Balancing Bids… using Time as a part of the Bid

@barney:

“Bids and Scramble”
sounds like a good name for a board game   :lol:

IDK “Chutes and Ladders” just came to mind lol

Maphead and I won this tournament last year at Gencon.  We will be playing the 42.2 tournament this year, see you in Indy!

The Axis have a distinct advantage in this version, which is not as “structural” as their advantage in G40.  the Axis start with less stuff, but mostly, its because the Axis have less time to recover their position and go into rage mode, and during the tournament there is only time for 7 turns.  The Allies only have a limited amount of time to challenge the Axis income position, their push has to culminate in the game-ending time.  I believe that you have to get 125 income on the board with the axis at game end.

We played 5 “official games”

Kantcon; Allies (Maphead+Taamvan) vs (Bob Roby, Grandmaster) Axis;  Allies bid +6, goes to Russian infantry.  We used our KGF plan, it worked well but this was largely due to luck.  3-4 fleets have to be protected, Greece backdoor shredded the key income.

Gencon Qualifier;  Allies (M+T) vs Jason/James (Axis).  No Bid. Axis victory.  We lose.  KGF didn’t work at all this time.

Gencon Qualifier 2: Axis (M+T) vs  Axis.  No Bid. Axis victory.  UK made a grand sacrifice turn 1, which Japan exploited, conceded turn 4.

Gencon Semis; Axis (M+T) vs  Bob Roby and Veteran Jake (Axis).  No Bid. Axis victory.  Won by amazing luck against 2 very vet players.  total luck in the atlantic, subs survived somehow.  All the German troops survive the open in one territory, which caused Russia’s position to erode quickly.

Gencon Finals; Axis (M+T) vs Jason/James (Allies) No Bid. Axis victory.  Hard fought, game culminated in a huge fleet contest over java which the Japanese won by the skin of their teeth, which allowed them to retain key income.

As you can see by these game reports, the key to winning was playing the Axis.  In a longer, AAA game, that goes to 10-12 turns, im not sure the Axis has such an advantage, because of the ever-increasing amount of allied pressure on the income.    In the tournament play, the Axis really only need to 1) retain all their income to start 2) gain any 2 other regions and hold.

A region is roughly defined as any two of most of (Africa, china, inshore asia, spice islands, Australia, east Russia, south Russia, north Russia, a capital).

The tournament game works a bit like football or rugby, the Axis have to push the income to a level somewhat above the 125 because they get pushed back down the line by the allies as the last turn concludes.  If you are still “over the line”, you win.  If you can interfere with the Allies ability to hurt your income at the last minute, you pretty much win.

The Allies need a bit of at least 8 in order to change these considerations around.  This should be a DD with the scapa flow fleet, so that Germany has to commit more resources to this attack and potentially flubs it.  Even with this change, the Allies are still at a bit of a structural disadvantage because this is a economic victory scenario;  the allies need to “load the shotgun” by turn 5-6 to make a huge push on the final turn without being picked off or screened off the income.

The territories that are worth 1 don’t change the game.    I would suggest studying the territories that are worth 2, 3 and 4.  If the Allies can set up on the Pacific side near austrailia, on the final turn, they “unload the shotgun” and retake the money islands and Malaya.  Japan must confront them here before they spread out.    A factory on Hong Kong helped me win the game, because I could place BBs near the fight, with a NB for free.  Roby pointed out to me what a powerful defensive Axis base this square is.

On the atlantic side, its a bit more difficult to hold all the $$.  Use your Italian can opener as the Axis to take the $$.  Ignore Africa.  As the Allies, you have to prepare to block Gibraltar, or turtle the facing squares that are worth 3 and 4 (s france, rome, south Italy…)

One strat we did not use that was fairly powerful is to build a factory in Persia.  DO NOT FORGET TO OPEN NW PERSIA.  If you run mechs/tanks out of there, india goes from being a fallback zone to a take-area by turn 5, so UK is grabbing $$ back, and Japan is running away.

Keep in mind that most stuff you buy after turn 5 wont even be able to enter the battle.  There are exceptions (forward bases, bombers).  Buying is critical.  I bought 1 fighter on Turn 5 for japan, after all the other air headed south, wasn’t sure why I did it, but It ended up killing an American invasion fleet coming for Japan that was coming in my back door.    Study what you buy, small mistakes esp with japan, uk and usa can lose you the game.    Wasn’t trying to stall but one Japan buy literally took me 20 minutes, I rebuilt it from scratch 4 times.  Had I chosen any of the first 3 configurations, I would have lost the game.

1)  all else being equal, play the Axis
2) do not play this like a normal game; it is a timed game.  You can sac everything on the final turn, even if you lose everything, the sun sets at 7h 45m game time.  You will not play an incomplete turn. 
3) time is not on the Allies side
4)  but, the Axis cannot protect all (10?) $$ and $$$ zones, this is where the Allied win is at.

Slight Axis bias.  No bias in open play.  Some players do not like to play with a bid, learn your opponents preferences and predilections.

You will be playing for 30 hours, if you are lucky.  My brain was on fire the final day.  Wake up time is 6AM.

Good Luck, Have Fun.  Jon

@P@nther:

@Nazred:

I was wondering as well can airplanes land in captured area’s which were pro your side. (example in non-combat movement fase infatry from norway take finland and then fighter from norway land in the same turn in finland) I was wondering this because it was possible in tripleA

This is not legal:

@rulebook:

Air Units: An air unit must end its move in an eligible
landing space. Air units can land in any territory that
was friendly (but not friendly neutral) at the start of the
current turn.

TripleA lists in the game notes for the Global map:

@Game:

(PE) You may not land air units in Friendly Neutrals, including the same turn they are captured, unless they have been previously attacked.

(PE) = Player Enforced = You must be aware of the rule and must follow it. The engine will not stop you from breaking the rule.

HTH :-)

Ahhh thank you!

Back to the OP. One other point I’m coming to see is devastating is to land 4 ground units on Kwangsi J1. These units really make a big difference in being able to hold on to Yunnan. While you can’t get the TTs back to Japan J2 unless you combine a Naval base on Hainan or Kwangsi, the main game in Asia isn’t to get Japanese land units on Asia but to deny the Burma Rd. If you can do that, your one step on the way to Axis victory in the Pacific. One of the land units can come from Okinawa, two from Japan so you are only relocating one unit within Asia, the artillery from Manchuria, but in a very advantageous way.

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 ;)

I use my fingers.

Right hand - Hits 1 through 5 normal; 6-10 pointing left; 11-15 pointing down; 16-20 pointing right.
Left hand - Hits 21 through 25 normal; 26-30 pointing right; 31-35 pointing down; 36-40 pointing left.

If it goes beyond 40, start over on the right hand.  Once the hits are known, we just pull that many pieces from the board.  Each land piece has its own color poker chip (except ships, so many ship pieces), so armies get colorful and stand tall.

What he is trying to say at least I believe is that the strategies will always focus around capturing VC. He prefers creative strategies where VC are unimportant and the idea is to knock out your opponent. The problem in his logic is that this is a historical game and historically there were certain cities that were essential to winning the war. Capturing Paris won the war against France, the German failure to take Stalingrad was a turning point in the Eastern campaign, so on and so forth. While I can understand his point the fact is that the victory cities are located in the strategic centers (for the most part) even if there were no VC in them those are still the territories you would want to attack and take over so it kind of makes the arguement null and void.

The group I play with is very casual, a lot of drinking and joking around. We don’t have a set time for turns, but you can be assured that the longer you take, the more razzing you’re gonna get for taking a long time. So either your quick and decisive or you will be ridiculed to the point of not being able to concentrate.