Is 6 ipc's enough?

TC

That’s what they came up with low luck rules…

But yea, it’s one of my favorites too.  I actually have a button that has that on it I wear at GenCon every year

Moved this over from another thread.

@ncscswitch:

For an experienced player like me, sure I’d take the 6 bid and placement restriction.

Others who have posted seem to feel that 9 unrestricted is “balanced”…. but I think that is too high with an experienced Axis player.

For someone new to online gaming…
I’d go at least 7 IPC, and probably go unresticted bid (allow for 2 German INF, and an IPC for Japan at start)

Split the difference and allow an unrestricted bid. Or go 8 IPC and restrict the bid (still only 1 INF or 1 ART to start) That is the least you should offer for your “choice” of sides to play…

And as I play more games since the mid-stage of the Tournament, the more inclined I am to shift the Axis minimum bid up from the Tournament 6 IPC restricted standard bid to at least 7 preferably unrestricted. Allied play on these boards is imply improving too much to maintain the lower 6 bid restricted…

My opinion, your mileage may vary.

I’ve only played 4 games online as the axis, 2 I lost to TC (6 bid 50/50), 1 draw (6 bid 50/50) against bebo (he resigned before the end of round 1) he advocates a 9-15 bid (way too high IMHO), 1 game against U505 still in progress (3 bid) we’re on round 24 with no resolution in sight.  I’d say 6 is probably about right, maybe remove the 50/50 restriction but keep the 1 unit per territory placement rule.

I have never understood the premise of the 50% bid placement restriction. This artificially inflates the bid; if you think you need just 1 infantry on the board you have to bid 6, whereas with 100% bid placement it’d be a simple 3.

I think the limit of 1 bid unit per territory makes a lot of sense, but not restricting it to 50% in placing the bid.

My understanding of the reason for the retriction for those forums that use it is that it prevents a total change in the T1 moves of the game.  It provides for additional forces, but not at the expense of changing core strategies.

I am leaning away from the restricted bid myself.  And with a 1 unit per territory limit to replace it, then yes, I would see the average bid shift down, potentially as much as 3 points from the average that another posted demontrated was 9 IPC in another venue.  A two point drop, to a 7 bid, would be almost certain.

I’m thinking 5 is a fine bid for full placement. With 1 inf to Germany and 2 IPC’s to Japan for a 4 TP build I think it’s possible to hang with most players.

You could probably get away with a 4 bid and only 1 IPC to Japan, for 2 TP, 1 IC, but with all this recent talk about US naval superiority and what to do with the UK Pac fleet, I’m expecting that someone might take a shot at KJF in the tourney so I’m leery about it. If the US goes KJF, then 4 TP’s on J1 really helps evacuate most of the islands quickly enough to get the infantry to the mainland and the TP’s back into an attack position before the US gets rolling.

But, judging from jsp’s post, our team might have a small disagreement on what bid is too low.

@U-505:

I’m thinking 5 is a fine bid for full placement. With 1 inf to Germany and 2 IPC’s to Japan for a 4 TP build I think it’s possible to hang with most players.

You could probably get away with a 4 bid and only 1 IPC to Japan, for 2 TP, 1 IC, but with all this recent talk about US naval superiority and what to do with the UK Pac fleet, I’m expecting that someone might take a shot at KJF in the tourney so I’m leery about it. If the US goes KJF, then 4 TP’s on J1 really helps evacuate most of the islands quickly enough to get the infantry to the mainland and the TP’s back into an attack position before the US gets rolling.

But, judging from jsp’s post, our team might have a small disagreement on what bid is too low.

Our 3 bid game went 25 rounds before I threw in the towel.  Would 2-3 more IPC’s at start changed the outcome, probably not.  However I won’t be making any more 3 ipc bids  :-D