Bid spending:
04-08-_2025_22-10-08.jpg
2013 - AAG 40 League
-
Why are aa guns not allowed? Those are units just like armor etc. Can they be a USA aa gun?
IMO this is the only community that allows illegal units for china.
-
I just don’t understand the arbitrary limitation of no AA guns. You allow everything else. Don’t see how an AA gun is different from an armor, fighter, or bomber.
-
Plus you cannot dictate how players play their bids out. We will come to our own agreements or simply play someone else…
-
Plus I do not think you play the game enough to understand how ridiculous 3 infantry on yunnan can get for a bid.
-
@Cow:
Why are aa guns not allowed? Those are units just like armor etc. Can they be a USA aa gun?
IMO this is the only community that allows illegal units for china.
I bet Jennifer just overlooked AA guns. Nothing arbitrary about that. All this discussion about alternate China bids is ridiculous and irrelevant. You want to spend 5 IPC’s on a Chinese AA gun with your bid, you go right ahead.
Of course, that’s probably the best bid for you and you only, because your AA would hit 3 planes on J1.This is the only community that allows “illegal” units for China because it’s the only community that has Jennifer in charge.
I already pointed out that infantry and artillery are the optimum bids for China anyway. And no, Jennifer has played relatively little P40, E40, or G40, let alone 2nd edition. And yet here she is making her queenly decrees :-P
But really, she made the bidding rules at the beginning of the year and stayed silent on the issue of what Chinese units are allowed. It’s not really a rule change - it’s a clarification.
@Jenn, I also pointed out that you should post your discussion about the league rules in the league thread and not spill over into the FAQ thread like you did. But apparently you don’t read previous posts before posting more
-
Gamer what is preventing you from being a moderator? You are active. Doing stuff for the site already. What is going on here… lol
-
@Cow:
Gamer what is preventing you from being a moderator? You are active. Doing stuff for the site already. What is going on here… lol
Cow this makes infinite sense. Im starting to think you are jekyl and hyde! Bravo for this insight. When I approached dave jensen suggesting the same I got a one word answer like “great” but no action. That was probably over a month ago. Gamer should be a moderator there is no doubt.
-
I do not believe the decision was arbitrary as I put quite a bit of thought behind it.
While it is true that if you play the game per the rules in the box, you may not have any of those units for your bid, it is likewise true that if you play the game per the box rules you cannot have any units for your bid.
Likewise, the game specifically adds in units just for the sake of units, despite barring China from being able to build them or replace them when lost. Admittedly, it represents a historical unit, it is still using an American token to represent a Chinese piece. Taking this as precedent, why not allow American tokens represent all Chinese bid for units? After all, what is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. (Page 10, Pacific 1940 Rule Book, Second Edition)
However, the most important consideration I had was this; is there any reason to BAR a player for bidding such units? To this question, I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer. However, China IS specifically barred from owning Industrial Complexes, therefore, no amount of bidding will be allowed to which China may have an Industrial Complex of either Major or Minor status (not to mention, they don’t start with any territories that qualify for the unit per the rules of the unit.) Subquestions of this category are:
- If China were to be allowed a tactical bomber, would this give the allies an unfair advantage?
** Not that I can think of, although, Japan may be a bit more interested in moving some of their AA Guns around, which would be nice, or they could choose to not change their game play at all. - If China were to be allowed to have tanks or mobile infantry (I don’t like the term Mechanized, deal with it) would it have an effect on the game disproportionate to allowing any other bidded unit?
**I cannot think so. Yes it would allow for China to blitz liberate some of their own territories, and that could really be a thorn in Japan’s side, but there is nothing stopping Japan from blitz-blocking as every other nation is encouraged to do. - What about naval units?
** Well, China is not specifically barred from bidding on naval units, the problem is, the rules stipulate you could only place said units in sea zones you start with naval units and since China does not start with any naval units, there’s no where for them to place any they bid for. That also solves the whole, China not being allowed to have units outside of Chinese approved territories. - What about bases?
** Well now, if your opponent allows you to bid that high, and you are so inclined, then feel free to put them on the board for China.
As for AA Guns, yes, China could place them on the board. Other than Yunnan round 1, not really seeing a need to use them for China, but if you are okay taking the risk, I am okay with letting you.
Units BARRED for China in the bid:
- Submarines
- Transports
- Destroyers
- Cruisers
- Aircraft Carriers
- Battleships
- Minor Industrial Complexes
- Major Industrial Complexes
- If China were to be allowed a tactical bomber, would this give the allies an unfair advantage?
-
@Cow:
Gamer what is preventing you from being a moderator? You are active. Doing stuff for the site already. What is going on here… lol
Cow this makes infinite sense. Im starting to think you are jekyl and hyde! Bravo for this insight. When I approached dave jensen suggesting the same I got a one word answer like “great” but no action. That was probably over a month ago. Gamer should be a moderator there is no doubt.
G’luck with that. I still need my mod powers fixed on some boards and it’s been over a year. He’s got a liaison tag, and I trust him to make routine decisions which are good until I negate them in league (if I confirm them, they’re good forever, right?)
-
Well here is the thing about 1 unit per territory that makes sense. A place like yunnan which has 12 ipc already on it and is part of a China NO… becomes defendable. I put an aa gun, an inf and fly russian air on it… all of a sudden Japan’s 8 unit attack is outgunned. When Japan cannot hit yunnan in the first round, that is it. May as well call the pacific off.
-
Also an aa gun on yunnan is not a big risk even by itself. It still takes as hit allowing an infantry to roll in the second round of combat which is highly probable. It is pretty good value in and of itself.
-
@Cow:
Well here is the thing about 1 unit per territory that makes sense. A place like yunnan which has 12 ipc already on it and is part of a China NO… becomes defendable. I put an aa gun, an inf and fly russian air on it… all of a sudden Japan’s 8 unit attack is outgunned. When Japan cannot hit yunnan in the first round, that is it. May as well call the pacific off.
Honestly, until this morning, a Round 1 attack on Russia by Germany wasn’t even in my thought processes. Yes, a fighter, tactical bomber and a Chinese built AA Gun or hell, even a couple Chinese infantry would make that attack significantly harder. Of course, I would be kicking Germany in the balls so hard he’d never have kids if he opened me up to that kind of hell in a game. lol.
We can discuss a 1 unit per territory/sea zone restriction for 2014 or even the tournament. I feel it is far too late in 2013 to impose new restrictions. I only mentioned China being allowed other units because I did not think anyone else had thought of it and I saw nothing, as written NOW, that prevented it. I am more than willing to bar said units for next year’s league.
-
Cow’s right about this
All this hoopla over extra China units being bid is overblown, but the limit of 1 unit per territory for bidding is a much more significant and relevant concern. Rule for next year?
2 infantry bid to Yunnan + Russian fighters = 60% chance of winning with Japan; Median result - Japan loses fighter, tac, bomber and takes territory with 1 arty
3 infantry bid to Yunnan + Russians = 38% chance of Japan winning; Only a 30% chance Japan survives with 1 bomber (or more)
4 infantry bid to Yunnan + Russians = Japan can’t attack Yunnan on J1 = death, as Cow said. (20% chance of taking Yunnan - Median result is the Russian fighter and tac survive along with 1 Chinese infantry, and that’s if Japan doesn’t retreat and loses everything, which is absolutely unthinkable)
Once again, I will say that any Chinese bid other than infantry, artillery, AA, or fighter is suboptimal (Chinese AA was possible in the game according to the rules until Alpha3….), so all the hype about bidding Chinese tanks or bombers is overblown.
A smart player is merely going to bid infantry to Yunnan and fly the Russian air to Yunnan on R1. Now if the bidding rules don’t change, that’s actually OK, it should just serve to lower Allied bids. Don’t give away a bid of 6+ if you don’t want to face 6 or more Chinese infantry in Yunnan.
But adding the bid rule that there is a 1 unit max per territory/zone will allow more interesting bids and larger bids, because players will know that it is impossible to drop multiple infantry on a key territory and pretty much wreck the game. -
hmmm now that cow is not in desperation mode due to impending loss to bolddutch, he’s making a lot more sense. :wink:
-
@Cmdr:
Honestly, until this morning, a Round 1 attack on Russia by Germany wasn’t even in my thought processes.� Yes, a fighter, tactical bomber and a Chinese built AA Gun or hell, even a couple Chinese infantry would make that attack significantly harder.� Of course, I would be kicking Germany in the balls so hard he’d never have kids if he opened me up to that kind of hell in a game. lol.
On G2? You mean kicking Russia. A G2 attack is pretty much required anyway.
Jenn, I’m pretty sure you have no idea how powerful the Yunnan bid is. If China and UK can hold their own, that frees up America to go to Europe more, and the Allies don’t have to worry much about a Japan victory, which is absolutely huge. That said, as I said, you really don’t need to change the rule because players just shouldn’t allow bids of 6+ to the Allies. They shouldn’t be anyway. And yes I know what I’m talking about because I’m currently 10-1 with the Allies in the 2013 league :-P
The reason, I suspect, that bids have been around 10, is because few players realize the power of a 3-4 infantry bid to Yunnan.
We can discuss a 1 unit per territory/sea zone restriction for 2014 or even the tournament.� I feel it is far too late in 2013 to impose new restrictions.� I only mentioned China being allowed other units because I did not think anyone else had thought of it and I saw nothing, as written NOW, that prevented it.� I am more than willing to bar said units for next year’s league.�
It is absolutely inappropriate to change the bid rule mid-year. I think you can get away with the China bomber and tank nonsense because it was a clarification, not a change or addition (the league rules were silent on the issue). I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of support for 1 unit per territory bids, so that’s probably a good change for 2014.
-
A G2 attack is pretty much required anyway.
I didn’t mean required, I meant anticipated.
-
@Cmdr:
3 - You must play at least 4 games against 3 different opponents to be eligible for the playoffs.
Amended: You must play at least 8 games against 6 different opponents to be eligible for the playoffs.3a (Major League) - If 4 or more players end up playing 14 games (in the league) or more then a separate grouping and playoff schedule will be created for these players.
Minor League (8 to 13 games played)
Major League (14+ games played)
Amended: 8 players to replace 4 or more players.Since this was the rule, in 2012, would there be issue in restoring it for 2013? It is in answer to the 20 game +/- 5 that was suggested earlier.
-
A G2 attack is pretty much required anyway.
I didn’t mean required, I meant anticipated.
Yes, but I’m interested in seeing this game I am in with a Round 1 German invasion of Russia. It’s been my experience that they usually focus on hitting Europe round 1, and attack round 2 - and by doing so, negate any Russia air cover for China! (Thus destroying the need for a 1 unit per territory bid.) Perhaps this is in part why the axis want to limit the amount of units bid, because their strategy is sub-optimal?
I am neither saying that is why, or that is not why. However, the question was raised in my mind. Is the 1 unit per territory (and sea zone) necessary, or is it because of some flaw in Axis strategy that is better suited to having the strategy amended?
-
Jenn, I strongly feel - like many other veteran players - that a 1 unit per
territory rule should be instated immediately, not in 2014. Trust me, it’s much better for the game. As stated before, the yunnan bid caps the amount that should EVER be given to the allies at 8 effectively.cheers
-
Jenn, I strongly feel - like many other veteran players - that a 1 unit per
territory rule should be instated immediately, not in 2014. Trust me, it’s much better for the game. As stated before, the yunnan bid caps the amount that should EVER be given to the allies at 8 effectively.cheers
Why do we need a 1 unit per territory rule? Is only because if a chain of events happens, Japan’s attack on Yunnan is too costly? It seems to be the only issue being raised currently.
Why does Germany have to go to war with Russia round 1? They get money if they don’t. They get time to prepare a proper invasion if they don’t. Russia is denied reinforcing China if they don’t. Without reinforcing China, how do your numbers play out for a Japanese attack on Yunnan if there are 2 units bid there (say infantry units since I’m pretty much decided the rules are going to include Infantry/Artillery units for China only, or perhaps a moratorium of any units for China.)
Is this a matter of game play, or is this an issue of bad strategy? That’s what I am getting at. Would 2 infantry in Egypt be such an issue? What about 2 infantry in Belarus or 2 Artillery in Buryatia? Are these of equal importance, or is it only a concern about Yunnan? As far as I can see, Yunnan is easily solved by Germany holding back for one round. Is this holding back a round going to cause significant damage to the Axis? Perhaps the bid is too high, maybe you need to consider lowering it to prevent a Yunnan disaster?
Suggested Topics
