"Upgrade" bidding

I think the game is close to balanced, but there is good reason to think it might not be.

basically, if russia were any weaker (or either axis player any stronger), there might be a high number of games where a) novice players would have a terrible time as russia gets pwned, or b) early bad luck by russia would allow for allied defeat even with superior play.

In other words, if germany has the ability to force a battle early in the game against the least resilient allied power, then even when played badly the axis always have a chance of an upset win in that battle.  The stronger you make the axis initially, the more risk that the game is decided by luck in spite of any allied skill very early on.

Having said all that, I think it’s pretty darn balanced and I’m just suggesting theories for why it might intentionally have been left with some imbalance.

I used to think the Allies sucked balls when I first started; I just kept massing tanks with Germany and threw Russia back (same with Japan, double complex + mass tanks LOL). They really are harder to learn to play/coordinate.

@AJ:

What is FIDA?

http://aamc.net/bunker/forumsql/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=68

All AARevised games played in AAMC use FIDA bidding unless the players agree to another bid system prior to the game starting.  FIDA stands for Flames of Europe, IAAPA, DAAK and AAMC, the four clubs that developed the bidding system.  Under FIDA bidding, each player submits a number of IPCs for a bid.  The lower bid plays Axis.  Up to half of the value of those IPCs can be placed on the mapboard prior to the start of the game in new units.  Germany can place units in territories and sea zones that already contain German units.  Japan can place units in territories and sea zones that already contain Japanese units.  Neither Axis player can place units in territories or sea zones where it does not already have units.  The remaining balance of IPCs from the bid can be given to either Germany or Japan or split in whatever manner the Axis player chooses.

Example of a bid:  15, 1 Inf in Ukraine, 1 Rtl in Libya, 6 IPC Germany, 2 IPC Japan.

@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.

@JLord:

I thought the generally accepted rules of bidding were that you couldn’t place more than one unit in the same territory?  Anyways, that is the rule we would follow.  And the thing is, if Allies put 12 IPC somehwere, the Axis will place their bid next and can presumably counter whatever the allies do.

Yeah, it’s also generally accepted that you don’t give a bid to the Allies.

I figured you were doing your own thing, you know?

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.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=6187.0

if you have any questions please direct them to player’s help… you’ll get responses fairly quick…