Allied Bids - What are the common rules on placement?

@barnee

You’re absolutely correct.

While in playing games against myself which are lower stakes I sometimes try it, when it comes to actual, serious games against other players I stay well away from it.

It’s mostly if you just want to spice the game up and you don’t care about winning or losing.

That being said the technology does give you great advantages depending in the power and technology.

Super Subs+Improved Shipyards almost guarantees US or Japanese (depending on who got both of them) dominance in the Pacific.

Of course getting those two technologies is not easy, but it’s not impossible.

@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 :)

This was a rule that was added because of the Axis advantage in earlier games being able to bridge. From Italy to Africa and Japan to Korea, the axis had great advantage with that plus a defense of 1 so I assume transports at 0 forces the axis powers to actually commit a naval defense.

@ShadowHAwk:

@wittmann:

1. Yes.
2. Yes. Each scrambling Fighter would get one roll of 4 to hit and sink one TT, with its cargo onboard. On the next turn the attacker could retreat any surviving Transports. (Or stay and try an be sunk again, naturally,)
3. A Sub is ignored, unless a Scramble happens, then it is in the fight.
You did realise, however, that a Sub forbids an amphibious assault, if the Transport(s) is not escorted?

Where is that rule in the book? I heared from it but in my game this weekend i could not find it.

Thought that transports can only ignore subs if they got a warship sailing with them.

See the rulebook:
@rulebook:

Transports
….
However, a transport is not allowed to offload land units for an amphibious assault in a sea zone containing 1 or more ignored enemy submarines unless at least 1 warship belonging to the attacking power is also present in the sea zone at the end of the Combat Move phase.

So the requirement of an escorting warship applies to the ability to unload troops (not to ignore a submarine).

HTH :-)

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

as bidding is not a part of the official game, bid rules differ upon who is playing.

i have played hundreds of games of triplea live in the lobby and pbem(play by e-mail) in the old triplea ladder ranking, the vast majority of games i have played are revised, some global, and very few anniversary.  below is what i have seen.

the most common rules that i have played with(near universal amongst triplea players) is
1. bid ipcs can be used to place units pregame
2. units can only be placed in territories or seazones that already have a unit of the same power

rules that i have seen frequently
1. only one bid unit per territory or seazone
2. bid for the alliance that you think is disadvantaged and bid down. (i prefer to use the method used at conventions of bidding for your opponent to play the disadvantaged alliance and bid up.)

rules i have never played or been asked to use but have seen
1. all bid ipc must be spent in units and not added to any powers starting income
2. no bid units to certain powers(such as china)

Rules are rules anyway, if you want leniancy, you have to ask for it.  This would not be a case where I would be inclined to grant it, mind you.  If you moved everything from Hawaii to Carlines but forgot to move a fighter there leaving it prone to attack, then I could see a case of “yea, okay, so you intended to move it but it got lost in the shuffle” fine, generally I’d allow that change (for non-league, non-tournament games, of course.)

@kcdzim:

Tragically, there are not enough japanese roundels to do this (later in the game).

What’s even more tragic (or fortunate depending on how you look at it) is that I have 10 differe A&A’s so a lack of control markers for the big 5 is never an issue. A lack of ANZAC markers on the other hand…