"Upgrade" bidding

Lots to think about here.  Thinking about the Polar Express and the entire game itself, the phrase, “For everything gained, there’s something lost” comes to mind.  If Japan is in W. Canada, it halts the US shuck, but if they’re in Asia, it forces Russia to spend more to defend against Japan.  Every game I play as Japan, the thought always crosses my mind to send my 4 transports to Alaska/W. Canada, but I can’t ever come to terms with it because of all those units you take away from Asia.  Even if the US was out of the picture in Europe because of having to deal with the polar express, I don’t see how Germany could overcome Russia and the UK by themselves anyway.

As far as simply bidding a Jap transport….that works well regardless of whether you go after the US or not.  It’s a win-win for Japan.  I just won an Axis game with that transport in SZ50 implementing a KRF.  It’s key to grabbing income very early on–income that you wouldn’t normally get a hold of that soon.  I was able to hold Africa for a while with Germany as well.  I admit, I was pretty fortunate to do that without the German bid.  Overall though, I definitely recommend bidding the Jap transport.

I do this as a bid because it greatly increases Japan’s options on round 1. While a transport bid to SZ50 does allow for a possible invasion of Hawaii its other options are rather limited.

The transport added to the E. Indies fleet not only allows the mentioned amphibs but is also fodder if need be for a strike on British naval units in sz30 or sz34.

Again I think it gives Japan the MOST options on round one.

I move the TRN in SZ 40 with the two troops to India where if the timing is right I build an IC.

As far a s Russian troops I mass all the troops from SFE (2 INF) and Buryat (2 INF) in Yakut (2 INF for a total of 6 INF. Maybe move a tank from Moscow. It works but be advised it’s a temporary solution. It will only work a an effective barrier until Japan has a bigger force next to it.

It’s important to hold China as long as you can. The reason for this is you want Japan to have a multi front with your territories. If you hold China they will have to defend and hold French Indo-China, Kwengt…, and Manchuria, as apposed to you holding up in Sinkiang and Japan only having to defend China.

That’s what I do as far as Japan goes. Axis countries have a lot of assets and a smaller economy base. For them to have any hope of wining is to match or exceed the income of their allied rivals. In order for you to prevent that you need to contain them in a timely manner.

-LT04

@rjclayton:

I disagree with one part of NPB’s post.  The LOWEST bidder should be awarded the country, not the highest bidder.

Otherwise I bid 7 million and o lookee here I get to play Germany with 7 million extra IPC?

(sigh) I was so gonna kick Aretaku’s ass and get that beer.

NOW SEE WAT U DID!

Thanks DM. It was the low luck aspect that really threw me the curveball. Taking a cursory look, it seemed that LL makes a lot of the first round battles, on both side, that are deemed “must do’s” by most players a little more palatable so, all things being equal, it was hard to judge which side would come out ahead at the end of the 1st turn.

@ncscswitch:

I like the logging option.

I know I did not care for the argument that brought the issue up.  And it would be nice to have had a way to drop you a note and say “Hey!  What were thsoe dice?” :-)

Okay, I have created a “Make game record page” which creates records that AACalc will soon be able to log to - another couple hours coding should do it. This also incorporates an optional bidding function.

One question that was raised about bidding in software development forum was whether we should use an “Ebay” style bid where the winning bidder gets their optimal bid - ie. if you bid 0 and the other guy bid 10, then you would get it for 9 - so your bid is how low you are willing to go, but you don’t necessarily have to go that low. It’s an interesting concept, and I could just make a choice on my page for which bid system to use.

Thoughts? Would A&A.org consider switching to this bid? It would make the bid less nerve-racking because you know you won’t be leaving money “on the table”. Eg. I just bid 7 for my round 2 game against a player who took the bid for 10 in round 1. If he bid 10 again this time, I could have had it for 9. Of course with that you can’t declare your bid placement with your bid (or you could just get the change in $ to the bank) because you don’t know exactly what it will be yet.

I am speaking of averages here…

And it is not the INF that creates the extra Russian deaths, it is the FIG and ARM living longer with the extra fodder AND the extra single roll of a 2 which gives you a 33% chance of an extra death in and of itself.

To me I’m looking for gamebreaking changes in LL that would convince me that it doesn’t have any validity for analyzing overall strategies in ADS. I don’t really get stuck on very small details in very small battles in which we’re talking about efficiency in fractions of IPCs - which either side can take advantage of. I’m looking at the forest, not the trees.

I think it’s something to have to live with, but it’s still better to look at overall strategies than having every other game in ADS screwed over by some important battle going horribly wrong.