But what are the odds of getting IT or HB (the only techs that will really help the allies – super subs won’t do them any good)?
Wouldn’t it be 66% * 2/6 = 22% for the UK and the same for the US … or about 44% that one of them will get either IT or HB…which wouldn’t be too bad of a gamble (and the US could chose to NOT roll for tech if the UK did get one of them).Â
The only problems that I see is that this one turn build delay could mean Russia falls before these tech advantages can really have an impact on the game…even with IT or HB can the Allies still win if Russia falls? And if the Allies don’t get these techs, then they had better keep rolling for technology because I don’t see how Russia can stand.
Yeah, it would be a total gamble.
Plus I reviewed the LL tech rules, they are a lot different and would prevent this strat from being employed.
So this would only be good for an ADS game, and in ADS you can always get good defensive rolls so maybe it wouldn’t be worth it after all.
Wouldn’t the best strat be to tech heavy with the Allies early???
No absolutely not b/c to defeat the Axis the Allies are going to have to force them out of Karelia rather than beating them out to this end the Allies need to be able to create enormous pressure in the West. A tech strat leaves too many t’s not crossed and i’s not dotted and a m84 lurch becomes a real possibility. As far as the Sink move something not mentioned above is that this might be impossible as well. Consider that if Manch isn’t hit and b/c of it the Japanese can try to push several attacks they might not otherwise including an attack on Sink. If the goal is to reduce the overall # of Allied troops in Moscow then this would be better than trying to establish a strong base in Asia given that Asia will be conceeded to you very early in the game. In otherwords Japan just might attack China, Sink, and or Yakut.
In general the problem with a tech yahtzee against a PE bid is that should it not work on the first turn or so then the Allies are going to be doomed b/c they can’t recover the lost time needed to rebuild their fleet.
Yeah. But would this not be the answer to how you beat the 8 inf PE bid.
Gamble with tech, hope to get HB with UK and/or US then bom Germany to zero cash?
If the Axis win 24 bid 95-100% of the time and the odds of getting HB are better than that, then would that not be the best option?
21-23 bid, you can still win conventionally, so yeah why gamble with the tech.
Yeah. But would this not be the answer to how you beat the 8 inf PE bid.
Gamble with tech, hope to get HB with UK and/or US then bom Germany to zero cash?
If the Axis win 24 bid 95-100% of the time and the odds of getting HB are better than that, then would that not be the best option?
21-23 bid, you can still win conventionally, so yeah why gamble with the tech.
Except that you aren’t taking advantage of the potential for dicings to happen. Its always better to have some units down on the board to use to take advantage of situations that do occur. Whats more if you point all your eggs in the tech basket right away then you are going to need to get it very fast otherwise you’re toast. However, if you build a very modest navy for both the Allies you can still do essentially the same thing but for a few more turns a little later in the game. IMO a lot of what it takes to beat a PE bid(especially one @24) is to stall effectively. If you can do this you should will with or without tech which is always the best time to tech.
I agree, it was a total “yahtzee” counter, if you can even call it a counter.
My only point was, if I (for example) cannot beat a 24 PE bid no matter what I do, meaning I lose 100% of the time, why not try tech?
If the odds of getting HB with one or both the other Allies (UK/US) on rd 1 are greater than 0%, which they are, then why not do it.
I would by no means call this a skillful win, it would simply be a lucky win.
I’m not a fan of the PE play to begin with. I’d like to learn how to better counter it, but I do consider it a “putting all your eggs in one basket” strat. You are going for a kill by rd 2, 3, or 4. So I’d see no problem countering it with an “all your eggs in one basket strat”.
Now this is just personal preference but I perfer the games to have a little more strategic value than “did I bid enough to Europe so no matter what Russia does they will fall by rd 3”.
That’s no fun, I can play that by myself on the CD version.
I’d be much more willing to give larger bids to ensure a more strategic game.
Which of course leads to the dilemma of your other thread.
For me, technology rolls are useful only when:
I have already won the game, but my opponent refuses to concede. If I get HB, then it becomes easier to convince my opponent to concede by crushing him quicker.
I have already lost the game. If I get lucky and get HB or IT, then there is again the opportunity to win.
In the case of a large PE bid, unlucky R1 rolls and lucky G1 rolls (ADS) resulting in a fabulous position for the Axis by UK1, then I might believe the Allies are already losing and consider the Yahtzee roll as you suggest DM. I’d probably buy some items (bombers and/or navy) and tech rolls at the same time because as AS stated, you do need some units on the board.
It could also work the other way (in ADS) as well, if Ger rolls bad and Rus rolls good, then certainly that would help the Allies, which would negate the need for a tech “hail mary”, since you rolled up.
But again, your win would still be lucky, since in this scenerio Russia would have rolled well above average.
I have seen a successful Japan Tech strat. Rds 1-3 do normal stuff. Rds 4-5 buy 1 bom each rd and rest inf. Rd 5+ start teching. You should have 40+ IPC and a 3 rd cushion where you can still put normal pressure on Moscow. So you can easily spend 20-30 on Tech rolls for 3 rds without losing a beat. Then if you get HB, you can be in position to do some real damage.
I agree this is a luck thing either way its not really strategy except to ask yourself: When have I lost the game and need to tech to turn it around? There usually isn’t a clear point when the game is “lost” and you must roll for tech for any chance to win.
I have played this way with Japan before, but only in a no-bid game :| and I consider no-bid games to be a lost cause from the start for the Axis against decent players. I didn’t win (I didn’t get the techs I needed). I usually play no-bid, but the fun for me is to see how long I can hold out (or even win :-D ) as the Axis. Or if I am the Allies, how quickly I can win.
I’d like to learn how to better counter it, but I do consider it a “putting all your eggs in one basket” strat. You are going for a kill by rd 2, 3, or 4.
The problem with PE however is not that the games are quick but that it is unbalanced with PAfrica. PAfrica is also putting your eggs into one basket and generally if you can prevent the Axis from consolidating in Africa you will win. So while the game may not be technically over it is often fairly obvious who will win by turn 6-7 and whether victory is very realistic for the Axis. IMO the point of leveling PE should be to force it to take a few more turns for the Axis to win this way other than the quick 2-3 turn crapola I put on you a while back. There really isn’t a counter b/c that’s what its designed to do and can be done by anyone. Maybe if I actually taught Newbies ‘how to’ do this the online clubs would respond and change their rules.
It could also work the other way (in ADS) as well, if Ger rolls bad and Rus rolls good, then certainly that would help the Allies, which would negate the need for a tech “hail mary”, since you rolled up.
But IMO the dice hail mary with the Russians doesn’t happen b/c most are unwilling to take the risk. Most players believe in strategy and therefore don’t want to attack 6inf bid into Ukr b/c even if it works what does that prove. Most players want to believe they won b/c they deserved it and so aren’t going to make the necessary R1 attacks to be able to take advantage.
I have seen a successful Japan Tech strat. Rds 1-3 do normal stuff. Rds 4-5 buy 1 bom each rd and rest inf. Rd 5+ start teching. You should have 40+ IPC and a 3 rd cushion where you can still put normal pressure on Moscow. So you can easily spend 20-30 on Tech rolls for 3 rds without losing a beat. Then if you get HB, you can be in position to do some real damage.
Be very careful when trying this strat yourself DM b/c it is IMO weak. One of the best reasons for an early purchase of a few bombers by the Allies is to preclude this from happening. If the Allies get a bmb lead b/c they go first(the axis reacts to them) then they should be able to build and maintain a bmb edge over Japan. If Japan starts a tech war/bmb race when the Allies already have on the board 3-4 bmbs then they are asking you to let them slit their own throats b/c they should not win such a tech race. The loss to the Allies is minimal in doing this as well if the UK builds its fleet on turn1 and turn 2 moves its carrier 1boat to Africa to start the retake with the US then they can put off the rest of their fleet build enabling them to do something exotic. I for one have never seen the Japs start a tech war when the UK has 3bmbs to their 1. This is a great example of how its necessary to think outside of the box as the Allies. As I always say a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, and getting 4inf as the UKto Africa on turns 2-3 can be almost as good as 6 on turn 3, but getting something like an extra bmb to prevent losing the tech race…priceless.
There really isn’t a counter b/c that’s what its designed to do and can be done by anyone. Maybe if I actually taught Newbies ‘how to’ do this the online clubs would respond and change their rules.
Is that what you’re looking for then, the Clubs to try and do away with PE bids, or lower the frequency of their use?
Are you saying, if you teach new players PE bids, then they could go in beat the the higher skilled players in PE, thus forcing clubs to rethink this, or to do something about it, because that club’s “rankings” aren’t really a valid indication of who is the most skilled.
Is this the jist of it, or did I completely miss what you are getting at.
I wonder if you could give PE victories less points if they win. A PE victory gets you 5 pts, but a PAfr gets you 15 pts, while a PA might get you 20pts.
You’d have to define what each bid type is, but that would be fairly easy.
Persoanlly if I were to start a Club, I would mandate the same style of game for every game, so all the games are uniform from the start.
No bidding, No PE, PAfr, or PA. I and those helping to start it would come up with what we believe is a fair starting pt.
Example Ger gets 4 inf, 1 arm in Afr, 1 inf in EE/Ukr and J gets 1 inf for Man
Then every 3 Months (or whatever time frame you desire) or “X number of games” the Club leaders re-evaluate your standard set up and adjust accordingly based on all the game results.
If your first setup yields Allied victories 60% of the time, then you must add to the Axis at your next adjustment period to level the playing field.
And adjust the Rankings due to the skewing of the first set. If the results come out 55% Allies, you might say that is good enough and stick with it, until that starts to skew more.
Be very careful when trying this strat yourself DM b/c it is IMO weak. One of the best reasons for an early purchase of a few bombers by the Allies is to preclude this from happening. If the Allies get a bmb lead b/c they go first(the axis reacts to them) then they should be able to build and maintain a bmb edge over Japan. If Japan starts a tech war/bmb race when the Allies already have on the board 3-4 bmbs then they are asking you to let them slit their own throats b/c they should not win such a tech race. The loss to the Allies is minimal in doing this as well if the UK builds its fleet on turn1 and turn 2 moves its carrier 1boat to Africa to start the retake with the US then they can put off the rest of their fleet build enabling them to do something exotic. I for one have never seen the Japs start a tech war when the UK has 3bmbs to their 1. This is a great example of how its necessary to think outside of the box as the Allies. As I always say a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, and getting 4inf as the UKto Africa on turns 2-3 can be almost as good as 6 on turn 3, but getting something like an extra bmb to prevent losing the tech race…priceless.
I’m not a fan of Tech, so the likelyhood of me using this are slim, but it is still an option. And I definitly WOULD NOT press my luck if UK bought 2 boms on UK 1 or something. Like you said that is just inviting disaster.
BUT if I was putting a pretty good move on Russia, and maybe the UK or US bom was shot down in rd 1 or 2, I might sneak a 2nd Jap bomber in rd 4, then if it appears to go unnoticed or unchallenge I may try in the next rd as well since Boms can directly stike Russia’s Eastern border with ease they aren’t harmful to buy. Then maybe just then Tech could be an option.
But if the Allies make an early bom purchase or maintain a bom lead over Japan, I would not go this route. You don’t want to wake a sleeping giant.
Also, this strat is helpful in RR with Axis Adv, since SuperSubs is out of the way, but you do still have to play attention to what the Allies are doing as you pointed out.
Is that what you’re looking for then, the Clubs to try and do away with PE bids, or lower the frequency of their use?
No not exactly. It would be nice however if they were to realize the game is broken and that there no longer is on great incentive to play the game. I’ve spoken to several of the old school players and this accounts for a great deal of the high frequency of brain drain instead of pure burnout.
Are you saying, if you teach new players PE bids, then they could go in beat the the higher skilled players in PE, thus forcing clubs to rethink this, or to do something about it, because that club’s “rankings” aren’t really a valid indication of who is the most skilled.
I was largely being facetous, but there is some truth behind this. The rankings may or may not reflect a skill heirarchy but it may not just as easily. The clubs I’ve seen haven’t been very concerned with change an innovation and have as a result found themselves behind the curve. Players can then decide to accept that or not and that decision will affect whether they continue to play or not. I do think there is some distortion but how much is pure speculation but there seems to have been a great deal of upward mobility of lower rated players about the time when bids started to dramatically rise and PE became more prevalent. You connect the dots.
I wonder if you could give PE victories less points if they win. A PE victory gets you 5 pts, but a PAfr gets you 15 pts, while a PA might get you 20pts.
Maybe this would work but for many players its about the pride of defending their record that motivates them to play. I really could care less about my (points) but do care about winning more than I lose. So like some I think winning only 50% but gaining points would seem cheap. IMO nobody plays for ratings or points but for the thrill of competition and the unexpected. Its nice to see that lower ranked players can knock off a top player by getting lucky occasionally b/c it means that the outcome of any game is undetermined beforehand. Its not interesting to see the game become so irrelevent that a PE player can get high ranked without really ever playing a game much past turn 5.
Persoanlly if I were to start a Club, I would mandate the same style of game for every game, so all the games are uniform from the start.
But that would absolutely kill it. I like seeing variation it makes things interesting. Also its nice to sometimes see a player use inferior strategy and succeed in spite of themselves. If the best player always won why play? Remember the reason people watch the NCAA tourney is not b/c Chaminade might actually win the hole thing but b/c Chaminade might win 1 game. Its that which makes it exiting.
@AgentSmith:
Persoanlly if I were to start a Club, I would mandate the same style of game for every game, so all the games are uniform from the start.
But that would absolutely kill it. I like seeing variation it makes things interesting. Also its nice to sometimes see a player use inferior strategy and succeed in spite of themselves. If the best player always won why play? Remember the reason people watch the NCAA tourney is not b/c Chaminade might actually win the hole thing but b/c Chaminade might win 1 game. Its that which makes it exiting.
I disagree.
Lower skilled players could still win. There are still dice rolls, and even the best players make mistakes get over confident, underestimate their opponent.
Or better yet, they learn something and improve and come back to play another day.
But you don’t want lower skilled players being Ranked #1,2,3 etc. just because a certain play or bid style gives the lower skilled an adv.
If I were to run a Club, I wouldn’t think it is fair that one player wins with 21 bid while another wins with 23. The pts they get (for winning) should be adjusted because they had the adv of starting out with 2 more IPC.
All competition needs a level playing field. The whole point of bids is to give the Axis a shot at winning and level the playing field.
In the case of my fictional A&A Club I would need a system to either have the starting point be uniform, or adjust the winners score based on their bid amount due to the varying bids.
Or perhaps even seperate divisions for players that like different styles much like LL or Revised, etc: like the PE division, PAfr, PA, or the whatever you want division.
If the best player always won why play?
To beat the best! Thus becoming the best.
Why play the Patriots, they were world champs and the best. You play them to see how you stack up and to try and become the best. And hey Denver beat them and Pit beat the Colts, then Pit beat Den and Sea beat Car. Now we are left with Pit vs. Sea for the best.
But next year, you start over to see who the best is again. You didn’t see the NFL give up after SB I.
Remember the reason people watch the NCAA tourney is not b/c Chaminade might actually win the hole thing but b/c Chaminade might win 1 game. Its that which makes it exiting.
True. That’s why you wathc rds 1 and 2, to see which #2 seed will crumble.
But then why will people watch Duke vs. whoever in the Final, or N.C. vs. U of I last year.
And unlike Charminade, who only gets one shot a year, an A&A player can learn and continually get better to ultimately challenge the best.
Best vs. best is the challenge.
Texas vs. USC.
and now Pit vs. Sea in the SB.
But consider the sheer amount of luck involved in all sporting contests. Hell if Iowa hadn’t gotten unlucky and been cursed by the crappy officiating they probably would’ve won the Outback Bowl. :wink:
Or what if that INT dropped by Polamalu in the Indy game had led to an Indy TD. Pitt doesn’t go to the Superbowl then. There are a plethora of underdogs winning in sports which is why they are so compelling to watch.
All competition needs a level playing field. The whole point of bids is to give the Axis a shot at winning and level the playing field.
And believe me a bid does just that. Even at 21 I could argue the game is too balanced. If you and I had played all those LL games ADS you probably would’ve one a few more just b/c of dice rolling. If minimizing this is something you’d like try using larger faced dice. A while back a friend of mine and I played some games with 12,18 and 24 sided dice which really took the luck out of the game b/c there was a greater field of potential numbers in play.
First I’ll respond to the how to beat a 21+ PE… bid 20
I’ve been out of the loop for a while, AS are you still playing at any of the clubs?
I haven’t played in the clubs in years. Once I realized some of the basic flaws of the game and how to exploit them it became less fun to play competitively. Which is not to say that I’m not unbeatable but that I could very carefully manage my rating by controlling who I play to get and stay very near the top of the rankings. That is if I were to play 2/3 of my games against sub 1500 or even sub 1525 players(AAMC ratings) and play the remaining third against those above this I would continuously improve. This is b/c the gap btwn and accurately rated 1525 or less player is great enough for me to win as much as 85-90% of these games, and the games against people above this can be mostly luck anyway and since these will be the games which are more favorable ratings wise you don’t have to win as many.
This is certainly true with the 23 PE bid, give it to me against even the best players and I will win some points off them. That’s b/c the luck will even out eventually from game to game and essentially the strength of this bid is that it is stronger than an Axis bid to Africa of the same amount. I don’t fear Africa 23 or less at all, and PE at 22 is winnable but with even or favorable allied dice they should win. Now a good player playing with a slightly lower bid and some good dice is still going to be hard to beat but that would be true if I bid more as well. That is what I fear is not the bid or its amount but the luck the opposing player gets and their skill(ability) to use that luck against me. I feel you could give an unskilled player all the luck and rerolls in the world and it wouldn’t help much. On the other hand you could give a good player a bid of 12 and with some dice help they could still win. Conversely, you could give a super player a large bid and bad dice and they would lose.
That’s basicly my point, if you are afraid of a PE 21 figure out how to win with bid of 20.
I didn’t think you played clubs any more, but I saw some comments on club play so I thought I would ask. :)
No it not that I think that PE 23 is too strong its that it has a statistical variance which assures success a given % of the time. However, I wouldn’t be at all woried to play against it b/c I know I have a certain % occurance of winning, but I also know that PE at 23 will almost always lose. If I know then that I will always win if I grant any bid under a certain amount there is no reason to go below it, and if I know there is only one way to really be beaten then obviously I take that knowing that it is essentially a defeatist position as well.
Drawing on DF’s “Bid 20” idea…
Bid a “balanced 18”, 9 German, 9 Japan.
Before you dismiss it, consider the logic using some recent Forum games in support…
2 INF in Manchuria basically blocks the Russian invasion of Manch in R1.
1 INF in Kwang shifts the odds for the Kwangtung Maneuver against the UK.
Those 9 IPC’s block most of the “strong Asia” moves that the Allies can make in Turn 1, and keep Russia from being UP in IPC’s for R2 builds and forward.
BTW: This aspect is what I am testing in my current game with DF
Now, the other 9 for Germany:
2 INF to Libya and 1 INF to Ukraine (maybe Eastern, depending on your personal view)
2 INF in Libya allows Germany to take FWA, FEA and Egypt in G1 without using their TRN and BB.
Instead, the TRN and BB attack Syria… Average is sub sunk, and 68% chance that Germany takes Syria (and another 6% that UK has no forces left there… call it a 1 in 4 that Syria no longer holds UK forces). That puts UK down 5 IPC’s for UK2 build… Combine the UK fleet destruction that I advocate, and UK needs IPC’s to rebuild that it is rapidly losing… And the India forces can either hold in India (to be destroyed) attack the reinforced Kwangtung, or move on Egypt without the extra INF from Syria…
The extra INF in Ukraine simply makes the Russia strafe a bit more costly, but otherwise maintains the “status quo” in Europe of EE facing Karelia in a nasty little stand-off.
UK weakened economically, with no ability to counter for 2 turns.
Russia with massed Japan forces on the continent taking Russia’s eastern IPC’s away (lose 4 on J1, more than countering the taking of Ukraine)
More UK lost income with Japan moving on India, Australia and New Zealand.
German forces in both Africa and the Middle East to attack on G2 into Persia and strike toward South Africa (leaving UK only 3 IPC’s in Africa come UK2)
It would take a VERY skilled player to counter this 18 IPC “Balanced Bid”.
It makes the game interesteing for everyone, forces the Allies to play EXTREMELY well to counter, and gives the Axis a couple of rounds of parity with the Allies… a couple of rounds to either tip the scales in their favor, or to make mistakes and lose.
And isn’t that the point of a bid? To make the game balanced?
Before you dismiss it, consider the logic using some recent Forum games in support…
2 INF in Manchuria basically blocks the Russian invasion of Manch in R1.
1 INF in Kwang shifts the odds for the Kwangtung Maneuver against the UK.
Those 9 IPC’s block most of the “strong Asia” moves that the Allies can make in Turn 1, and keep Russia from being UP in IPC’s for R2 builds and forward.
BTW: This aspect is what I am testing in my current game with DF
No this will not work b/c it doesn’t do enough for Germany. If you put the 3inf in Europe then that will pose no problem to the Russians. If you put it in Africa that will pose no problem for the Brits. The Allies will mop up in Africa, contain in Europe and retreat in Asia until the get strong enough and will push back. Look at my game against DM my bid had 2inf in both Europe and Asia as well as 4inf in Africa but I think you will see that even with the basic bid allignment plus some DM as Russia will not be easily rolled back in Asia or Europe.
Now, the other 9 for Germany:
2 INF to Libya and 1 INF to Ukraine (maybe Eastern, depending on your personal view)
And I guarantee that anything you put into AES with Germany gets attacked by the Brits. one turn and done big deal. The inf in Europe is irrelevent.
2 INF in Libya allows Germany to take FWA, FEA and Egypt in G1 without using their TRN and BB.
Instead, the TRN and BB attack Syria… Average is sub sunk, and 68% chance that Germany takes Syria (and another 6% that UK has no forces left there… call it a 1 in 4 that Syria no longer holds UK forces). That puts UK down 5 IPC’s for UK2 build… Combine the UK fleet destruction that I advocate, and UK needs IPC’s to rebuild that it is rapidly losing…
Here’s what I have in this scenario…Germany takes AES with 2inf arm(which can still be attacked from India 2inf ftr f/India bmb f/Uk). Odds are the Uk clears w/o loss of air or takes w/1inf. Secondly, you assume that it is a given you can destroy the Uk fleet easily but consider a move I used a while back against DM in a game where R1 was 6inf 2arm v Ukr(3inf 2arm ftr), 2ftrs vBalSz(sub trn), and sub v SpainSz(sub). I pushed the sub in Spain to the CAtl where its only option was to attack the Lab trn, the ftrs destroyed the Baltic fleet with no loss and the Kar trn was able to reinforce the UkSz fleet so it had a bb 2trn and Ukr was taken w/2arm. This means that to destroy the UkSz fleet you must send all 5 air units against the 3boats unless you will take 2 or more hits which is excessive. Further you will have to ignore the WMedSz fleet in order to attack Syria and probably not use any air units which means it is 2inf v 1inf which is an extremely risky move. Even if this succeeds the Brits can pull 2inf f/India to SAfr so that if you attack you will lose 2inf and take yourself down to just 3inf arm for the entire continent. One boatload from the Uk and the battle here is over.
The extra INF in Ukraine simply makes the Russia strafe a bit more costly, but otherwise maintains the “status quo” in Europe of EE facing Karelia in a nasty little stand-off.
All it means is I send 1 more inf on R1 to account for this. You’re trading 1inf for 1inf which doesn’t seem to be the best use.
UK weakened economically, with no ability to counter for 2 turns.
Weakened? No counter? Hardly. As I said the Uk can either attack AES or play defensive either way b/c you didn’t bid enough into Africa your destruction of this force will cost you more than it will the UK, and once they can land in the West of the continent its pretty much over. At worst the Uks production will drop no lower than 18-21 which is not enough to ride them off. In fact I’ve found the Uk really can’t be weakened even when they have 12ipcs(Canada + the British Isles) they will produce 4inf a turn which is not enough on its own to do anything but great to use as an ancillary power until they get some money back.
Russia with massed Japan forces on the continent taking Russia’s eastern IPC’s away (lose 4 on J1, more than countering the taking of Ukraine)
Sure if you assume Russia doesn’t do anything. I bid 2inf into Manchuria and DM didn’t even blink on R1 did you see that. Russia is far more powerful than you give them credit.
More UK lost income with Japan moving on India, Australia and New Zealand.
And turn 2 will be the low point b/c Japan and Germany can reach their zenith of ipcs taken from Britain. However, on turn 3 Britain should recover by gaining the WAfrican ipcs which makes up for India or Aust. Even w/o AES, Syria, IEA and Kenya, BCongo Britian should be at 21 and each turn they will increase as they take AES and Africa f/Germany.
It would take a VERY skilled player to counter this 18 IPC “Balanced Bid”.
Yeah me :wink: Or Darth Maximus :mrgreen:
