Bid Suggestion #1 - 1piece/territory

[CrazyStraw]

Hey guys.

I went to GenCon this past year and had a really good time. Smorey runs a good tournament; if you haven't gone, you should.

But because everyone's a critic ;) I do have a couple of ideas I wanted to run by the gaming community and see if people think a change would be worthwile. Niether change is earth-shaking, but I think both have merit. I'll post the two ideas in separate threads so the debate doesn't get mucked up.

Idea #1: Limit the placement of bid pieces to 1 piece per territory.

I think that the game should be changed as little as possible from the box rules. If you put a stack of 3 infantry in Libya or French Indochina, you have really changed how/what battles can be fought in the first round. Allowing multiple bid pieces in a territory unbalances the game much more than having the same number of units spread over a theater. Consider the old game where there would be a power-Europe bid almost every game; the eastern front looked very different after the bid than it did in the original setup.

I'll let others comment before spouting off more :D

[Comassion]

Your ideas look a whole lot like the Caspian Sub bid rules, which already both keep IPC's and restrict unit placement to 1 unit per territory. I believe that both ideas are good ones for a bid system, because as you say, putting 3-4 infantry in a territory can significantly affect what happens on a front. According to the minimalist principle, you don't want your additional rules (the bid system) to affect the game any more than is necessary to balance it.

[Yoper]

Gee!!!!!

I wonder why it looks like the Caspian Sea rules? ;)

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that CrazyStraw is part of the "brain trust" over at the secret lair of the CS think tank? :D

I think that you know where I stand on this one.

You don't need the restriction, just take the multiple unit situation into account when bidding.

Heck, the "Anti-team" (me and v-disc) were stupid enough to offer up 7 IPCs and the Allies to the Smorey-Auer team. They took it and put in an infantry and an artillery in India. Needless to say, I got my Japanese rear handed to me on a platter. LESSON LEARNED!!!!!

You will not see me doing that again.

You do not need a restriction, you need to use your head.

Craig

[CrazyStraw]

I suppose it is "possible" that "some" of my ideas may "look" like "cut and paste" from Caspian Sub, but that is almost certainly a coincidence.

Ok, ok, I'm one of the contributors there. But I'm not trying to overhaul the tournament settings to be CSub rules; I am just floating a couple of tweaks to the system.

Peace

[Frog]

If your goal is not to complicate things then a limit of one per territory really complicates a bid much more than letting you place things where you want. If one fighter of 10 is added to one territory it surely changes things.

A bid should consider how many units you give your opponents.

Bottom line: Don't limit someones ability in a bid, let them have more freeedom.

[Yoper]

I see my Libertarian ideas are starting to ooze into the funniest places! ;)

My plan to take over the world is coming together! :D

Craig

[V-Disc]

I don't like the idea of limiting the bid placement; at least not in a tourney setting. I'm fine with this idea per se. That is if the players involved agree to this. But in a tournament; I think the goal would be to keep that bid amount to a minimum. If you're going to give a skilled player 6 or more IPC bid; then you'll have to deal with the consequences.

[Mighty Airforce]

I heartily endorse this product or event.

Seriously, I think the restriction allows the necessary balance, while making the smallest change to the game. It is, in my humble opinion, everything a balance tool (the bid) should be.

[CrazyStraw]

So Frog and Yoper, do you think a German bid unit should be able to go into a Japanese territory?

[Frog]

So Frog and Yoper, do you think a German bid unit should be able to go into a Japanese territory?


I'm not sure what you mean by a German bid? You bid to be Axis or Allies, not individual countries?

I can guess what you mean. Can a German unit be placed in a Japanese territory? I would say no. At the start of the game no pieces jointly occupy any territory.

[Comassion]

Yeah, that's pretty much the question he's asking. And no, you definitely wouldn't want to allow German pieces to be placed in Japanese territories or vice versa. Even a single cross-axis Infantry could potentially result in a drastic gameplay change - especially if that infantry is used to capture a territory and build an industrial complex. Imagine Russia's situation if the Japanese throw up an IC in Karelia or capture the one in the Caucasus, or if the Russians are forced to keep units behind their front lines because of the threat of a German attack breaking through and a Japanese armor blitzing through the empty territory into one beyond it. A strong German force bid in Japanese mainland asian territories could potentially take India before the Brits even get a turn (and with Japanese reinforcements, you could have a German India complex on G2.) Letting nationalities cross-place units leads to all kinds of gimmicky and unrealistic situations.

[CrazyStraw]

I agree with you, Frog: bid units that Germany gets to place need to go in German territories.

The reason I ask is because I'm trying to get at a principle: you don't put German pieces in Japanese territories because it skews the game setup. A libertarian could say, "Your opponent knows you might put a German tank in French Indochina, so take it into account when you bid." But common sense would say you shouldn't do that because it messes with the game setup.

I'd say by the same logic that putting a stack of 2 or 3 infantry in a territory skews the game setup.

A bid is necessary to balance the powers, but the bid should be done in a way that doesn't needlessly change the game. I think that unbalancing theaters by putting multiple bid units in a territory changes the game more than spreading the units out.

It doesn't make game sense or real world sense that suddenly Libya or Manchuria becomes one of the largest territories in the game just because of the bid.

[Yoper]

CS- My silly libertarian comment was about letting people have more freedom!

No putting of units into another country's territory/sea zone.

You may NOT mix the bid units of one country with units of a current allied country.

This comes directly from the one-page hand out that Greg gives to the players at his tournaments.

Broken Record Time- Do not give the opponent a large bid and you will not have to deal with a unbalancing placement of multiple units in a territory/seazone.

We allowed it and we paid for it. Making a mistake and dealing with it is still the best learning tool.

Your "socialist", doing-it-for-your-own-good, no more than one units per territory/sea zone rule will just infuriate players without really giving the a good reason why they should like it.

(You know I disagree with you without it getting too personal. ;))

I just don't see it causing such a problem that it should be changed. It really is self-correcting in its own way.

Craig

[Frog]

Ah I see, the set up. In principal I agree with the notion not to altar the game. However a bid of any form alters the game. A new person may need a bid of much more and more units to balance a game than say an experienced player.

Also I think FTF competitions should remain as constant throughout tournaments and different A&A games as possible. Imagine a territory limit in Europe or Pacific? That would be ludicrous. Therefore all things considered, a limit for the sake of all AA games and tournaments as a universal rule is not good.

[Emynst]

I don't know if I like this proposed rule or not. But I think it's an interesting proposal.

The purpose of a bid system is to make up for shortcomings the designers had in the initial unit placement of the game. So, I guess I'm not sold on the need to change the current rule because it accomplishes the same intended objective.

[smo63]

One thing I believe has been not been mentioned is that a bid helps determine who is what side. Instead of coming to the table and rolling a dice and forcing one side to be a side they may not want straight up...

With this being said, I have been around long enough to see different ideas passed along these lines. In the old version (2nd Edition), I believe this could have been a strong consideration or at least a partial placement restriction. But now, we have the luxury of a fairly balanced game with bids so low, that I am not sure one needs to put a restriction on placement of bid units...I could never see getting more than three units and if so, God forbid the one that lets that happen...

So, in short, unless some earth shattering information comes along, I would not be in favor of the limit in tournament play.

Yoper atests to this very well!

Peace,
GS:)

[Hiro]

I am going to have to agree with greg on this because what kind of bids are y'all doing that you would have to add that limit. I think the highest bid I did at GenCon was 7 IPCs. Now in pickup games it was only 3 or 4 IPCs. Unless you are bidding in double digits consitently, which is crazy, then this rule is absolutely unneccessary.

[CrazyStraw]

Couple of thoughts:

In this version of Axis the balance is much better, so I agree that this rule is less significant. Like I said in the initial post, this is not a major change due to the current bids. But the bids may go higher. I tend to play total domination games and KGF, and my experience has been that the Axis are at a bigger disadvantage in those circumstances. I wouldn't be surprised to see the bids go into the low double digits. Putting a pile of 4inf in Ukraine definitely changes Russia's immediate strategy.

And even if the bids don't creep higher, the placement restriction matters as soon as the bid is 6.

I think the restriction is a good principle that keeps all of the initial battles basically intact. If you think 4inf in Ukraine is ok, then I guess you won't like the restriction in any instance. If you do think 4inf in Ukraine would skew the initial setup too much, then we should correct the rule now before it becomes a problem.

Peace

[Hiro]

Couple of thoughts:

In this version of Axis the balance is much better, so I agree that this rule is less significant. Like I said in the initial post, this is not a major change due to the current bids. But the bids may go higher. I tend to play total domination games and KGF, and my experience has been that the Axis are at a bigger disadvantage in those circumstances. I wouldn't be surprised to see the bids go into the low double digits. Putting a pile of 4inf in Ukraine definitely changes Russia's immediate strategy.

And even if the bids don't creep higher, the placement restriction matters as soon as the bid is 6.

I think the restriction is a good principle that keeps all of the initial battles basically intact. If you think 4inf in Ukraine is ok, then I guess you won't like the restriction in any instance. If you do think 4inf in Ukraine would skew the initial setup too much, then we should correct the rule now before it becomes a problem.

Peace

You're assuming bids will consistently be in the double digits. I think the bids, being as low as they are do not need this rule. If you bid sixteen not to be the axis, then that is just dumb bidding and I will be putting 4 infantry in the Ukraine or French Indo china. You are trying to make up for a person's inadequate bidding prowess by handicapping the bidding system. By doing so, you limit the actual benefits of the system. Why bid at all? I think it is fine the way it is and if you can give some good reasons why it should be changed, then le me know. But the reasons you put forth above only make bidding ineffective.

[CrazyStraw]

Hi Hiro.

I think you are underestimating the cap on the bid. I'll be playing MightyAirforce on Sunday, and I guarantee we won't see an 8 IPC bid. I mean we won't see that on the low end. For sure we will be bidding 9+.

That means a pile of 3inf can go in one of several territories.

If you are so sure the bid will stay low, then the rule won't affect you and you shouldn't be opposed to it.

You are trying to make up for a person's inadequate bidding prowess by handicapping the bidding system. No, that is your assumption. I am trying to keep the balance of the game as close to the original setup as possible.

What I am certainly trying to prevent is allowing a bid placement in one territory that is so large that the game will hinge upon a single battle that uses those bid units.

As the bids creep higher (and I believe they will stabilize between 8-12), the more the bid unbalances a particular theater.

Peace

[Hiro]

What I am certainly trying to prevent is allowing a bid placement in one territory that is so large that the game will hinge upon a single battle that uses those bid units.



Well, do not bid that high. basically, you are nullifying the advantages of bidding. Why bid at all if all I can place is a single piece in one territory? If you bid 9 for me to play the axis, then I would place my 3 pieces in the Ukraine. If you do not like that idea then you should have not bid 9. Bidding is a strategic part of the game. It requires you to take in consideration the effects of addittional units on the board. What I fail to see is how limiting the number of pieces per territory is advantageous to the person that places the units? Sure I still get three guys, but not where I want them to be. Again, I say that this limit handicaps the bidding system. You are watering down an advantage for no other reason except to aid a player with poor bidding skills. If I get 9 IPCs and I win the game because I piled them in the same territory, then my opponent should have learned something; Do not bid more than you can handle. All this rule does is make sure the person that bids poorly does not learn from making a strategic mistake.

[CrazyStraw]

Hiro,

If I feel that the Axis need at least 9IPCs to have a 50% chance of winning (and I do), then I shouldn't realistically bid lower than that. What you are saying, however, is that it's ok if the bid makes one early battle much more important than every other battle. That's a lousy game.

This happened in the old game quite often. Once the bids got sufficiently high, the game would often be decided by 1 early European battle. It made the game less interesting and complex because the European theater became too important too quickly.

Putting 3inf in Ukraine suddenly makes it the largest territory on the board for ground troops. Real life logic aside, that is crummy game logic. You shouldn't unbalance one part of the game to the detriment of the other theaters.

It has nothing to do with the bid a player can 'handle', it has everything to do with wrecking the balance/complexity/subtlety of the game. I'm not going to waste time playing a game that is decided by the first throw of dice from an attack coming out of Ukraine. I also don't want to play a game where the only chance for Russia to win is to buy only infantry.

Allowing multiple bid pieces in one territory simplifies and dumbs down the game.

Peace

[Yoper]

This all hinges on the type of game being played.

CS- I know you don't usually play under tournament time restrictions, but your inital question deals with the Gen Con Indy tourney, which operates under a time restriction.

You may think, from your experience, that the Axis needs more than 9 IPCs to have a 50% chance to win. That may be the case under your normal game play circumstances.

Under the framework of the Origins/Gen Con Indy tournaments, that just hasn't been borne out. The bids have been, for the most part, under 7 IPCs.

As such, there has not been shown a need to limit the number of units placed in a territory/seazone as you suggest.

I would think that Greg would review it, if the numbers suggested that it was a problem area.

Let's get our schedules aligned so that us SE MI guys can go to Smorey's Spring Gathering, Origins, the WBC, and Gen Con Indy next year. Those are the four major events that I am going to next year. We should "bum-rush" them as a group.

Craig

[CrazyStraw]

Hey Yoper.

You make some interesting observations, but I must disagree with your conclusions. I am thinking of the time limited game. The big difference in how I view the game vs most of the gaming community is that I find KGF to be much more effective than KJF. To borrow from your terminology, I am a KGF Honk! When more people play KGF, I think you'll find the bids start to rise. I know that's not a popular point of view, but time will tell if it is a point of view that has merit.

But let's not debate the anecdotes too much; regardless of where the bid stabilizes, I think the principle of 1pc/territory is good.

A) It is useful for bids as low as 6
B) It keeps the game balance as close to the original as possible
C) It is not complicated or hard to remember
D) It is consistent with other bid rules such as no German pieces in Japanese territories
E) It rewards skill, not piles of infantry

Perhaps you could summarize the arguments for why that rule is a bad rule. Not to make a straw argument, but so far basically what I'm reading is:

A) It complicates the bid process
B) The bids are small so it may not be necessary
C) People just don't like it :eek:

If I missed some arguments, feel free to add a couple.

In brief I don't find A) to be compelling. It's a pretty darn simple rule. If the argument is B), well, the bids may change. And 2 units changes some theaters like Africa significantly.

If the argument is C), well, their vote counts as much as mine. But I don't find that to be a great argument. If I was going to change the game based just on what I like, I'd be changing a lot of silly sub rules.

I'm inclined to let this debate sit for a while. We have a lot of time between now and the next tournament, so there's no rush for resolution.

I've been playing without the 1pc/territory restriction for a while so I've seen both sides. I like the restriction. I'd encourage everyone to try it a time or two and see what you think of it in game play. And consider what it would be like if the bid does go as high as 9-12.

Peace

[Yoper]

I will go with:

D)None of the above

My main point is don't fix what isn't broken. The bids aren't there to substantiate a change.

When the numbers get too big, based on one side winning too much, then it would be the time to see about changing.

Until the evidence proves otherwise, there is no need to change.

Craig

[Yoper]

I don't think that Greg keeps this kind of statistical data for the games played in his tournaments, but this is the break down from my event.

************************************************** *******
Tournament Stats-
A total of 23 games were played with an even split of 10 wins for each side in pool play and of the three games in SE play there were two wins for the Allies and one for Axis.

The bidding was quite even in its distribution between the Axis (7), Allies (8), and no bid/zero bid (8). The Axis getting a bid went 3-4 (W-L). The Allies getting a bid went 5-3. The no bid games went 5 wins for the Axis and 3 wins for the Allies.

Six of the games ended in one side conceding early. Three more games were stopped because the winner occupied 18 or more VTs. The other fourteen games were played out to time limit and the wins were evenly split between the Axis and the Allies. No game ended in a VT tie, as such there was no need to go to the IPC tiebreaker.

The average number of rounds for a non-concession game was a shade under six (5.88). With rounds being 4.5 hours long and the cutoff point for starting a new round being at the 4 hour mark, I think that this is an acceptable lower limit for speed of play. Hopefully, as player gain familiarity with the new version of the game, we may get more rounds in and see more games reach the threshold for a VT win. Then again, players may get better at hanging in and pushing the game to the time limit anyway.

************************************************** *******

I do not think that my scoring system was different enough to skew the bid info so as to make it irrelavent.

Here are the actual bids and who won:

Axis-
(+7) L
(+3) L
(+3) L
(+6) W
(+7) W
(+3) W
(+4) L

Allies-
(+6) W
(+3) L
(+1) L
(+2) W
(+5) W
(+5) W
(+2) L
(+7) W

No Bid-
Axis- 5 W
Allies- 3W

I will say that, for the most part, that the group of players that participated in my WBC tourney were not as familiar with the Revised edition as the player at say Origins or Gen Con Indy. But again, I don't think that it affected the stats enough to make them invalid. All it really did was give me more No Bid game than I really think should have been played.

Craig

[smo63]

Chiming in once again; yes I believe that we need to look at what is being presented here but remember that I will be commenting on only casual and Tournament play rules as applied at both Origins and GEN CON.

If any other AA gaming system is being questioned or victory conditions, then I am NOT the one that should be questioned regarding the system or type of play. I have absolutely NO experience in online gaming (some might think that as a extreme negative in my case) but when it comes to playing FTF, I believe that I have a pretty good handle on most if not all of the questions fielded. If not, I will get an answer.

So, in short, if one wants to play per the typical GEN CON/Origins game rules with games lasting about 4-5 hours and then when it is all said and done, finding a winner, limiting placement of units with a bid really shouldn't be an issue. I believe that Yoper said it perfectly, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it."

And please CS, with no dispresect to your question, I believe some of the more pressing issue regarding the up coming 2006 tournament season are:

1.) rule clarifications on retreats
2.) appeasing the masses for some sort of bonus play in a tournament setting; meaning, if one would lose in the first rd, somehow they would be able to play another game (two and out instead of one loss and your day is shot). Under this scenario, I am acutally working on something regarding tournament play if we would keep the numbers to 64 instead of 128. But then, that includes another day, etc...and if we would hit the 64 player threshold with more players wanting to get in...them I am really hosed...

I am sure there are more but I don't want to open up another can of worms for another thread here...

Peace,
GS:)

[CrazyStraw]

Hey Smo.

I'm all good with whatever the decision is for the rules, I just was looking to make a couple of tweaks and take a reading on the group's opinion. I agree with you that we need some clarification on the retreat rules and a couple of other things. Oddly enough, however, I think the debate about the bid rules are of greater interest because they will affect strategy more directly. The murky retreat rules cause problems in a given battle, but I think the bid issues will change how the game is played.

Peace

[GSH34]

Here's my $.02.

I'm going to start by saying that all of the points brought up in this thread by different people have merit. Crazy Straw, I do agree with what you are saying about limiting unit placement to one new unit per territory. Once 6ipc's is hit, that can unnecessarily skew the importance of any one territory/battle/theater.

In another way, I do agree that when giving bids of 6 or more ipcs, a person has to take into account that they all can go into the same territory. Under the current rule, I think that is a contributing factor to the bids being low in tournaments. No one wants to give 6 or 9ipc's or more because they all can go any one territory. If the bids do start to creep up, I think may need to be revisted. For the victory conditions that are currently present in the tournaments (Greg's at least), I just don't see the bids going 9 or higher.

If I had to vote, I vote for Crazy Straw's one unit/territory placement (that's the way we decided to run it at the TripleA ladder). However, I don't have to vote yet. The system is currently not broke, so I don't think it needs to be fixed.

GSH34