crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions

@dawgoneit said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

any one want to give me 60?

Yes. Send me your email and placements.

I narrowly won an OOB low luck game as allies with an 80 bid against Oysteilo.

@simon33 What about a lend lease?

@dawgoneit or what about a progressive deployment.
for example
Tussia 2 or so men a turn for 5 turns
and or
US a sub and a destroyer per turn
and or
UK a bomber a turn

I mean this just for example

@oysteilo I did see that. It looks like quite an epic game. I think you are right that Andrew has the edge but you have made it pretty tough for him. I had some thoughts but want to save those for when the game is done.

@farmboy said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

@oysteilo I did see that. It looks like quite an epic game. I think you are right that Andrew has the edge but you have made it pretty tough for him. I had some thoughts but want to save those for when the game is done.

desperate times calls for desperate moves…

I dont think I give away anything in my current game by writing this. In big bids game, like mine, @ 60 for allies I currently think this:

+8 for russian art in far east. This is a long term investment, maybe for round 5,6,7,8,9 depending. Also all 18 inf should stay (protect round 1 though) There is no need to retreat these to save moscow. it is much more important to keep the income. Ideally a fighter should be present too.

Also the bid should be 2 fighters for russia to reach yunnan round 1 and a chinese inf in yunnan +23 total. This will give you chinese art no matter what japan does. Maybe one of these fighters should go to russia far east round 2 or 3.

Still +29 to bid. All of this goes to the british. fighter in scotland and 3 subs. Placement is up for debate, but egypt and canada for sure

The problem is if Japan says screw it and goes big time for India. I think this is where I failed

And the only reason I am still alive is the must have Russian money in Africa. grab all of it, but at least 3, dont be afraid to kill other stuff to get this. 3 inf extra every round for moscow is why you can leave the 18 inf in far east. Essential!

@oysteilo I think those are good choices. If your opponent does a J1 consistently, it is probably worth getting more units that can reach India as well. so maybe the British can do without a sub and the Soviets without an art.

@oysteilo The Scottish fighter is great but I think if you have 16+ left, the SZ98 sub and Malta fighter for a CV-less Taranto is a great move.

Also the Yunnan stack strategy might be over hyped. I would be inclined to favour:
sub sz98
sub sz106
ftr Scotland
ftr Malta.
DD 91.

That is 40 there.

@simon33 what about doing tech. maybe thats what the allies need.

@dawgoneit said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

@simon33 what about doing tech. maybe thats what the allies need.

Allowing the allies to bid a tech is a nice idea. O like it! Jet fighter would be awesome or heavy bombers or super subs!

If you do a Russian bid of 10!infantry you make it worth it to bring the Siberian troops back. This pushes Moscow back past round 10, maybe more.

In this scenario, you could take the fast movers south and make money and secure me

I would recommend trying this and not just theorizing or relying on consensus. I m probably wrong, but I just might be right. Sounds like a country song.

The English navy in the Atlantic is still needy. It’s like an ipc black hole. 10 Russians (half of a sixty bid) and Germany is now calling Japan with the message, “It’s up to you! I’ll keep them busy for as long as I can.”

@crockett36 said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

@crockett36 In case you missed it. Andrew said he’s NEVER played the allies on this site. That’s how imbalanced he thinks it is. Who in the world is going to give him 60 ipcs to play the Allies? Someone’s got to do it!

So based on this comment I went back and checked my record since joining the League. Since 2020 I have completed a total of 18 Global 1940 OOB 2nd Edition games. I am16-2. In ONE game I was the Allies with a 60 Bid. I won that game.

• Axis Record with Allied Bid of $57 or less = 9-0
• Axis Record with Allied Bid of $58-$60 = 6-2
• Allied Record with Allied Bid of $60 = 1-0

I suspect there is a lot of game play/strategy differences that come into play for someone to win as Axis against a ~60 Allies bid.

Maybe the best way to balance is to play 2 games, flipping sides with the same bid. Of course, dice luck can also come into play, so not a perfect measure.

@AndrewAAGamer So what you are saying here is that while you can occasionally be beaten as axis, your record playing the allies is flawless :)

So based on this comment I went back and checked my record since joining the League. Since 2020 I have completed a total of 18 Global 1940 OOB 2nd Edition games. I am16-2. In ONE game I was the Allies with a 60 Bid. I won that game.

• Axis Record with Allied Bid of $57 or less = 9-0
• Axis Record with Allied Bid of $58-$60 = 6-2
• Allied Record with Allied Bid of $60 = 1-0

@farmboy LOL. I guess that is one way of looking at it. :+1:

This is an exciting topic! And one that can be debated for ages I guess ;-) Nevertheless, I would like to give some thoughts into that.

First of all, I agree that the allies need a high bid in this game, obviously.

@simon33 said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

The longer people play this game the more the Axis seems to be favoured. Allies benefit from Axis mistakes or dicings a lot though.

And it is also true, that the game changed with the strategies that players employed over the years. If I remember correctly people saw the Allies in huge favour some ten years ago, nowadays this has completely turned. So the “fair” bid, meaning a bid that equals chances to win the game between players of equal strength, is also a kind of a flow, depending on what gamers call the “Meta”, the current strategies out there and employed by players.

My experience is also that not all players adapt correctly to this flow. Many players do not judge correctly what would be fair and what they need as allies to win a game. The problem here is perception. A bid of 30-40 is NOT a high bid, it is in fact pretty low. And many players do seem not to have realized that. So advising new players to target higher bids in their games will definitely help them.

The final bid of a game, the agreed bid, is from my point of view, also a projection of how both players view each other in terms of playing skill. If I think I am the better player, I am tempted to bid lower for the Allies, because I think I can still beat my oponent.

@crockett36 said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

would i be wrong in saying, the best players are giving the bid away and playing the axis?!

And the wrong perception is probably also the reason for that statement, the fact that the better players like Andrew playing the Axis far more often than the Allies. Is that the fault of the better player? Not sure… let us view this from another angle: If I bid 30 to play Allies against my opponent, I am basically telling him that I think I am the better player, because I can even win with 30 against his Axis. Question here is: Why does my opponent not read this correctly and let me play Allies with 30, a bid that is pretty low? This would actually even out the skill (given that I am indeed the better player in this example…). My answer is perception here, as stated above. Many players still think that 30 additional IPC is a lot of stuff, and that they can get the advantage with it… but no, it’s not.

Following that logic, if all players had a better perception of what is “fair”, the better players would far more often play the Allies than the Axis (which is not the case, see Andrews post). So go on, shout it out to everyone: The Allies need bigger bids! We need to change peoples perception of that (and not enforce it with rules).

@crockett36 said in crockett36 - Allies need bigger bids in all versions:

I would recommend a bid that is also logical, reasonable AND historical. Dump it in the US fleet or the Chinese and Russian armies. OR change bid placement rules. Which are reasonable, but arbitrary. OR ask Andrew for a 30 ipc Allied bid placement and go from there.

I am actually against any proposal that will tell me what to bid. I think that the bid for the Allies is the one option, where the Allies can set a tone in the beginning of the game, where they can chose what is important. Other than only reacting this enables them to chose the battleground, at least in some limited places of the board. If you come up with fixed units, the Allied player will not be able to do this. I think we should not discourage allied creativity, and each player should come up with his own thoughts on how the IPCs given can be used best to stop the Axis.

Just my 10 cents…