Balancing Bids… using Time as a part of the Bid

@bakerbei said in Assistance with the bidding rules:

@AndrewAAGamer Would Germany still not be able to take both SZ 110 and 111? I believe that Germany has 4 subs, 4 fighters, 4 tactical bombers, 2 strategic bombers and 1 battleship to bring to bear on the two sea zones.

If it’s split evenly, with the battleship going to the English Channel, Germany has odds on both, even with a Scottish Fighter bid and scrambling the now 5 fighters.

Are my calculations off or is it not a given that the Scottish Fighter saves a fleet?

No they will still win both combats. But it will cost them more units.
Gemany cannot afford to lose most of its planes there, and a bad roll of the dice can really screw up german plans.

Here’s the response I made to your posting in the Pacific forum.

@mikemikemike said in More for Amphib Assaults, Pac 40:

AA 1940, Pacific: 1. If an US amphib assault of destroyer and 2 loaded transports hit the Carolina Islands, and the defender scrambles 3 fighters and kills the destroyer, can the transports retreat to a friendly adjacent sea zone (I know can’t unload) or are they killed?

The surviving transports can retreat to a non-hostile sea zone through which one of them travelled, but only after all the hits from the defenders are assessed. If the scrambled fighters got more than one hit in the situation you described, each hit beyond the first is assigned to one of the transports. Any units on a transport that is hit are lost.

The transports can retreat but cannot unload. In this case, on the next Japanese turn the transport is probably dead unless there are Allied ships guarding the transport.

If a US transport picks up 2 ANZAC infantry, can they goto an enemy island during non-combat phase? There are no enemy ships there but could scramble enemy fighters. During the ANZAC turn, they send in ANZAC combat ships and planes to support the landing of their troops from the US transports. Ok?

When loading Allied troops on a US transport, the transport cannot move until the US turn and the troops cannot be unloaded until the Allied power’s turn comes back around. The sequence you described is:

ANZAC: Load troops onto a US transport during ANZAC non-combat movement.
US: Move transport:
ANZAC: Unload troops during either combat or non-combat movement. (Note that in this case the transport cannot retreat as it did not move.)

Hope this helps!

Marsh

@freh said in Bids for allies - 60???:

Wow, I’ve been away from the game so things must have shifted and strategy must be evovling. I just can’t imagine losing with the opportunity to put $60 worth of allied units before the game starts. Are there any patterns to bids? Does it get concentrated in one nation (defending UK against initial German attacks, or giving Russia some more offensive bite) or is it spread out?

As I said my gaming group in Seattle has gone up to $60. I am not sure that is true for the general community. The placement of the Bid depends on the Player. Sometimes it all goes in Russia, sometimes it all goes to UK Europe. Personally I think that is six of one half a dozen of another. Bid units in Russia protect Moscow so the Allies do not need to help Russia defend their capital. Bid units for UK Europe assist UK in defense of London and in taking out the Italians much faster which allows them to assist Russia either with direct unit intervention for the defense of Moscow or intense pressure on the Atlantic Wall. The end result is basically the same. Either the UK is strong and gets help to Russia fast or the UK is weak and struggles but never has to send help to Russia because Russia is strong. Personally I like a 50-50 balance between UK Europe and Russia. Best of both worlds. :)

One constant is that normally at least 80% up to all 100% goes on the Europe side of the board versus the Pacific side of the board.

@seancb said in [House Rules] Should allies receive a bid?:

one more thing, I’ll take a 16 bid

We actually have 1 game completed (if you concede it). Looking forward to another…waiting in the lobby right now.

Well, because it takes awhile to be effective in europe, people generally lean toward fast results in the pacific. I do too.

Don’t get me twisted, I still drop some dds and carriers fighter stuffs in the atlantic. but I do not buy ground forces for it, since brazil has 3 inf and you start with some mech and tonks and an artillery. 2-4 trans is all you need.

after that dds and carriers to protect UK transports so he can get drops going sooner… that is the way to go.
~
Depends on how the pacific is going really. I mean you do have to stop japan from winning the game. A good Japan player is not a pushover… you either invest now or wait till japan has all of asia and is poised to take hawaii for the win…

people rather invest sooner than later so it don’t come to that.
~

also it is true, a good japan player will not be anywhere near hawaii. so you buy, then move to hawaii, then move to anzac, then you can threaten japan’s fleet…

in other words your first round buy is critical for the pacific campaign.

where as your first round buy in the atlantic, generally is not enough to survive the luffwaffe.

An extra submarine, if my opponent is foolish enough to give it to me, is always welcome!

The tournament bids are averaging out to 6-9 IPCs for Alpha 2.  That’s relatively miniscule given the size and scope of the game.

Yes, we have yet to run out of the blue pieces for Italy.  Italy might run out of aircraft if you bought lots of them, but otherwise one set is fine.

I have been thinking about adding the Japanese from A&AP for the Russians(they’re red) but there’s no mech/CA/or Tac bombers.

I also have been thinking of using the Russians from A&AE, they are more red then the new ones.  Still no mechs or Tac bombers:(

@Gargantua:

I was in a group game, where we were winning, and my “allied” UK partner, got wiped from the game, after the germans rolled a last ditch fluke shot on Paratroopers, and took the London Capital.

It was all downhill from there, as no one was in range of taking it back immediately (Blocked)  and he was able to build off of U.K.

But would you say that this actually enhanced the gaming experience?

This is exactly the reason I don’t like the R&D rules, it is a bit too much based on luck and once earned changes the entire (delicate) balance of the game.

I hear this from the previous posts, though I would be very interested in how and why R&D deserves a place in the game based on long-term strategies…

(I can remember from the original setup it made strategic sence to invest in developments, but the game back then was less complicated and less delicately balanced)