Bonehead European setup?

@Der:

How will Russia get steamrolled if Germany has to keep enough infantry in Normandy to deal with the US and Britain’s largely intact navy on turn 3? Russia’s capital is not in danger until G6-8 in the games I’ve seen.

All Germany has to do is build enough units to counterattack a turn before a prospective invasion. Personally, I don’t think you need to put many units in Normandy. France itself is the important territory. Plus, the best use of Italy is to make units to defend Western Europe from Allied invasion. (Obviously, Italy needs to expand, esp. into Africa… but that aside.) For at least two turns, probably three, Germany can focus all of its resources on blitzing Russia as fast as possible. As long as Germany’s attack on France goes well to moderate, Germany should be able to keep most of its attack units in France or Germany instead of removing them East.

Besides, infantry can’t keep up with tanks and mechs, which is what Germany needs on the Eastern front: mobility. Any infantry that makke it out there besides those already on the border, are a bonus.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

Plus the UK becomes basically as boring as the United States for the first half of the game.

How so, when all the action at the beginning of the game for the UK is in Africa and the Middle East?

There is action in Egypt, but that is it. The rest of Africa has nothing going on but redeployment and one-on-one infantry battles. The Middle-East is barren of virtually any activity other than activating a neutral or two. India, if you want to count that even though it is seperate, likewise builds up and consolidates if it has not been attacked.

My point was that if a rule such as you proposed were implemented:
@Der:

How about a rule that the UK cannot put land units in Europe until there are US land units in England? That would give Germany 3-4 turns.

then the UK’s hands are tied and becomes exactly like the US. If the Axis waited until turn 4 to bring the Allies into the war, it will not be until turn 5 that the United Kingdom can attack Europe, because the US won’t be able to put its units in Britain until the end of turn 4. This also means that Italy itself is invulnerable in that time frame. If my method of the Axis defending Europe were used, Italy could both build up a sizable force in France and concentrate attack on Africa with no fear of invasion. This will allow them to wait until it is convenient for them to reinforce Europe while spending all their money to attack UK world holdings if they so desire.

The Royal Navy can rule the waves if they want to, Germany won’t try to compete, but the UK will be effectively impotent for half the game. Almost to the degree of the US, but not quite. All the while Russia will be getting pounded and curse the rulebook.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

…introduces an artificial construct to gameplay.

Which is exactly what Britain’s naval setup is!

In a purely historical sense, yes, it is. But it is the framework of the game, and has been since the A&A series began. In this way, the setup is part of the rules and has been proven to be the best balance of historical accuracy and game playability. The bottom line here is that if in the first turn Britain is allowed to keep 2 Battleships, 1 Aircraft Carrier (w/tac), 4 cruisers, 5 destroyers and 3 transports (http://www.axisandallies.org/resources-downloads/setup-chart-for-axis-allies-europe-1940-second-edition/) and then consolidate them and build more for turn 2; Germany cannot fight Russia and the game is over. Wild Bill seems to agree. Even if the UK was allowed to keep half of that navy, German would have a significant problem. That doesn’t even count the French ships, some of which would necessarily remain in that situation.

The point is that history cannot be perfectly observed. To have a playable game where both sides have (if not equal then close) chances of winning, something has to give. Maybe in the case of Axis and Allies it is the Royal Navy. I mentioned this before, and Bill touched on it too, that this has in effect been the same situation in every global version of Axis and Allies, from Revised to Anniversary to G40… Britain’s navy gets mostly wiped out. I don’t know why you have not complained similarly for those games? The only difference here is the scale; there are more units involved so the loss is more noticable. in terms of proportions, it is roughly the same as previous games though.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

I personally do not believe that the setup is so biased that it determines the game…

That’s not my complaint. The setup may be balanced, but it is arranged so that the Royal Navy looks like a bunch of boobs. And the British player has no chance to do anything about it but watch it sink. My proposition is an ammended setup/rule(s) that allow all the PLAYERS to decide the outcome of round one, not the opening setup.� � � �

What can you do?.. honestly. Everyone else has accepted the fact that this is what happens to Britain in the game, always has been. It doesn’t tarnish their important role in the game or end their effectiveness… not by a long shot. If you are really worried about how the British look or come off more than anything else, I don’t think that is a very good reason to change a system that works and is not completely ahistorical. Personally, I have never sat back and thought, “Hah, those Limey idiots, positioned all their ships so they’d get sunk in round 1, what morons!” � I recognize the British were not really stupid and that a game is supposed to end up somewhat different than history… otherwise why play?

And that is the other point, the players do get to decide. The rules don’t say that the German player must attack the Royal Navy on turn 1, they choose to. Nobody complains that Japan can completely overrun China in the game if they so decide. That never happened in the war and would have been logistically and militarily impossible for Japan to do. Yet it is easy for Japan to do in A&A. The Japanese player usually chooses to do so because it is a good strategy. It isn’t the player’s fault if they are more intelligent than some World War II dictators were.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

Germany’s air force is its most important (and fragile) weapon. To defeat the Royal Navy on Turn 1, they must use it and pray they roll well and the UK rolls poorly; otherwise it is Germany who can get screwed at the beginning. …

Really? Have you run the odds calculator in the TripleA program for Germany’s opening attacks on the Royal Navy? I have and in SZ111, the odds are 100% German win with 6.13 out of 7 attacking units left. In sz 110 it’s a 97% German win with 3.59 units of 8 left. Germany generally loses 2 fighters doing this. Germany then gets 19 IPCs From France to buy two more fighters. I don’t see Germany under any stress here.

@LHoffman:

Overall, Germany is in a much more delicate situation in Turn 1 than the UK is.

Wow - I don’t see how you can believe that when the UK is spread out all over the world with multiple fronts to manage and Germany is just bunched up in Europe alone.

No, I have not. As Garg knows, I have yet to challenge him in a TripleA match. However, I have played many times in real life, and am telling you what my experience shows. I did not say that the Germans usually lose; they do not. It really depends how you as Germany split up your naval and air units in attacking France and the British/French ships. Germany can lose aircraft in naval battles easily if your rolls do not turn out as the odds say they should. My point is that in a given game anything can happen. Rolling can determine games.

Rarely, if ever, is Germany ruined on this attack, but they can be hurt because their situation is fragile. It may not seem like it because they have so much in the way of men and materiel, but they use up a lot of it and don’t have nearly enough money to sustain replacements throughout the game. They must move quickly and efficiently to take Russia, where it is easy to get bogged down, cut off and have an unfortunate defeat. Maybe you have not played as Germany much, because you might appreciate the difficulty they face a bit better. Retaining the Royal Navy as is at the start, and naturally adding to it, will prevent Germany from having the possibility of winning the game.

And as for Germany being cooped up in Europe… yes they are, but that doesn’t mean their position is easy. Germany has two fronts which can rapidly morph into three. While having all its territories grouped closely together might seem convenient for defense, they are beset on all sides and the Allies taking and keeping any one German territory can be very dangerous to Germany’s security. The same cannot be said of the UK; its decentralized nature and isolation as an island capital are benefits. Taking Egypt, or Gibraltar or South Africa or even Canada would not seriously threaten the United Kingdom as a whole. To take them out of the game you have to take Britain. Which is 1) challenging and 2) mostly impossible after the US enters the war. To take Germany out of the war, all you have to do is encroach on them a bit and cause them to get less money. Eventually they will sputter out.

@Der:

@LHoffman:

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

@Der:

@LHoffman:

So basically, you seem to want Britain to retain everything on Turn 1.

The UK should not have to lose 92 IPCs worth of navy (including the French BB) before it can even move.

Life ain’t fair. The game is not fair, though it is mostly balanced. You could lodge this complaint for a couple nations. But the same thing would happen to Germany if the UK were to go before them. I know they don’t, but it is still a relevent point even if it is a what if. Somebody has to go first, therefore somebody has to have the advantages going along with that. The best way for the game to work (and most historical) is to have Germany be first. That is just the way it happens.

Maybe try begging the German player not to sink the Royal Navy.

@Der:

OK how about this:

• Germany has five territories in Western Europe to defend by the time G1 is over. Germany also has a major and two minor IC’s in this area. So make the setup where Germany ends up with 6 infantry and 2 AA guns on each of these territories by the end of G1.
• Take away all British transports in the Atlantic and give the Brits ONE infantry on England, one on Scotland, and one in Canada.
• Take away a Brit BB and Brit cruiser by England and replace it with a Brit carrier w/one fighter, to reduce shore bombardment threat.
• Give the Brits only one DD in the Atlantic.  Â
• Move the Italian Navy all together at Toranto.

Not sure I understand you here. How does reducing the numbers of British ships make Germany not still attack them on G1? And by saying “make the setup”, are you effectively writing the results of G1 as a rule?

@Der:

Now on UK1 the Brits will have to shore up their defenses in Egypt and Africa because of the intact Italian navy threat. And, under the most favorable conditions, the UK would need at least another two rounds of buying 2 transport + inf + art for $28 to even threaten Europe. And this is while they are trying to buy enough DDs to chase the German u-boats around that are convoy raiding. There’s your first three rounds of no real UK intervention in Europe.          Â

These are assumptions… And effectively you are boxing the UK into a certain sequence of purchases like you were complaining about in being forced into buying 9 infantry on UK1. What if the UK player decides they want to push Germany hard first and spend all in Britain? What if they want to reinforce Egypt from India? What if they don’t care about German U-Boats… I just ignore them or bait them into attacking my heavy ships; no need to waste money on pretty much useless destroyers.

@LHoffman:

@LHoffman:

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?

@LHoffman:

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.

@Axisplaya:

@LHoffman:

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 bid

Obviously, 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=20964.0

The 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.

@LHoffman:

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.

@LHoffman:

How are we to know that a similar situation was not at work with the 49% who voted likewise?

@LHoffman:

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.

@LHoffman:

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:

@LHoffman:

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.

@Axisplaya:

@LHoffman:

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.

@LHoffman:

How are we to know that a similar situation was not at work with the 49% who voted likewise?

@LHoffman:

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.

@Axisplaya:

@LHoffman:

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.

@Axisplaya:

@LHoffman:

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).

@LHoffman:

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.