We need an allied playbook.

@freh said in Bids for allies - 60???:

Wow, I’ve been away from the game so things must have shifted and strategy must be evovling. I just can’t imagine losing with the opportunity to put $60 worth of allied units before the game starts. Are there any patterns to bids? Does it get concentrated in one nation (defending UK against initial German attacks, or giving Russia some more offensive bite) or is it spread out?

As I said my gaming group in Seattle has gone up to $60. I am not sure that is true for the general community. The placement of the Bid depends on the Player. Sometimes it all goes in Russia, sometimes it all goes to UK Europe. Personally I think that is six of one half a dozen of another. Bid units in Russia protect Moscow so the Allies do not need to help Russia defend their capital. Bid units for UK Europe assist UK in defense of London and in taking out the Italians much faster which allows them to assist Russia either with direct unit intervention for the defense of Moscow or intense pressure on the Atlantic Wall. The end result is basically the same. Either the UK is strong and gets help to Russia fast or the UK is weak and struggles but never has to send help to Russia because Russia is strong. Personally I like a 50-50 balance between UK Europe and Russia. Best of both worlds. :)

One constant is that normally at least 80% up to all 100% goes on the Europe side of the board versus the Pacific side of the board.

In order to delay a German crush on Moscow you will need the help of US/UK.

The Allies need to at least threatening a landing on S.Fra, Normandy, Norway, Denmark, N.Ita or S.Ita. Everything else is bogus. If you can’t Force Germany to build some ships then they will have free hands on Moscow and it will not matter what they do or how they die.

And, when Germany captured Moscow, they will be in London/Cairo in No Time!

Germany has to send all his assets towards the East. Everytime Germany has or needs to build ships is one to two units less who can march towards Moscow.

If you want to delay a German march towards Moscow, then build up a JFK devinsive line.
J= Novo,Bela,W.Ukr, Ukr, Bessa
F=Bela,Smolensk, W.Ukr,Ukr, Bryansk
K=Smolensk,Bryansk,Rostov and Russia from where you refit and supply your troops.
You have to time it and have to be powerful enough to knock out any Ita Canopeners.

I just realized I posted this in the wrong board. Can anyone move it to the find players one please?

@Commando:

@ghr2:

@Commando:

@ghr2:

Brando, why would you leave 1 inf in each territory?  The only ones that matter are rostov and Baltic States.  You will lose 6 ipcs in units for not much gain in epl/bess.

I leave 1 Inf in each territory, so the Axis/enemy can’t just walk in. Inf have a 33% chance of a hit. Prevents a country from just taking a territory w/1 Inf. Usually the attacking country has to attack w/2 ground units, just in case your Inf gets a hit. Also prevents the enemy from sending just one ground unit on a long walk across your territories(i.e. when Japan starts marching across the Soviet Far East). I don’t always do this. Like in China, I consolidate the Chinese Inf whenever possible. But in Russia, I always try to leave at least 1 Inf in each territory. One thing to point out, I don’t leave 1 Inf in each territory, unless the enemy has a chance to take that territory.

Because they only have a 33% chance to hit, I would not want to risk giving away nearly free infantry kills to Germany unless they are defending something valuable.  Each infantry you put in his way is 1 less body defending something critical for a 33% chance to kill 1 thing.

It’s not just a 33% chance of killing something. It’s making the enemy commit more than 1 Inf/1 ground unit to take the territory How would this hurt a country like germany that will have mechs constantly reinforcing and the positioning does not screw him?. Maybe you didn’t read my entire post. Again, I don’t always leave 1 Inf behind in each territory(i.e. China and other territories) Japan can just send 1 inf and air, it really won’t hurt him if he wants to.. However, leaving 1 Inf behind on such things as islands, even 1 IPC islands. Your enemy would most likely have to commit at least 2 ground units to take the islandIt depends on the value of the island and the likelihood he/she would go for it.. Therefore, forcing your opponent to commit more resources to take territories and have less units to use elsewhere. I understand what you mean, but this is also a game of economics and efficiency.  If your opponent does not need to go for it, or is not even affected by it, the one infantry won’t be an issue.Like I said in my explanation, Soviet Far East is a good example. There are 13 IPC’s from Soviet Far East to Vologda/Samara. If your strategy is to leave these unguarded for Japan to just take w/1 Inf, then go for it. In my opinion, over the 26 years I’ve played A&A, it’s the wrong stategySince russia can easily stop japan from taking it unless Japan commits more to the front, it really is not an issue.  Also, with mongolia, it won’t be unguarded.

No. If Germany already owns Scotland and you offload units there, that would be done during non-combat. Whether it’s an amphib assault or non-combat, once you offload units, they can’t move until the following turn.

Might be worth a road trip to Colorado :).

@AK_Grown:

Have not thought about Brazil though

If memory serves, Anzac is one move from Brazil (from NZ).  I’ve seen it done, it really didn’t change the outcome though.

It’s two moves.  Once in a while I’ve had ANZAC take Brazil, but never with an eye towards having them spend the money outside the Pacific.  It feels like a bad idea to do so if Japan hasn’t been neutralized yet.

@Gargantua:

I can’t read that.

You should have gone to specsavers