What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

An oddity for me today:

J5 and Japan just took Iraq.

No one else has touched the middle east due to various reasons.  India is turtled and earning 5 ipcs.  London was taken and some bad roles seriously hindered the UK overall.  U.S. just liberated London and is starting to gather in Pacific (2 turns til at full attack ready)

So now Japan has Iraq with 5 inf and the SZ has a transport, carrier with 2 planes, a sub, and a cruiser.

I’m thinking I might put a factory there and be a giant PIA the rest of the game.  Threaten Cairo that way.  Or support my attacks on Russia… about to finish off China.

@Ichabod:

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

Actually I have played differently with no bid and I started to put more pressure in Pacific first and it seems to work out better, because lot of times seems like the Japan player starts panicking and do not know what to do or gets offcourse in their plans… The only time I have struggled is against you Icha :)

@Arthur:

You might as well issue an R1 DoW against Japan; at our gaming group we generally assume that Russia is at war unless stated otherwise.  So far I haven’t seen any reason in non-BM games to not opt for immediate war.

This makes perfect sense with experienced players, but I do remember a game where I, playing Russia, managed to delay a Japanese attack for quite a few turns by claiming that we had always been on good terms and that I had never done anything at all to damage Japan’s interests.  :-D

Back to the OP. One other point I’m coming to see is devastating is to land 4 ground units on Kwangsi J1. These units really make a big difference in being able to hold on to Yunnan. While you can’t get the TTs back to Japan J2 unless you combine a Naval base on Hainan or Kwangsi, the main game in Asia isn’t to get Japanese land units on Asia but to deny the Burma Rd. If you can do that, your one step on the way to Axis victory in the Pacific. One of the land units can come from Okinawa, two from Japan so you are only relocating one unit within Asia, the artillery from Manchuria, but in a very advantageous way.

@trulpen

right on. It’s a good way to test things. Yea the AI doesn’t play global real well. It does pretty good on some other games. You can give it extra dough. That makes it harder but still would do weird stuff

Not that I ever bid before but if we would I think your restrictions sound very good.
If I ever bid I think I bid Germany for +8 (destroyer in 113 or 114 and then go SL ;-)) or UK +7 (TRS in SA with the DD).

Hi guys.  I will be playing me first Global 1940 game this weekend and i was wondering how balanced Alpha 2 setup is when using global.  Is it about a 50/50 win/loss ratio between the Axis and Allies or do the Allies have an advantage that needs to be balanced out with a bid?  We are playing 2v2 and all players are about equal in skill and experience.  Thanks.

@Axisplaya:

@theROCmonster:

Possibly even T3 if mistakes were made.

Anything is possible with enough mistakes from one side…

@theROCmonster:

Japs only need Hawaii, hong kong, phillipines, and calcutta. I can see Japan taking all these by T4

I can’t….If Japan can get Hong Kong, Phi, Haw and Ind by T4 when Allies don’t commit huge mistakes, then the game is completely broken.

I’ve not only seen it, I’ve done it.  The game is not completely broken - however.  America just has to keep investing in the Pacific, the allies lose if there is not a HUGE investment by America in the Pacific EARLY.