland translate into the same word).
If a 2nd fgt can scramble in sz111, then Germany will be tempted to send one more unit there, but from where does this unit come from ? Do they send 2 subs in sz111, and so only one in 106 ? Do they send a plane in sz111 that they usually send in sz110 ? If so, UK might scramble in sz110…
So that plane makes things more complicated for Germany, without changing too much the balance of the setup. -
a couple observations….
-
every A&A game starts with Germany destroying UK naval units with its subs/airforce…this dynamic has nothing to do with historical accuracy. It’s about starting the game off with action where Germany must make choices and take risks. It’s about playabilty, fun, and diversity of outcome.
-
It’s an excellent sign for Global that people complain equally as much about Sea Lion being too strong as Barbarossa being too strong… It demonstrates the game has depth and that vastly different approaches can succeed. Somehow, the individuals starting these threads are going on the TripleA lobby and coming to opposite conclusions about the strategy “everyone” is playing…that’s some nice diversity there.
-
IMO, Axis has the advantage… However this advantage can be overcome by 1) luck or 2) superior allied play. So when a game is young, an experienced player can say “I don’t need a bid” and usually succeed… but this bravado won’t work against an equally skilled player. Against that equally skilled opponent, bids will be required.
-
-
- IMO, Axis has the advantage…. �However this advantage can be overcome by 1) luck or 2) superior allied play. �So when a game is young, an player can say “I don’t need a bid” and usually succeed… �but this bravado won’t work against an equally skilled player. �Against that equally skilled opponent, bids will be required.
See there LHoffman ? you have the advice of one of the top players of this site (which i’m not).
Suggested Topics
