Balancing Bids… using Time as a part of the Bid

@Ichabod:

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

Actually I have played differently with no bid and I started to put more pressure in Pacific first and it seems to work out better, because lot of times seems like the Japan player starts panicking and do not know what to do or gets offcourse in their plans… The only time I have struggled is against you Icha :)

The Aussies have lots of IPCs and even an operational aircraft carrier.

Well some interesting facts.

All agree that in Europe 1940 the axis need a bid.
All agree that japan is hard to stop unless US invest heavy in the pacific.

In global nearly all players give the bid to the allies on the europe board and nobody gives the bid to the pac board.

Has anyone tried the “China first” proposal I made? I used this solution in AA50 as a bid alternative, and I think it works well in G40 too, but haven’t received much feedback from actual games other than my own group.  Maybe its because the HR forums are a wasteland of forgetfulness? haha.  
:-D

The basic idea is pretty simple, everything else stays the same, but China moves first in the turn order!
So in Global that’d be…

China, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA, UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac, France (then back to China)

I’m not saying that this change does away with the need for an Allied bid entirely, but it surely makes the bid range a bit narrower, and a lower. I mean if you can bring it down from 15, back into the single digits that’s a definite positive right? And China is a lot more fun to play this way. Its not like you’re getting “11 infantry in Yunnan”, but it does allow China to pull back and consolidate their starting forces, and build 1 round worth of additional units. It gives them their artillery in the first round, and bonus for control of the Burma road. What’s more it gives them a much better chance to secure their National Objective in subsequent rounds. This adjustment in turn order, also affords the Chinese an opening attack option in they want to get balsy!

The reason I really like this approach is because it doesn’t mess with the Europe side of the map (e.g it doesn’t break the med.) Doesn’t change the situation outside of the Chinese theater, since those units are restricted on where they can move. And most importantly, it gives Japan more to worry about. Sure, you’re probably going to kick a lot more ass as Allies if you give UK an extra carrier in the Med, but if that kind of bid strikes you as overly distorting you might try this instead. It’s pretty easy to implement and makes China a lot more effective as a player nation, which eases the pressure on the other Pacific nations. China has an advantage (over India) in that it can’t be strategically bombed or convoy raided into non-existence. Also, you can preserve the illusion that the OOB force distribution of units on the gameboard, actually corresponds to something in reality. As if the units OOB units where chosen for some reason by the designer, to be at least vaguely historical. This change in turn order of just one Nation, allows to avoid bringing too many extra units into the board outside of the normal purchasing/placement mechanisms. Its at least as easy to explain to your opponent as a standard bid, and if you still want to bid anyway, then go for it. But the change is so simple, and it really does give Japan more to chew on, and it seems like the Pacific side of the map is the one that is grabbing all the attention lately in terms of balance.

Also, for the history buffs…I feel like this tweak gives a slight nod to the fact that the War had been going on in China, even before all of Europe and the rest of the world was embroiled in the conflict.

“July 7, 1937 a day that lives in”… I don’t know, the first turn of G40 at least? hehe. There are crazy numbers of potential players in China. The materials are produced there more often than not. Why not roll the dice and see if a China first approach will work? Anathema to all Americans, like me! But in the game’s turn order I think it is kind of cool ;)

My mistake was not sending my two move units to Romania the previous turn as Germany. I just played out turn 9 and US was able to stack Northern Italy. Italy is out of the game now, but on the other side of the board Japan is making 105, and he is bombing Russia with 5 bombers every turn. He has more than UK in the south and he can now start landing in Africa taking the money away from Russia and UK. I do agree that US is going to eventually take Germany, but could he do it before Moscow falls? Probably :/

@variance:

@builder_chris2:

maybe i just need to face up to the fact that the reason the games i play in seem to be so diffeernt is me and the dudes i game with msut suck no matter who plays the axis, cuzz most of our face to face games result in an allied win and we play with no bid.

The axis only have the advantage for the first half dozen rounds or so.  After that America kicks into high gear, so the longer your games go on (like 10-15 rounds or more), the greater the allied advantage will become. Â

True only if the Axis don’t close or pass the Allies on the Economic gap by that time or maybe 1 or 2 rounds after.

The sub can take the hit from bb and cruiser. of course it depends if the axis save their bb or not (if they do I keep the sub and lose dd instead).

so your losses if they scramble generally go carrier sub or dd cruiser fighter tactical bomber.

this is a good attack, bring in an extra fighter from london if you want to.

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.

Many thanks, heading over now.