Axis have a good variety of openers to pick and choose from. Even the non standard ones.
How do I edit the title of my game to change it to a League game (mine vs. Eggman’s)….I’m getting my arse kicked by it.
You need a moderator to do it for you. Either that, or start a new one.
Another thread made me think of this, so I’ll mention it here: I skimmed this thread to double-check, but I don’t see anything here that would prevent a player from taking anything they like as a Chinese bid- including units they can’t build, like Tanks. Since you don’t see any serious bid money going into the Pacific anyway, this clearly isn’t a huge problem, but perhaps some players feel you should limit China. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to officially limit them to units they could actually produce.
@Eggman:
Another thread made me think of this, so I’ll mention it here: I skimmed this thread to double-check, but I don’t see anything here that would prevent a player from taking anything they like as a Chinese bid- including units they can’t build, like Tanks. Since you don’t see any serious bid money going into the Pacific anyway, this clearly isn’t a huge problem, but perhaps some players feel you should limit China. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to officially limit them to units they could actually produce.
This would be problematic with TripleA because you would only be able to place infantry and artillery at the start of the game.
Fair warning to everyone. Don’t try to add/remove the Chinese fig! You won’t be able to edit it back. If you need to edit the Chinese fig use “action mode” in edit during cm or ncm phases.
Eggman -
Pretty sure it’s implied that you can’t put down impossible units for a bid.
Chinese artillery is permissable, though, especially because the Burma road is open at game start
Pretty sure it’s implied that you can’t put down impossible units for a bid.
I’m sure most people would agree it’s obvious, but I don’t see anything in writing that would prohibit it (implied or otherwise), so somebody could certainly choose to be a stickler about it if they wanted. Always better to make it explicit if it’s really going to be a rule.
Well, Jenn’s not exactly the type to write an air-tight set of rules. Take it up with her.
The league rules need to be adjusted to keep up with the times. 1 unit per territory, come on.
@Cow:
The league rules need to be adjusted to keep up with the times. 1 unit per territory, come on.
for once cow and i are in agreement :-o
@Cow:
The league rules need to be adjusted to keep up with the times. 1 unit per territory, come on.
for once cow and i are in agreement  :-o
I’d put my third to this.
Well, you could always agree with your opponent before you start bidding, and then it will be the rule for you.
@Cow:
The league rules need to be adjusted to keep up with the times. 1 unit per territory, come on.
I agree 1 unit per territory is best, though so far it hasn’t been an issue.
There was a moment in AA50 competition when I agreed to a 12 bid vrs. Dutchman (I figured I didn’t want to be Allies against him) and he put 4 inf on Egy! Gulp. Fortunately the dice saved me in that one.
It’s not clear yet if bidding several units per territory is a problem but I can see Alexandria or Yunnan stack bids potentially becoming issues when you have 10+ bids.
So bid them lower
After all, if you win the bid you can do the same thing. Fair for everyone
It’s not clear yet if bidding several units per territory is a problem but I can see Alexandria or Yunnan stack bids potentially becoming issues when you have 10+ bids.
I could probably be convinced either way. The Europe map is balanced enough that the limit feels fair, but the Pacific map is so out of whack that you need to allow it, otherwise the same amount of bid won’t be as effective.
So bid them lower
After all, if you win the bid you can do the same thing. Fair for everyone
Yeah I’m just used to the 1 unit limit and many TripleA players have the same habituation and likely the same resultant bias.
On the other hand, we have plenty of time to react and think in this format. In addition, 3 inf to Yunnan or Alexandria might be fine when we consider that strengthening either China or UK Egypt could add to historical realism.
The worry is that if the 3 inf to Yunnan is superior to other 9 bids, it could potentially lead to a rut where the first person to bid 9 always gets Allies. But I’ve never encountered this bid so I can’t comment on how good it is.
I’m guessing that the original justification for the 1 bid per territory limit was likely to facilitate better live games, where the bid doesn’t change the game so much that the Axis player has to think for 20 minutes about how to react to the bid.
had a brainfart in my 3rd paragraph above
it could potentially lead to a rut where the first person to bid 9 always gets Allies
What I meant to say is…it potentially leads to a rut where either one person gets 9 and is perceived to have the advantage, or the other gets 8 and is perceived to have the disadvantage.
That is pure speculation of course, since it’s unproven whether 3 inf to Yunnan is superior to other 9 bids or would be much better than a destroyer bid somewhere important.
I do not believe in china bids, they have limited buys to begin with.
No China bid is another entire issue in which I know i am in the minority.
@Cow:
No China bid is another entire issue in which I know i am in the minority.
The Pacific map is so unbalanced in Japan’s favor it surprises me that anything the Allies can do there with a bid would be considered too cheesy.
The pacific is fine. I played plenty of pacific 1940 alone. It is fine.
