"Upgrade" bidding

Thanks to everyone for clearing that up. :)

@daggaz:

At this point, the game has gone on so long that I fail to see the massive statistical difference you would get from having, say, eight IPC instead of four on G1.  It really just comes down to the tactical errors your opponent makes, and how well you take advantage of them, be they ever so slight.

The massive difference of bids 4 and 8 can mean taking Egypt with enough to deter a counterattack or can mean 2 extra units deterring or thwarting an attack on Ukraine. If Egypt isn’t to be countered, then the UK has all sorts of options. Still, it comes down to the dice - you have a point that it doesn’t always matter 4 to 8 and so on. With two units to Libya, Germany can expect to take it with 4 units plus their plane(s). With just one unit to Libya and good rolls, they could end up with the same 4 troops sitting in Egypt.

@daggaz:

But its simply usually enough for germany to shred africa with minimal investment, hold it until the US is forced to divert troops, at which time Japan has spread the rising sun across the entire swath of the southern pacific and the indian ocean, and is usually able to reclaim the dark continent for axis hands, while at the same time putting the serious hurt into Moscow.

How are the Allies managing Africa in your games? Is Germany taking South Africa as America first lands Algeria? Africa is almost always the first place I go with the US and UK. Lately the US has been in the Med for long term control. Unchecked Japan will definitely plow through Africa.

@Frood:

No, that was me - see my “Ditto” above :)

Oops, sorry Frood. :oops: :|  I mis-read your post I think.  I just, for some reason, saw only what you had in the brackets.  Shame on me.

@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!

@U-505:

The goal isn’t to discourage an attack on Ukraine, but to encourage one for the aggressive Russian players.

The person who played the bid, switch, said this:

It spooks the Russians, so they only attack ONE territory, West Russia.  Germany saves not only the FIG in Ukraine, but the 3 INF, the ART, and the ARM as well.

Sure sounds to me like one of his goals was to discourage an attack on the Ukraine.  Which it does, but only by encouraging a WR/Belo attack which is basically just as good for Russia as a no-bid WR/Ukraine attack would be.

@U-505:

With 2 inf in WR the Ukraine/WR attack gets pretty risky especially in WR.

I agree, and I would not do a Ukraine/WR opening if Germnay placed 2 bid Inf in WR.  I would do a WR/Belo opening though, and be only down 1-2 Inf, on avg, from what I would be if those 2 Inf from the bid had not been placed.  Killing one or two Inf in WR is not a very good return on investment for your 6 IPC bid.

@U-505:

2 inf in Ukraine doesn’t present any dilemma for the Russians. Belo/WR can go on just as if those inf were placed in Libya.

Yep, they can attack Belo/WR.  But the difference, as compared to placing 2 Inf in Libya, is that Germany has 2 extra Inf on the front lines in Europe to play with on G1.  I’m not saying 2 Inf in Ukraine is a great bid either, but it is a heck of a lot better than 2 Inf in WR.  Actually, 2 Inf in Belo might be the best bid if you are going to place your bid on the front lines in Europe.  If Russia attacks WR/Belo, it has to commit a tank which will be killed in the attack or the G1 counter, plus all that nifty hardware in the Ukraine gets to live.  If Russia goes WR/Ukraine, Gemany has plenty of fodder in Belo to punish Russia with if the WR attack goes bad.  And I’ve seen the WR attack go bad (as in all but 3-4 of the Russian Inf are killed) a few times on WR/Ukraine openings.

@U-505:

The problem is that WR has to be attacked on R1 no matter what. By adding the bid to the territory that ALWAYS gets attacked you put the pressure on the secondary territory. Either you make the secondary attack with the minimum amount of units or run the risk of taking a beating in WR. The risk may be high enough to a conservative player that both Belo and Ukraine aren’t attacked which provides immediate value.

2 Inf in WR would not change what I attack Belo with at all (3 Inf, 2 Fighters) and it does not make it very likely I will take a beating in WR.  I agree that if it does convince a player to only attack WR, it is worth it.  But I think such a player is making a poor choice, and I don’t like to base my strategies on hoping my oppenent will make a poor choice.  If Russia responds wisely to that bid by attacking WR/Belo, then the bid basically bought Germany nothing.

@U-505:

Attacking WR/Belo is probably the best move …. [but] it becomes entirely likely that a good defense in Belo coupled with the extra unit or units Russia lost in WR gives the German player an opportunity to counterattack WR with a good deal of firepower. Even if it costs you a lost fighter to AA, smashing the Russian vanguard might be the right play to make. And if you don’t counterattack WR, at the very least it will give you Caucasus for a turn.

3 inf/2 Fig vs. 3 Inf in Belo results in Russia taking the land 70+% of the time and at least clearing it with both fighters living another 20% of the time.  Not much room for a great defense there.  And if the WR attack does go poorly, which is not likely either, Russia can always fortify WR with Inf from the Caucus.  Sure, that may leave the Caucus a little weak, but getting Germany to overextend by taking it on G1 is not really a bad thing for the Russians.  (as long as they make damn sure to retake on R2)

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.

muhahahaha

this tactic works well against the group i play with… they go after germany with a vengance… they retreat everything from all the corners of world for the most part and pull to the atlantic just to put a wrench in the works for germany… they buy nothing without germany in mind… its 100 % devotion… it took 5 turns last game before i felt i could even make a real run at russia because i had to hold strong while japan got going…

Edit: holding strong meant staying at 40 or above… i fell to 37 one turn but rebounded back after a little regrouping…