What are some clever bids for the Pacific board?

@thedesertfox

Yeah, I’ve read that and I believe it. I think until 1943 or 1944 the Americans had more ground units in the Pacific?

Yeah, the US built a ton of ships. For some reason the US never gets to seemingly similar numbers in the game.

@freh Ok, I see it now. Pretty sneaky :)

Hi @LebaneseWarlord

Here is the Taamvann mod

Option taamvan Changes the control of Novgorod, Volgograd, Russia Objective to 3 PUs for Germany. Control of Caucasus is also reduced to 3. Also adds a Fighter to Russia and a Armor to Urals.

taamvan is an experienced player and has had good luck using the above.

It has the advantage of small changes compared to BM, which has a lot but is very popular with experienced players.

@taamvan:

I should clarify n correct my past comments re how the bid is used in tournaments;  In tournaments; you can only buy units with the bid.  You cannot buy bases or factories (right away), and you cant save money.

However, at Gencon/Origins/Smorey Swamp TN, you can put all the units in one square.   This apparently didn’t come up in the earlier tournament in 2016, but no-one there objected to putting the higher bids all in one square in 2017, which is not really a problem in most editions but it adds some choices when the bid is higher.

42.2 average bids 7-12 to Allies
G42 average bids 0 to either
Classic automatic bid of 9 to Axis
G40 no tourney bid that I know of but bids average 8-20 in league

Since the bid is a house rule, you can apply it however you like.   The bid should be a game changer.   The bids that place a fighter into the German open or a sub (or 2) into Taranto change the game and change blowout battles into more equal contests.

That is interesting that in tournaments you are not allowed to save money.

Like I said earlier, the main reason I like to save most of the bid has to do with the fact that the UK will know where it needs to focus its resources much better at the start of its second round compared to round 1.  Although I will admit a sub for the Med and fighter on Scotland is very good value and tough to beat.

knp7765

Axis and allies has changed over the decades I have been playing. Probably 30 years. But one thing has not, the basics. And it makes sense since they are trying to stay true to what happened, in the sense of what the situation really was at a given point in time. Thereby, the fact remains that the real action is in Europe and whoever wins Europe wins the war.

Britain and Russia cannot, unless playing a weak German player hold off the Germans long enough for Japan to be neutralize much less defeated. And if they could, then the resources spent on neutralizing Japan only means the allies would have won much earlier if those resources were spent in Europe.

Now before everyone goes crazy on me and makes arguments that you just can’t completely and totally ignore Japan and give me all kinds of examples on how the old KGF strategy would not work in the newest editions, understand, I am not arguing a complete ignore of Japan, only enough resources to help Anzac, India, and China slow them down. Essentially, defensive in the Pacific and the offensive in Europe.

That part of the game has not changed EXCEPT, that with the Victory cities only requiring Japan to hold 6 of them, forces the US to go offensive in the Pacific.

That is why I do not like it. It forces in unrealistic and ineffective strategy.

3 boats a turn on the Atlantic side or the pacific side?

Pacific.  He was speaking of the type of Navy that could get built up between Anzac and US with a late DOW.  Without pulling guys from the Atlantic, US can’t put a ton of guys on the Pacific in those first 3 turns.  Just to match the Japan Navy the US needs 2 more carriers, 1 battleship, 1 destroyer.  That’s  60 ipcs.  In my opinion, US needs more navy since they need to be the attackers.  That would require neglecting the atlantic almost entirely (which isn’t an awful idea depending on how good the German player is).  That also doesn’t take into account that Japan buys a Carrier and can load it without spending the 20-21 ipcs for fighters.  The Naval bases also allow for 3 more fighters to defend if used correctly.

@variance:

@builder_chris2:

maybe i just need to face up to the fact that the reason the games i play in seem to be so diffeernt is me and the dudes i game with msut suck no matter who plays the axis, cuzz most of our face to face games result in an allied win and we play with no bid.

The axis only have the advantage for the first half dozen rounds or so.  After that America kicks into high gear, so the longer your games go on (like 10-15 rounds or more), the greater the allied advantage will become. Â

True only if the Axis don’t close or pass the Allies on the Economic gap by that time or maybe 1 or 2 rounds after.

@GrayBlaZe:

Yes and I have even a bigger color difference between the two European boards.  So much so that when I show it off so far to three different people the first thing thay say is wow the size is impressive, the second thing is, “look how different the blue is in the sea between these two boards.” stands out big time.  Not a big deal to me but I can see how obvious it is when it keeps getting pointed out…

Ours also has quite a color difference. There’s more yellow in the blue of the Pacific board - or the other way around, can’t check, don’t have the board here. It shows less in the land areas since abit more yellow in brownish colors won’t show that much.

Also it shows so hard because there happens to be a LOT of ocean there. :)

Doesn’t really bother me, though.