Bid suggestion #2 - Keep extra IPCs

[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 #2: Give money left over from the bid to the power of the recipients choice (currently unspent IPCs are thrown away).

If the goal of the bid is to make the game as even as possible, why not allow extra IPCs to be retained? 1IPC can have some interesting effects. Consider the UK or Japan. That extra IPC allows the teams to build a complex and a carrier or a complex and 2 transports. If you think the powers are 1IPC apart, I'd say let that bid work. Why should extra money get tossed if people think it balances the game?

Thoughts?

[Comassion]

I agree, money should be able to be retained from the opening bid. There's no harm in it, and it increases the versatility of the bid. If a player feels that this somehow gives the Axis too much flexibility, bid lower.

[Yoper]

Another reason to come to the World Boardgaming Championships (WBC) and the A&A Revised tournament that I run.

You get to keep the IPCs that you do not spend on units!

http://www.boardgamers.org/yearbook/a&apge.htm

Craig

[Frog]

Now this suggestion is a great idea. However it is nothing new. I have been to more tournaments where the IPC's are left than those where they are lost if not spent.

I like this because-
1) If someone wins the roll, they bid 2. You have to say OK and play even, or instantly give your opponet something in any counter bid. Unfair I believe.
2) An IPC can be saved and not spent on any turn, why not at the beginning?
3) New players can hold a bid and spend when they feel they need it.

[V-Disc]

I'll say yes to this proposal. Mostly for the first reason cited by Frog.


P.S.
This may be the first time Crazy Straw, Yoper, Frog & I all agree on something. So it must be a good idea!

[CrazyStraw]

I am relatively sure we all like pizza...

[Mighty Airforce]

I heartily endorse this product or event.

[Yoper]

Yeah, but what do you like on your pizza? :rolleyes:

Craig

[CrazyStraw]

It's kind of hard to have a debate when everyone agrees...

Um, does someone who likes the current rule want to comment?

Smorey?

[Yoper]

Smorey isn't very active unless it is convention season. You could try to email him directly so that he can think about it and then he can email all the usual suspects as to what they think.

Craig

[Emynst]

I don't know why you lose the bid money, must be some reason from long ago that Greg can explain. I think keeping the money is good just because of the dead numbers that some bids are.

It's a very old rule from the classic A&Agame, where bids could get into the mid 20's ipc range. So, I imagine it was put in place to prevent a team from taking a bid of mid 20's and not placing any units and just using the money for tech rolls or something along those lines. Just a guess though.

[smo63]

It's kind of hard to have a debate when everyone agrees...

Um, does someone who likes the current rule want to comment?

Smorey?

CS, thanks for the e-mail...with that, I will be the devil's advocate here but not to say that I can not be swade to the other side...


I don't know why you lose the bid money, must be some reason from long ago that Greg can explain. I think keeping the money is good just because of the dead numbers that some bids are.

It's a very old rule from the classic A&Agame, where bids could get into the mid 20's ipc range. So, I imagine it was put in place to prevent a team from taking a bid of mid 20's and not placing any units and just using the money for tech rolls or something along those lines. Just a guess though.

Emynst is correct again. This does go back aways...and agian to the original idea behind a bid in the first place. There was a terrible imbalance in power in 2nd Edition between two good to great players. We can't use the ones that beleived that they could win with the Axis vs. a great player without a bid...we all know were that line of thought gets us.

Anyhow, when we designed the bidding system in tournament play, the original reason and one I still like is that the bidding is something that happens before the game begins to balance out the boards and should NOT effect the game once it starts. Hence the reason for NEVER being able to keep ones wasted IPC bid on units.

The other thing that really does not get talked about is that, I believe that bidding has become and was intended to become a very strategic part of the game. Therefore, knowing how to bid witout wasting any of your bid was critical, you could say an art in itself.

I could and still don't understand when one bids 1 or two? That, in my opinion just tells us that one really doesn't understand the process. What good does it do? Damn it, if you are willing to bid 3 IPC's for a side then just come out and say it.

At Origins 2005, Auer and I played the Allies twice and the Axis twice. And in ALL four games, we were the side getting the bid. Makes sense when one looks at it from that perspective.

Also, Jeff and I both believed that we were willing to take either side and win with a bid of 5 or six. One must be confident with either side...In any case, would anyone bid 6, take the bid and buy and cannon or tank and save the buck? MOST LIKELY NOT...or at least I wouldn't hope so.

So, in short, I still don't like the idea of altering the game after it starts. Hence my first comment...I have also, not play-tested it to see how much of a difference it would make? Would be interesting to see how this plays out...

That is my two cents!

Peace,
GS:)

[V-Disc]

.

...In any case, would anyone bid 6, take the bid and buy and cannon or tank and save the buck? MOST LIKELY NOT...or at least I wouldn't hope so.

Peace,
GS:)


Well...

Let's say my team {Axis} got 6 and did NOT place any units with the money; holding onto it until after Russia's first turn? What if the Axis holds this money until Japan's first turn? One could see what the opposing side is up to; and then use the money to counter those all important first turn moves. Sounds kinda sneaky...or odd...or something...I dunno!

So would this be legal with this proposal? In short...can a side use the bid; all or in part, to boost first round purchases?

I'm assuming that the holdover money must be in spoken for at the start of play. If the Axis has this 6 bid; they have to say who is getting what amount of money. This could get messy. You could really throw a curveball with this. GER wants to invest in a T1 Carrier; they've got 6 extra bucks to spend; kinda changes things doesn't it?

I'm not sure I'm liking this as much as I used to.

[CrazyStraw]

Hey VDisc.

I understand your concern about the money, but I doubt it will really be an issue. Start with the assumption that the Axis will get the bid.

Germans: Does the extra cash really change their purchase all that much? You already have 40 IPCs , and that buys a combination of 5 transports/subs. To get a sixth naval unit, you need 8 more IPCs. Well, if you have 8IPCs from the bid you can just start with a naval unit anyhow. What could Russia do that would dramatically change your plan?

Japan: In this case a small amount of money does matter, at least a little. One extra IPC means you can get an IC and 2 transports. That's an advantage, but is it that big of an advantage? But in what case would you want to save more than 2 IPCs? Getting up to 32 is a magic number for naval building, 31 leads to a few useful combos (bmr/IC + car/2tra), but any number higher than 32 is not likely to change the purchase much.

I would say that in almost every instance the value of a piece on the board is substantially greater than the value of a piece that is purchased round 1 (cash in hand). That is because the bid unit will have an opportunity to defend and attack before the purchased unit is even on the board.

So I don't think anyone will be hoarding their dollars. I would be very happy to play against someone who does.

The real advantage of giving the extra IPCs in cash is that it leads to an accurate bid. You are balancing the game as closely as you can (to within 1 IPC).

I think Greg has a point when he says, "Why bid 1 IPC?" If the bid is really 1, then you should just skip the bid and roll for teams. But what we're really discussing is the extra money left after bid units are purchased. I don't see any reason those IPCs should be lost if your opponent is willing to give them up.

I can think of many instances where I want to give either 1 or 2 IPCs to Japan and several instances where I want to give 2 IPCs to Germany. I would often be willing to downgrade a bid tank to an infantry to save that money for one of my teams.

Why lose that part of the balancing bid? It makes the balance as precise as possible.

[smo63]

Well...

Let's say my team {Axis} got 6 and did NOT place any units with the money; holding onto it until after Russia's first turn? What if the Axis holds this money until Japan's first turn? One could see what the opposing side is up to; and then use the money to counter those all important first turn moves. Sounds kinda sneaky...or odd...or something...I dunno!

So would this be legal with this proposal? In short...can a side use the bid; all or in part, to boost first round purchases?

I'm assuming that the holdover money must be in spoken for at the start of play. If the Axis has this 6 bid; they have to say who is getting what amount of money. This could get messy. You could really throw a curveball with this. GER wants to invest in a T1 Carrier; they've got 6 extra bucks to spend; kinda changes things doesn't it?

I'm not sure I'm liking this as much as I used to.

Here is a perfect example of changing play after one starts the game. This is exactly why this rules was established in the first place.

Remeber, the bidding system was designed for three major reasons;

1. Balance the power of each side so that in play, whether tournament or not, the one side, originally, the Axis would have a fighting chance.

2. Determine who would be what side. Give a player some sort of control of determining what side they would play with the amount of bid being given.

3. Take into consideration, the bid would limit the amount of change to the game before play starts.

In no circustance was the bidding system ever designed, since I have been running the show at GEN CON, to be used for play after the game begins. The only thing that should be changed in this systems are rules and there own clarifications. What I mean with this is:

Remember, this is a game owned by a company that provides us with tournaments to be played throughout a year. How one plays outside of this arena is completely up to them.

My job is to run a tournament for WotC, for AA(revised) with the intension of having anyone and everybody that wants to play in a setting of this nature, be able to play, whether or not they have ever been on these boards or has little to no, regards for rulings of this nature. So, when one starts to suggest changing the game to fit one idea or the other due to logical play under a certain system, that is where I will not go. Or at least be very hesitant to change unless for good reason...

Changing the rules to meet logical and easy understanding of the intent of the rules are one thing, but when we start adding IPC's and different aspects of the game..I do not believe that is the best interest of the tourney's, and that is where I see this headed...unless of course, I am totally oblivious to what is being asked...

Then, just hit me upside the head and we can move on from there.

As someone else brought up in another thread, I think Hiro, most of the these ideas will be dragged through the mud for the next few months until we have time to acutally see how they might play out at the Spring Gathering IV in April...between then and June, final decisions will be made regarding official tournament play at Origins and GEN CON and only those two venues.

Peace,
GS:)

[Yoper]

Most people bid with the intention of placing the extra units on the board before game play begins.

While someone could bid with the idea of saving for a specific country's turn, the fact that they don't know what their opponent is going to actually do would probably torpedo any concrete plan they might have.

No matter what, it still can be kept in control by the simplest manner, keep the bid low.

You ask, how can I keep the bid low?

By remaining flexible in your plans.

You must be ready to play either side. Locking yourself into playing one side or the other will put you at a disadvantage. You will end up giving up more of a bid than you should to get your preferred side.

Right V-Disc?

Craig

[V-Disc]

Hey VDisc.

So I don't think anyone will be hoarding their dollars. I would be very happy to play against someone who does.



Comrade Crazy Straw,

When, may I ask, are you NOT happy to play Axis & Allies?


Seriously....though I agree with most of your analysis; I'm just asking for a clarification. In the propsed change; would it be legal for a side to hold all of the bid for first round purchases? Yes or No?

Consider this...what if you made a stipulation that the ONLY amount of a bid that could carry over was 1 or 2 IPC's? The side getting the money would have to place units on the board; but could opt for holding onto that smaller amount. One side gets a 5 bid; they buy&place an INF; then hold 2 IPCs to boost the first round purchase. Does this further complicate things? Maybe this is a workable compromise.

[CrazyStraw]

When, may I ask, are you NOT happy to play Axis & Allies?Well, we used to do some pretty good Caspian Sub sessions in Lansing. We would each play two simultaneous games of Axis and a third simulataneous group game of History of the World with at least 5 or 6 of the guys. At that point I would not be up for playing a fourth simultaneous game of Axis (as you can imagine, slow players were mocked and beaten ruthlessly ***cough*** MightyAirforce ***cough***). Otherwise, yeah, I'm always ready to pick up the dice and get to work.

I guess I'm not at all afeared of a player that saves his money. I don't see any killer unbalancing thing they could do with saving the cash, so why not let them?

I'm not quite clear on why saving money is a problem in terms of "changing the game after it begins", but Smo was saying he thought it was an issue. I'd like to hear a bit more of his reasoning on that because I may be missing something.

Peace

[Mighty Airforce]

I'm not quite clear on why saving money is a problem in terms of "changing the game after it begins", but Smo was saying he thought it was an issue. I'd like to hear a bit more of his reasoning on that because I may be missing something.

I read that, and got to thinking about how saving significant IPCs could possibly be an advantage. The best I could come up with is that if the Germans saved 8, they could then buy TWO battleships first round. I guess if you are afraid of the Germans putting in TWO battlehships, or other suck sillyness, you'd be afraid of letting a power save it's IPCs, but other than that, I think it's just fine.

There was a lot of opposition to the bid changes, and quite frankly, I just don't think the logic is sound.

There was opposition saying "it changes the game". Well that's just plain silly. The bid itself changes the game. No one gripes about there being a bid, since the vast majority agree a bid is required for balance, so the only question is, how to apply a bid system. Objecting to changes based on it "changing the game" is fundamentally flawed.

[V-Disc]

I guess the problem I'm having with this "Save the Money" proposal is how it might playout. In principle; the idea has some merit. No doubt about that. But in practice things could get a little out of hand.
Let me go back to my 6 IPC bid example. So GER has 6 extra bucks to spend; and they use that money to reduce the cost of the, ever-so-fabulous, German Carrier to a "limited time only" price of 10 IPC's. This just strikes me as ... well ... odd. Say that the UK has this 6 extra bucks. GER unviels it's first turn buys & moves; and then UK can afford BOTH an IC in India and a Carrier of its' own
I think it's a question of timing; when and how you get to spend a bid. I still think you can use that held money as kind of a stop-gap against your opponents' strategy. Let the other side show it's hand; and then spend the money to trip that up. Doesn't this seem strange to anyone else?
Many of these issues hinge on format and style-of-play issues. What works in one format may not work well in another.

[Yoper]

Guys,
All this goes back to the idea that we just haven't played enough games under any system to see if there is game-breaking strategy based on one of them.

Either we need more time in to see if there is a trend developing or we need to see someone show up at the tournaments and cruise through the field based on a "can't lose" bid set-up.

If someone shows up at the WBC tourney I run and has a strategy that seriously makes a mockery of my allowing the bidder to keep excess IPCs, then I would be forced to review that policy.

I haven't seen it happen.

Why? I don't know.

My guess is that most people want the bid on the map as soon as possible, especially since it is a time-limited game. That coupled with the fact that most probably haven't even thought about strategies that might arise from keeping the bid until a country's purchase phase.

I think the main reason we haven't seen such a thing is that the bid system (along with the game being closely balanced already) is inherently flexible enough to handle any attempt to knock the game out of whack.

Pull out your alchemist set and find the magic formula for the perfect bid. Then I, as the GM, will find a way to reign you in. ;)

Craig

[CrazyStraw]

Let me go back to my 6 IPC bid example. So GER has 6 extra bucks to spend; and they use that money to reduce the cost of the, ever-so-fabulous, German Carrier to a "limited time only" price of 10 IPC's. This just strikes me as ... well ... odd. Say that the UK has this 6 extra bucks. GER unviels it's first turn buys & moves; and then UK can afford BOTH an IC in India and a Carrier of its' own. I think it's a question of timing; when and how you get to spend a bid.Very valid concerns. Let's take a look at a couple of examples and see how saving money compares to spending money.

Let's start with your German carrier example. You get your magic price of a 10 IPC carrier for the Baltic. After that you probably want some guys and tanks. Let's make it 5inf 3tnk 1car for the price of 46 IPCs. Quite a handy first round purchase.

Now compare that to a bid + purchase outcome. You would buy a 16 IPC carrier and some men and tanks. Let's make it 3inf 3tnk 1car for 40 IPCs. You put two guys on the board from your bid, so your total set of units is 5inf 3tnk 1car, or exactly what you would have had if you had saved the bid money. Is there a difference between these outcomes? Several.

First, you have the defensive value from the bid units if you place them in Europe. You may change what Russia does. Second, you have the offensive value of the bid units round one. You could position an attack on Libya or the Russians, certainly a useful advantage.

(split due to length)

[CrazyStraw]

There is a slight advantage in saving money in that you could wait to see what Russia does before you spend your cash, but think about that for a moment. You could save money on any round of the game. How come we rarely see any significant saving? It's because the units in play are more valuable than the flexibility you may get from saving money. If you are going to have a purchase that includes at least 2inf, you are better off getting the 2inf on the board immediately.

So are there instances where saving money is likely to change your plan? A couple come to mind. If you are planning on buying units and ALL the units cost more than the bid, you have an incentive to save. Consider the case for the UK and Japan on round one. One extra IPC lets the UK buy a complex and a carrier. Japan could get 2tra and 1IC. The money you save could allow you to get otherwise too expensive units.

But notice what happens when the bid hits 8 IPCs. Now Japan would be better served by putting a transport on the board than by saving 8 IPCs.

So I don't think we'll see much savings beyond someone giving Japan a buck or two.

Or maybe we'll see the plan layed out in MightyAirforce's grumpy post where two German battleships rule the Baltic (and Russia rules Berlin). I'm looking forward to seeing him do that next game...