Bid placement - where can I stick it?

Ive never heard of bids til recently. I can see both sides as it relates to classic 2nd ed. The game was more challenging for the axis and therefore i always played the axis cuz nobody wanted to. A bid system would have changed the human line up but it would have also biased the game. As it was…i got to be a strong axis player due to experimenting with different stratagies, deciding when to pull back, when to feint, and especially in the opening turns to push my numerical superiority to gain ipc and close the income gap before the allies could get mobilized. I cant speak to the other varients because i have limited play time in them, but i would imagine this to hold true. Im not knocking the bids but from my experience with classic, I see it as a custom rule that could be taken or left, but not necessary if you put in the time to play learn and stratagize.

@Fighter:

@Variable:

Just picked up my copy within 30 miles of home for $100! I’m stoked! Gnasape is right, check around the neighborhood first.

you actually shouldn’t complain about that price when comparing what you have to pay many places in europe, where you can easily pay more that 120 euros

I’m not complaining at all. I was very happy to find it at this price as I too didn’t want to spend $250 bucks on ebay…

Well, you guys might be missing something here.  You do not need to agree that the game is imbalanced, or have a consensus on what bid is necessary to balance it, to have a consensus on what I am talking about.
Example: Person A may think the game is already balanced and that a bid is not necessary, Person B thinks an Allied bid of 6 ipcs is needed when you play with NOs, and Person C is nutty and thinks that 21 ipcs are needed for the allies with NOs.  But all of these three people may in fact agree that a bid of 2 infantry in europe would be equivalent to a bid of 2 naval warships off the coast of america.
Agreeing on what to do to balance the game is not a pre-requisite to agreeing on certain bids types being equivalent.

Or, to think about it in a different way, lets think of this as a Ratio.
I’m just going to throw this out there, but lets say you have a Bid of X.
If you use it on the “front line” in either Europe or Africa/MiddleEast, then all you get is X.
If you use it not on the front line in Europe/Africa/MiddleEast, or you use it on the front line in China, then you get X1.5
If you use it not on the front line in China, or you use it in the Atlantic on Navy, UK main island Air/Land, then you get X2
If you use it on Pacific navy, or American Continent Land/Air, then you get X*2.5.

Now, as you can see, if you think X should be zero, then they all end up as zero.  If you think X should be 6, then you could either get 2 europe/egypt inf, or 3 chinese inf, or a cruiser in the atlantic, or a DD + a sub in the pacific.  If you think X should be 10, etc, etc.

@zooooma:

I was never a big fan of the unit bid.  I posted years ago about bidding for NAs in revised.  Also I wanted an option to play minor victory, which I think also helps the Axis.  I used to like to play Classic with Restricted russia and Weapons Development Bonus.  If this doesn’t eliminate a bid it should at least reduce it.  I used to advocate for that option in the Axis & Allies Member’s Cluib (AAMC), but there wasn’t much interest.

Best of luck in your endeavors!

Alot of people played this way on the CD version (when those old gaming rooms were around).

dang.

I believe it though…

my best bet would have beeen amazon anyway ;)

FAQ addressed this, the units to be considered are only the chinese units (including the china starting fighter that is chinese for gaming purposes).

So if a territory contains less than three chinese units, at time of placement, is eligible for deploying chinese infantries.

I am beginning to wonder if the Heavy Bomber rule that has some people bent so out of shape is in there to compensate for the large boost that attaining National Objectives gives the Axis.  As a guess, it is going to be easier for the Axis to attain their objectives, and more productive to them than for the Allies to attain their objectives, which do not appear to give them anywhere the same boost.