What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

It would be interesting to test out. A set J3 and G3 would make it easier for the allies to make plans.

@squirecam
Its not if you win or lose a fight but how you win or lose a fight.
If germany does its normal france attack and wins with 1 tank left they got diced pretty badly.
But since they still won you dont consider it being diced?

But with dice the problem is that on average you get the right results but if you get an outlier on the wrong point in the game you will lose the game because of that. And there is nothing you can do about it.
Germany attacking moscow with 90% odds and losing, sure russia might have had bad luck before or you might have gotten lucky somewhere else but that 1 battle makes or breaks the game.

I dont like Low Luck because its basically deterministic to the point where you know the outcome of battles. Its 2 much like playing chess. But i dont like the idea of extreme dice as well. Ideally you want to cap the outcome of a attack/defence roll to like 30-50% of the bell curve of most odds. But doing that would require some app to calculate.

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 ;)

@AndrewAAGamer:

Our gaming group has come to the conclusion that some bid is needed to balance the game for the Allies.  In reading through the posts it seems to me that the general consensus is that the Allies need a bid of about 9-12.

My questions are:

Is a bid of 9-12 the current and reasonable amount?  As we will not want to bid for a particular side, we will set a certain bid point for each game and then let people choose which side they want to be as some Players enjoy playing particular Powers.  So what is a fair bid?

My group usually goes 10-15, some where in the ball park of 8 to 14 is what everyone does.

Is this bid added as starting income to be spent on Turn 1?

What Siparo said.

Is this bid added as units and money such as the Revised FIDA bid?

Never played revised, and what is FIDA?  Another government agency?

Is this bid added as units on the board with remainders as starting money?

Siparo doesn’t do it, but my group allows it.

For any units placed on the board are there any restrictions?  For example:
     a) Must have a unit already in the territory / sea zone?
     b) May not place more than X number of units?

My group has 3 rules:
1.  Must be one unit per territory/seazone.
2.  Can only be placed in a territory/seazone where you already have units occupying it.
3.  Can only be a unit that power has access to (china can be inf and art only).

I would appreciate your kind thoughts and comments.  Thank you…

You can find an example here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31303.0

Also, from a penalty standpoint, there’s no reason for Russia not to declare war on Japan on R1.  Declaring war doesn’t require them to make an actual attack, but it does open their territories up for friendly occupation, making it that much more obnoxious as a US bomber base.

Yes

Saving money can be wise but for Italy, I don’t buy it since Italy is forced into a reaction based plan rather than true offensive since you have to see what UK does to the Italian navy before anything comes into play.

Italy always ends up doing one of three things: 1. Get aggressive and go after Egypt. 2. Can open for Germany. 3. Play defense exclusively to buy time for Germany to get to Moscow.

Anything else I’ve seen usually ends up with Rome going to US.