cousin_joe vs. The Hive

[cousin_joe]

OK, 2 games should be finishing up soon. DocD, I know you're looking forward to our Grudge Match, but I have a point I need to prove here. A lot of people are thinking Japan is in a whole lot of trouble with Enhanced 2.0 rules, and even the proposed 2.1 (with D-Day and Bilateral Nonagression as the only changes on tap so far). I would argue that this is not the case, and that even if the Allies go Heavy Japan, the Axis will still win the game.

So here's the deal. I'm willing to take on everyone to prove my point :) . I'll be Axis at 10-12 IPC (my usual bidding range, actual bid to be determined randomly 1,2=10; 3,4=11; 5,6=12, bid units to be placed in Lib) using the proposed Enhanced 2.1 rules. You guys take Allies, and must do the following:

1. Take both INF NAs (Commonwealth + Pac Div) in any order
2. Place an IC in India (via NA, or built)
3. Do at least one more of the following (but ideally all 3)
a)Place IC in Sink
b)Build Pacific Fleet
c)Have Russians support Sink/Ind ICs

This should provide enough flexibility in your strategy, but at the same time, provide a good analysis of whether a Heavy Japan strategy for the Allies is as powerful as some may think.

Now when I say take on everyone, what I mean is that I'll still have one opponent, but you can feel free to play Hive Mind, and post the map at any time on the AH boards and gather advice as to your next step (I acknowledge that some of you of course wouldn't need this :) ). The person selected should have a combination of previous Mapview experience (or willingness to learn), high skill, and also the belief that the Enhanced 2.1 rules need further tweaking, particularly because Axis as a whole remain weak.

As far as what those tweaks might be, if I am beaten soundly, and it's quite clear the rules are flawed, I would be willing to look at Delayed NAs. 1st round NAs must all still be chosen, but the 3 second round NAs (2 Axis, 1 Allies) MAY be delayed at NO cost. This might need even further tweaking (?a cost to delay), but that's what I think would be the rule for now. I am not looking at map or setup changes, or limiting NAs or NA choices (based on other choices).

If there's enough interest, I'd be open to 2 or 3 games like this. I'm gonna throw up some names of players who fulfill the criteria of being of high skill, and feeling the Axis need further help, and you guys can vote who your "champion" will be :) Feel free to vote for for as many players as you feel comfortable with putting in charge of such a game, and yes, feel free to include yourself :) I will offer the game to the player with the highest number of votes, and then move on to the next highest if he declines or more games are played.

[axis_roll]

Let me preface this post with

"This is not a cop-out!!"

===================
I personally think the two proposed changes in 2.1:

1). D-Day
2). Bilateral Nonagression

are huge, and SHOULD be enough to even things out.
Although.... it would be a lot of fun to collectively B* slap CJ around :)

BTW, what versions of these two new rule changes would this game be played under?

D-day changes are still in discussion as far as I know....

[newaxis]

Please don't tweak with delayed NAs. Make other changes if you want, but please don't do it! Edit: How many people want a piece of cousin joe? I imagine it is a lot.

[cousin_joe]

Let me preface this post with

"This is not a cop-out!!"

===================
I personally think the two proposed changes in 2.1:

1). D-Day
2). Bilateral Nonagression

are huge, and SHOULD be enough to even things out.


Let me preface my post by saying you are absolutely right about D-Day and Bilateral Non-agression as being enough to even things out :)

As to the second part of your post... Bring it on!!! :D

P.S. We would be using version 2.1 with D-Day as so:

UK units may only be involved in an attack on Western Europe itself (not the SZs). UK TRNs can participate in Naval Combat in adjacent SZs only if dropping off units into WEur. UK DDs and BBs may bombard but only if the SZ is clear of enemy units at the start of the US turn. All land and sea units (UK and US) attacking WEur this turn, must do so via SZ 7.
-removes combined naval attacks except for with just the UK trannies, which must be loaded (but not necessarily fully loaded)
-gives Germany a safe haven from combined attack (Baltic, and Atlantic SZs other than 7)
-does not allow TRNs in SZ 4 or SZ 14-16 to be involved in a D-Day assault

[cousin_joe]

Please don't tweak with delayed NAs. Make other changes if you want, but please don't do it! Edit: How many people want a piece of cousin joe? I imagine it is a lot.

After I'm finished with the lot of you, I think it will be clear that no further changes are needed ;) :D

[newaxis]

I'd rather have a different NA than revised D-day. How about opening that up, with the stipulation that either UK or the US has to take it? Let the Germans rest easy on the Western Front!

[series]

If I had a bid of 12 IPC, I'm sure I could destroy you as Axis in enhanced OR revised. It isn't too hard at that point...

[pagan]

10-12 IPCs for axis .... No.

I will not follow the Allies plan as scripted.

you can have EXACTLY what I took in EVERY game I have so far played: 5 IPCs

I am personally comfortable with TomJag as the Allies.

[series]

you can have EXACTLY what I took in EVERY game I have so far played: 5 IPCs

5 IPC is more than enough if you ask me... then again, Joe can't buy his G1 Aircraft Carrier without a huge bid...

[DocD]

10 to 12 ipc Bid!! Sorry Emperor!! That's a Fool's Bet!

No thanks! I personally have never done the Orange Crush, even though I'm confident I could replicate it if needed.

But...10-12 ipc bid! No way man. Lower the bid to 5 and I may be interested, but as it stands now....count me out.

I will wait my turn for a more fairer game. :)

[The Hive]

I'm ready when you are joe! Bring it on!

[series]

I'm ready when you are joe! Bring it on!

the hive! lol!

[DocD]

Seems Pagan has been nominated.

CJ, drop the bid down (alot). Too me, if you are saying the Axis needs a multiple unit bid, then you are effectively saying enhanced is broken and further changes are needed, hence, you have proven the "hive" correct.

Pagan, you have to agree to the two Allied Na-inf only. Isn't this the orange crush you spoke about? If not, you have proven that CJ is right and no further changes are needed.

[axis_roll]

funny maelicoo voted for everyone!

[The Hive]

Joe, please PM me when ready to play.

[AxisRoll]

Team up and take on TeamAR...

[axis_roll]

I would never give someone like CJ a bid of 12....
especially with these changes to D-Day and Non-Agression treaty.

Team AR will take you on CJ, if you want....
We'll bid AAMC bunker style.

[weezer271]

Joe, please PM me when ready to play.

That's funny!

[pagan]

Allies will not be scripted.

I will not give axis any more of a bid than I have ever taken: 5IPCs

I will take a partner of TomJag or Axis_Roll

[DocD]

Fair enough Pagan. Do you plan to prove that the orange crush is still a problem even with the changes CJ have made?

If not, let's not waste everbody's time OK!

[pagan]

I would begin the game under the idea of my version of 'Orange Crush'

If I have a partner then we will decide together what we will do each turn/round.

Once it begins, I give no promises.

And if it ends up as something else, then we can talk about it from there.

[cousin_joe]

I would not be willing to bid under 10, because I feel Germany needs at least 1 ARM in Libya to have a good chance of taking and holding Egypt past UK1 (needs 3-4 units to survive, ideally ARM). If Germany can take and hold Egypt past UK1 (or defer an attack) then they are on even footing as they have quick access to Africa. If they fail they are at a disadvantage.
Ususal G1 attack = 2INF,3ARM,1FTR,1BMBR vs. 1INF,1ARM,1FTR

Odds of Germany holding with at least 1 ARM after UK1, UK OOL = 3INF, FTR, BMBR. Number in brackets is the less satisfying outcomes of holding the territory with no units, but at least picking off the UK FTR and thenjust no units, but UK FTR survives.

2 ARM = 0.3% (2%, 9%)
3ARM = 6% (20%, 44%)
1INF,3ARM = 27% (52%, 74%)
2INF,3ARM = 58% (78%, 90%)

Now, these numbers don't factor in UK retreats, so they actually should be a bit higher, but I'd say you need at least 4 units , 3 of which should be ARM, to deter the UK attack, or at least make it very costly and risky (focusing on the number in bold as an OK outcome for Germany)

Replace 1 of the ARM with an RTL (doesn't make a difference on defence with RTL vs INF) and the odds are slightly lower.

1INF,1RTL,2ARM = 22% (46%, 68%)

Personally, I'd strongly prefer to take a bid ARM over an RTL (better odds, and quicker expansion if UK deterred) and that's why I would never take under 10IPCs in a place half bid system. I would be willing to reduce my bid to a flat 10IPC (rather than the 10-12 I mentioned earlier). :)

[series]

I would not be willing to bid under 10, because I feel Germany needs at least 1 ARM in Libya to have a good chance of taking and holding Egypt past UK1

then why dont you just make that a new rule for enhanced? Because you know people will only give YOU a bid of 10 because you are so stubborn?

If you can ever do a revised rematch, ill take axis WITHOUT a bid if i have to! or even enhanced (once i figure out pbem)! When you die without a bid, then you will see the light!!!!!!!!!!

[pagan]

Ignoring Series.....

I am doing fine without an pre-units in africa. And I have done this for a total of 7 games now. I do know why you want the bid. As partial to an agressive attack on russia you won't have to divert units into africa.

You should use Afrika Korps the way you 'elluded to' me using it so long ago, if you want better odds on africa.

I will not concede anything further than that which I play with: 5IPCs

How about we remove the bid and you can delay your NAs as long as you like for a cost of the number of rounds you delay?

If you don't want to do these things, then play someone else.

I think you are asking for too much, where I am not asking for too little.
You probably think opposite of this..

[DocD]

I have been digusted before CJ but you have managed to bring vomit to my tastebuds on this one.

NO BID LESS THAN 10!! :mad:
Why not take a flat bid of 5 and be done with it!

I don't blame Pagan. He has the upmost respect from me...for what he proposes is at least fair.

CJ, if I didn't want those rules for your new game, I would really tell you how I feel!

[newaxis]

Whoa guys, tone down the rheotoric! Take a deep breath. I believe the stated goal of Enhanced should be to eliminate the bid. cousin joe, do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you do, then Enhanced should be tweaked in such a manner as to make bidding a thing of the past. Therefore, any playtest changes to Enhanced should strive to enhance the Axis and make the bids lower. With that said, please evaluate how many IPCs you think are appropriate in a playtest.

[series]

Whoa guys, tone down the rheotoric! Take a deep breath. I believe the stated goal of Enhanced should be to eliminate the bid. cousin joe, do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you do, then Enhanced should be tweaked in such a manner as to make bidding a thing of the past. Therefore, any playtest changes to Enhanced should strive to enhance the Axis and make the bids lower. With that said, please evaluate how many IPCs you think are appropriate in a playtest.

That's the main reason i hate enhanced. First, he makes the Axis more powerful, which is good. Then he makes the Allies more powerful, countering the Axis power, making a bid still necessary! I think it's ridiculous, it adds all sorts of new rules without making anything to replace bidding! And saying a 10 IPC bid is necessary... for shame joe! for shame! I've won games of A&A Classic as Axis with no bid, and you need 10 for enhanced, the "most balanced game ever"???

[AxisRoll]

a_r and i have talked at length and between us, we are going with a bid of 6 for axis. that gets you 1inf in africa. it needs to get down to that.

Maybe enhanced should just add the 1 inf to libia and then there is no bid. So if you want a side call it and if you both want the same side, flip the coin.

[pagan]

Don't worry about DocD, he gets worked up about stuff, much as i do about other stuff.

I believe balance should be the #1 goal for adjustments to the AARe rule-set

Sitting back with time to study this I have reached no solid conclusions
However I will just put some points I am thinking about

1. germany should NOT be given a free piece
2. africa should NOt receive any ARM

-I am left with a piece transfer of an INF or ART from german main territories OR Algeria into Lybia
-I feel that an ART in Lybia-africa _ increasing the att-value into AES _ increasing the likelyhood of surviving german pieces _ should be counterbalanced with the ART being removed from Ukraine
-I feel that an INF in Lybia-africa _ adding a piece of fodder without significant G1 att-value increase shoudl be removed from Eastern Europe _ lessening the counter INF for G1/G2

Hopefully everyone else could put up some of their thoughts

[Stephen]

I would not be willing to bid under 10, because I feel Germany needs at least 1 ARM in Libya to have a good chance of taking and holding Egypt past UK1 (needs 3-4 units to survive, ideally ARM).
I can see only two possible interpretations of your stand, CJ.

1) If the creator of Enhanced feels that an extra arm in Libya is mandatory for the axis to have a shot, then I don't see how you can object to people who say that an arm should be placed in Libya standard. I can't see how you can disagree with this.

2) However, if you do think it shouldn't be standard, then your desire to have it is merely to facilitate/improve your chosen strategy of taking and holding Egypt. In other words, if you can't put the arm there, then you should investigate alternative strategies for G1.

Basically what I'm saying is that if the need to have an arm in Libya is that important to you, why isn't it standard?

[DocD]

2) However, if you do think it shouldn't be standard, then your desire to have it is merely to facilitate/improve your chosen strategy of taking and holding Egypt.
gargle....gargle....spit......

Now that I have rinsed out my lunch.....I believe that you have hit the nail on the head here Stephen.

The guy wants to 'boost' his game plan. From where I come from it's call "bottom of the deck dealing". Pretty disgusting for someone of CJ's standing.

I would like think we could set a better standard for the little kids of the world, but guess that's the planet we live on.

[pagan]

Easy gents.

CJ knows what he's proposing.

[series]

gargle....gargle....spit......

Now that I have rinsed out my lunch.....I believe that you have hit the nail on the head here Stephen.

The guy wants to 'boost' his game plan. From where I come from it's call "bottom of the deck dealing". Pretty disgusting for someone of CJ's standing.

I would like think we could set a better standard for the little kids of the world, but guess that's the planet we live on.

Ignoring pagan...

i remember my "grudge" match with CJ...

"Its ok series! 10-12 IPC is the average bid!"

But he's right, stephen is, it's just Joes strategy, and i think that if he put an extra arm in africa as standard, that would FORCE people to use HIS strategy, which wouldn't be fun...

he should rethink things a bit...

[cousin_joe]

Ignoring Series.....

I am doing fine without an pre-units in africa. And I have done this for a total of 7 games now. I do know why you want the bid. As partial to an agressive attack on russia you won't have to divert units into africa.

You should use Afrika Korps the way you 'elluded to' me using it so long ago, if you want better odds on africa.

I will not concede anything further than that which I play with: 5IPCs

How about we remove the bid and you can delay your NAs as long as you like for a cost of the number of rounds you delay?

If you don't want to do these things, then play someone else.

I think you are asking for too much, where I am not asking for too little.
You probably think opposite of this..

The whole purpose of the bid is for the Axis to get as many IPCs as you feel necessary to balance the game.

The outcome of Egypt after UK1 has a HUGE bearing on the IPC situation. If Germany has an ARM there, that means quick expansion into Africa. If there are no units or they are forced to retake, then that slows them down. It's a HUGE IPC swing either way there and unfortunately , the natural setup favors the Allies heavily. The majority of players will use their bids to balance this SPECIFIC theater.

NO BID

2INF,2ARM,1FTR,1BMBR = 15 pips = 2.5 hits offense 1st round
1INF,1ARM,1FTR = 8 pips = 1.33 hits defense 1st round + 0.33 hits 2nd round

Germany has 0.33INF, 2ARM in Egy to face UK counter

BID 1 RTL

2INF,1RTL,2ARM,1FTR,1BMBR = 18pips = 3 hits offense
1INF,1ARM,1FTR = 8 pips = 1.33 hits defense

Germany has 0.67INF,1RTL,2ARM in Egy to face UK counter

BID 1 ARM

2INF,3ARM,1FTR,1BMBR = 18 pips = 3 hits offense
1INF,1ARM,1FTR = 8 pips = 1.33 hits defense

Germany has 0.67INF,3ARM in Egy to face UK counter

As I've said before, 1INF, 3ARM gives Germany a 52% chance of an acceptable outcome (to at least hold territory and kill 1 UK FTR). With 0.67 INF surviving this number is slightly less. That's why I've come to the conclusion that 1 bid ARM is the bare minimum of units I will accept for myself in Libya.

[pagan]

I have already added my thoughts on Lybia. Please read my thoughts on the matter at the end of page 3 of this thread.

Africa should not be a power-play for germany. And you do this with an ARM. It could become a power-play with good dice, of course, but definately not on average. So on average, if germany wants to go for africa then it has two options: NA Afrika Korps + Support Rommel

I believe that a bid should be removed if possible without catering to 'poor' players.

[cousin_joe]

This comes from the FIDA tourney (1st round):


Bid Amount: Record
16: 3-1
15: 1-1
14: 3-0
12: 1-5
10: 2-2
9: 4-1
8: 0-4
7: 1-0
6: 5-5
5: 1-0
4: 0-1
2: 2-1
0: 0-3
-3: 1-0

Bids in round 2 have risen. Average bid in round 1 was: 8.42



Players bid on what they feel is necessary to balance the game. For me that number is 10-12, as I feel Germany needs that extra ARM in Africa to get even odds (see above). Seeing as how you guys won't give me 10 at the minimum, and I won't take anything less than 1 ARM in Libya, I do have a compromise. I will take Axis, with 8IPC, broken up as 1 ARM in Lib and 3 IPC in hand. This is below the average bid in the FIDA tourney, and far below my standard bid for all games I've played in.

One clarification, getting the bid down to zero was never, ever, a goal of Enhanced. The initial set-up as is, has an inherent imbalance in the African theater in the Allies' favor. Barring set-up changes, which Enhanced is dead set against, a bid will always be required to correct this imbalance.

[series]

Joe, answer me this: Why do you say germany NEEDS to attack in africa on G1?

[series]

oh and um... in real life, didn't the allies begin winning the africa theatre in 1942?

[DocD]

CJ, I can't believe that you would pull out those old numbers. You are getting desperate. As stated before, they don't mean that much since play-skill and luck had much to do with it, hence 8 bid is as good as a 0 bid.

[pagan]

We have enough smart players to look at this AARe rule-set with a critical eye.

You should consider the idea of removing a bid even if this means changing your goals. I understand that this is My Opinion.

I find those bogus number bids funny, because if I didn't I would think you are insulting my intelligence to think that I would give them any credence, for you are insulting yours if you do.

[cousin_joe]

I would never give someone like CJ a bid of 12....
especially with these changes to D-Day and Non-Agression treaty.

Team AR will take you on CJ, if you want....
We'll bid AAMC bunker style.

Heh,heh,heh :D

Game on!!! This will give your partner a chance for revenge after likely tasting defeat in our DAAK LHTR tourney game :) After going 1 and 1, the AR twins unite, to finally put a stop to cousin_joe in the rubber match.

I'll offer pagan the first game, as he's the leading vote getter, but as you're #2 axis_roll, I'll give you guys the 2nd game. Again, I'm out to prove that 2 Allied INF NAs with an India factory can be overcome. If you deviate from the strategy, we will still play out the game, but it will only go to show that this strategy is not as optimal as some people think.

As far as the bid, you guys wanted 6IPC, I wanted 10-12. I'm willing to meet you at 8IPC with the condition of 1ARM + 3IPC. As I've explained in previous threads, 1 ARM in Libya gives Germany some hope of a decent outcome in Egypt past UK 2.

The ball's in your court guys but I think it would make for a great game :)

[cousin_joe]

We have enough smart players to look at this AARe rule-set with a critical eye.

You should consider the idea of removing a bid even if this means changing your goals. I understand that this is My Opinion.

I find those bogus number bids funny, because if I didn't I would think you are insulting my intelligence to think that I would give them any credence, for you are insulting yours if you do.

The bid #'s are from the FIDA tourney thread, post #270 http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=1044&page=14&pp=20&highlight=fida+bids+round

Since you are the leading vote getter, I will offer you the first game.

As far as the bid, I initially offered 10-12, with the absolute condition I would not go under 10, as I feel the ARM is necessary for the Axis to have a close to fair chance in Egypt.

You offered 5 as your absolute maximum, as that is basically what you take.

We are both obviously very stubborn about this :) , and so I offer a compromise of 8IPC, to be broken up as 1ARM in Lib, and 3IPC in hand. Do you accept?

If you refuse, then I will propose the same offer to TomJag3 as he is the next highest vote-getter (after the AR twins).

You are free to use whatever variation of Orange Crush you wish, but then again, if the 2INF NA + India factory strategy is so powerful, then why wouldn't it be chosen all the time. Deviation from the strategy will only go to show that it's not as all powerful as some people think.

Often people look at Japan in a vacuum, but if Germany is played properly, then A. The Allies won't have the luxury of selecting 2 INF NA's and B. Even if they do, the Axis, as a whole, can still play a very competitive game.

[newaxis]

cousin joe, beyond the current game at stake here, I fail to understand why eliminating the bid is not a goal of Enhanced. Perhaps you could explain why for the benefit of all the viewers out here.

[Vollick1979]

I feel there are a few issues that have not been fully discussed, one being the idea of the bid and half of it being preplaced. So when you want a bid of 10 IPC (now 8 because you figure an artillery in Libya will do almost as good of job) not only do you get a tank in Libya but you get an additional 5 IPC's to spend. In my mind removing the provision of half the bid must be preplaced would greatly reduce the size of bids.

I think a better way to bid would be to implement the "you cut I choose principle." One of the players (in this cousin joe) declares he will be willing to play the axis +10. Then Pagan has the choice of playing either the Axis at +10 or the allies and letting joe have the Axis +10. I'm sure if this method of bidding was in place it would do a great deal to show where the true value of the bid should lay (with of course some variation do to the quality of the opponent).


You are free to use whatever variation of Orange Crush you wish, but then again, if the 2INF NA + India factory strategy is so powerful, then why wouldn't it be chosen all the time. Deviation from the strategy will only go to show that it's not as all powerful as some people think.


A third and final point about the purpose of this game. It has to be said that this game will prove very little and certainly won't prove that Japan can survive the "Orange Crush" all the time. If you know what is coming joe than almost any strategy is defeatable. The only way to determine if strategies on the whole are good or bad is through multiple testings.

[axis_roll]

Mr. Stats is wise beyond his years.

[series]

I feel there are a few issues that have not been fully discussed, one being the idea of the bid and half of it being preplaced. So when you want a bid of 10 IPC (now 8 because you figure an artillery in Libya will do almost as good of job) not only do you get a tank in Libya but you get an additional 5 IPC's to spend. In my mind removing the provision of half the bid must be preplaced would greatly reduce the size of bids.

I think a better way to bid would be to implement the "you cut I choose principle." One of the players (in this cousin joe) declares he will be willing to play the axis +10. Then Pagan has the choice of playing either the Axis at +10 or the allies and letting joe have the Axis +10. I'm sure if this method of bidding was in place it would do a great deal to show where the true value of the bid should lay (with of course some variation do to the quality of the opponent).



A third and final point about the purpose of this game. It has to be said that this game will prove very little and certainly won't prove that Japan can survive the "Orange Crush" all the time. If you know what is coming joe than almost any strategy is defeatable. The only way to determine if strategies on the whole are good or bad is through multiple testings.

Your bidding method sounds SUPERB!!!

And your right vollick, even my undefeatable strategy can be defeated- but theres only one way (besides lucky dice), and none of you know it yet.

joe, i have a problem with you:

You keep saying you need that armor in Libya in order to win, pretty much. Well guess what? Maybe the reason there ISNT that armor is because Selinker didnt want Germany getting all of Africa on G2. In other words, you are saying the only way you can win is to use a piece that doesn't exist! If a strategy can't work in the game normally, then it must not be a strategy Selinker wanted to be usable. Did Hitler own all of africa in 1942-1943? I think not.

The point im trying to make is, if a strategy (G1 Egypt Capture) simply can not work, you shouldn't play God and change the game, you should play the General and change the strategy.

After all, A&A lasts a long time. You can capture Africa at any point. Why rush it?

[DocD]

Mr. Series is wise beyond his years.

[Stephen]

even my undefeatable strategy can be defeated
Mr. Series is wise beyond his years.
Ok DOCD, I'm waiting for you to explain Series' wisdom with that humdinger!:D

[DocD]

Ok DOCD, I'm waiting for you to explain Series' wisdom with that humdinger!:D
Oh, I was only referring to what he said after "JOE, I have..... :)

[pagan]

I have stated that I would not play the allies as 'scheduled'

I have stated that I would not give my opponent anything more than was ever given to me: 5IPCs

I have stated that I would run my own version of 'Orange Crush', but also that I would not be playing with a 'script'.

I have played the axis mulitple times with 4 games bent on a StallJapanStrat, and they have all been Brutally-Effective. I have been the axis on each occasion. I spoke out about needed change very early, eventually change was made.

I have stated that taking africa should invlove at least 1 of 3 things:
1. Lucky dice on AES G1 attack
2. Afrika Korps NA
3. Support Rommel

I have been able to take africa in 6 out of 7 games with the above strategy for Germany. Give germany an ARM to start in Lybia, and you are making a HUGE mistake.

[pagan]

How about being able to delay your NA until the end of your turn ?

end of TURN. during your Collect Income phase.

[AxisRoll]

eng of your turn would not make a difference. do you mean end of round any delayed N/A's are announced?

[cousin_joe]

cousin joe, beyond the current game at stake here, I fail to understand why eliminating the bid is not a goal of Enhanced. Perhaps you could explain why for the benefit of all the viewers out here.

axis_roll answers this nicely in the other thread http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=3916

[cousin_joe]

I feel there are a few issues that have not been fully discussed, one being the idea of the bid and half of it being preplaced. So when you want a bid of 10 IPC (now 8 because you figure an artillery in Libya will do almost as good of job) not only do you get a tank in Libya but you get an additional 5 IPC's to spend. In my mind removing the provision of half the bid must be preplaced would greatly reduce the size of bids.

FIDA uses the place 1/2 system for bidding and here's why I think they do that...

In AAR, across the board Axis as a whole probably needs at least 8-12 IPC to balance a game between equally skilled players. Heck, in the AAMC, where players play competitively, I bid 12-13IPC all the time, and I ALWAYS get the Axis. Kinda shows you what the competitive players are doing and what they think of the Axis' chances.

In the African theater specifically, I've already shown that a bid of 5IPC is about the break even point (+/-1IPC). Anything more than that, and Germany gets the edge. So if you can follow me here, as Allies, I generally wouldn't want to give a straight bid of 7IPC+ as I know that will kill my Africa campaign (small numbers of units can have larger effects in that theater). However an extra INF after G1 or J1 in either Germany or Japan is not going to make that big of a difference in the Eastern Front or in the JTDTM to Moscow.

Therefore, problem solved. You get 4-6 IPC into the African Theater, where it is needed, but still get 8-12IPC for the Axis cause as a whole. Kapish??? :)


I think a better way to bid would be to implement the "you cut I choose principle." One of the players (in this cousin joe) declares he will be willing to play the axis +10. Then Pagan has the choice of playing either the Axis at +10 or the allies and letting joe have the Axis +10. I'm sure if this method of bidding was in place it would do a great deal to show where the true value of the bid should lay (with of course some variation do to the quality of the opponent).


The bidding system is fine. The problem here is we have elected to have a game where sides are predetermined.

A third and final point about the purpose of this game. It has to be said that this game will prove very little and certainly won't prove that Japan can survive the "Orange Crush" all the time. If you know what is coming joe than almost any strategy is defeatable. The only way to determine if strategies on the whole are good or bad is through multiple testings.

If the Orange Crush is as powerful as some would have you believe, then why not run it all the time??? Well, the problem is, is that if Germany knows what they're doing, it would be ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH for the Allies to run an Orange Crush strategy. Here's the problem with what a lot of people are saying:

1. People are looking at Japan in a vaccuum and saying "Oh My, Japan is in so much trouble now. Oh, poor Japan. Oh please, won't you help Japan?!" Give me a break!!! Who do you think is benefitting from all this extra Allied attention placed on Japan???

One of the main points of Enhanced was to kill the KGF strategy, and to encourage more action in the SE Asian and Pacific Theaters. Well, now it's there, so get used to it. While Japan has it a bit more rough, Germany is enjoying the higher incomes, and this is as it should be, instead of Germany turtling and Japan becoming a monster all over Russia, China, India, Australia, and Africa!!

Bottom Line: Use Germany to stop the Orange Crush from starting, or to make the Allies pay for going too hard in SE Asia and the Pacific.

2. Too many people are conducting studies of n=1 and drawing inappropriate conclusions. They get Orange Crushed once and come to the conclusion the game is broken and the Allied INF NAs need to be changed. First of all, one needs to play several games to make that conclusion. Secondly, a lot of players are just not good enough to make that conclusion. I agree, Enhanced 2.1B may certainly not be perfect, and there may indeed be further changes needed, but let's just say there are some players' viewpoints that have more weight than others.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

vollick is right. if the bids were changed from pregame place 1/2 to pregame place whole the bid would be greatly reduced.

i would like to see the bid be changed to place the entire bid pregame and the bids would be reduced to <6

[TomJag3]

Cousin_Joe is right about the 'orange crush'. I don't think most people have seen it enough to figure out how to stop it. Axis_Roll has adapted his game, using Germany to pressure India from the west while Japan is moving east. Players need to learn to adapt to changing circumstances, there is no one perfect strategy that will take care of every possibility.

The bid system works, it allows a boost in starting units and equalizes the first turn purchases. There are lots of ways to set up bidding, this works as well as any.

[cousin_joe]

Cousin_Joe is right about the 'orange crush'. I don't think most people have seen it enough to figure out how to stop it. Axis_Roll has adapted his game, using Germany to pressure India from the west while Japan is moving east. Players need to learn to adapt to changing circumstances, there is no one perfect strategy that will take care of every possibility.

The bid system works, it allows a boost in starting units and equalizes the first turn purchases. There are lots of ways to set up bidding, this works as well as any.

Allelujah!! A voice of reason :)

[DocD]

Cousin_Joe is right about the 'orange crush'. I don't think most people have seen it enough to figure out how to stop it. Axis_Roll has adapted his game, using Germany to pressure India from the west while Japan is moving east. Players need to learn to adapt to changing circumstances, there is no one perfect strategy that will take care of every possibility.

The bid system works, it allows a boost in starting units and equalizes the first turn purchases. There are lots of ways to set up bidding, this works as well as any.
That may be true about the orange crush Tom, but I feel (and maybe alone of this one) that Russia's got not business garrisoning Allied territory. That is as silly as JTDTM and should have been addressed also by now.

[series]

I still wonder why Joe never addressed my statement(s)...

[Lt M Cotten]

That may be true about the orange crush Tom, but I feel (and maybe alone of this one) that Russia's got not business garrisoning Allied territory. That is as silly as JTDTM and should have been addressed also by now.

I agree with DocD on the Russians garrisoning Asia, and I think CJ speaks with wisdom beyond his years regarding bids and such. Okay so when I start my own company you are both hired! :) :D

[newaxis]

JTDTM? Would you care to enlighten some of us DocD?

[axis_roll]

JTDTM? Would you care to enlighten some of us DocD?
*** Tank Dash To Moscow

More of a pre-Revised strategy for Japan.

Basically Germany stays alive long enough for Japan to overwhelm Russia. If Moscow falls before Berlin, the axis had a good chance to win.

The interesting games were when both sides lost a capital at the same time, and it become 2 on 1. Weapons rolls then pretty much defined the remainder of the battle/war.

[DocD]

Thank you roll.

I have been a stanch proponent of AARe from its inception, not only because of its balance but because of its historical accuracy as well. For the first time, Japan and the Allies actually have a reason to fight over the Pacific and Asia.

Now it would seem as though we have the JTDTM going in the other direction. As historically crazy goes the JTDTM, I find the Russian Asian Garrison just as offending.

[pagan]

I am using AES as a press on india from the West.

I have been trying different things with my F2F games.

Its not as 'cool' or as possible as you guys might think to pressure India with germany. One major probelm is that you already limit any strategic variance by axis, all in the name of slowing/limiting 'Orange-Crush' ; IF the allies decide to do it. Even stunting the double-ICs only prolongs the pain, such as shutting the asian production down to 2INF-NAs + maybe another 3INF. But at any given moment the allies can plop down up to 7 Units then you can add anything russia sends...this quickly turns from a stale-mate into a japanese rout.

The biggest change is the Multi-lAteral Non-Agression Treaty combined with more pressure on Russia. I think that adding one more thing should be enough to help Japan's tenuous foothold in asia: Stephen's idea about Terr-IPC _IC limit should include NAs.

[newaxis]

<bump> No updates for the past 13 days?

[cousin_joe]

I've offered a game where I take Axis, with a bid of 1ARM Lib, 1IPC Ger, 2IPC *** = 8IPC.

I have a game with the Axis_rolls, where the bid is done, but I got stuck with Allies. This is not related to this challenge however.

Pagan insists on nothing but 5IPC Max for Axis. This is too low, considering I feel the Axis needs 10-12 IPC to balance the game, using the place half system.

So, the standing offer of 8 IPC remains to whoever wants it, but with the condition of trying to demonstrate a successful Orange Crush, under 2.1 rules. This would include:

1. Take both INF NAs (Commonwealth + Pac Div) in any order
2. Place an IC in India (via NA, or built)
3. Do at least one more of the following (but ideally all 3)
a)Place IC in Sink
b)Build Pacific Fleet
c)Have Russians support Sink/Ind ICs

This should provide enough flexibility in your strategy, but at the same time, provide a good analysis of whether a Heavy Japan strategy for the Allies is as powerful as some may think.


I think the general consensus now is that Orange Crush is much less of a threat with the D-Day Changes and Bilateral Nonagression of 2.1.

[pagan]

So gracious of you....

[AxisRoll]

so are you to playing?