What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@Krieghund Thank you!

@govz

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, but there are a couple differences between the editions. At a minimum, download and understand that rules for Pac '40 2nd Ed. in addition to the rules for Eur '40 2nd Ed. Also, Japan and ANZAC will be missing their own AA Gun sculpts. No game play affect to this, just something for those that like the pieces. Also, the 1st Ed ANZACs are Brits in Grey, it wasn’t until the 2nd Ed ANZACs that ANZAC got “New Zestralian” units.

Clear as mud?

-Midnight_Reaper

@Marshmallow:

We do Portland vs Seattle every year. No reason we can’t also do Vancouver vs Seattle each year…

My family has a house in Vancouver. We’ll be up there in late August.  Big basement, plenty of room for war games.  Garg and I may put something together.  Will let you know if you something comes together.

yes

You need a minumum of about 10 posts before you can post links or attachements.  This is due to the forum’s anti-spam software.  The moderators (dezrtfish, DarthMaximus, Guerrilla Guy) can move your post the correct section of the forum.  Send them a personal message if they don’t notice your post in the next day or two.

@Karl7:

@Talleyrand19:

Been following this thread as best as possible so sorry if this was already mentioned and I missed it…

But what happens if Allies spend most of their money on the Atlantic with only a few capital ships in the Pacific to join up with Anzac. The Atlantic money goes to transports and capital ships and then tanks and infantry. With England’s help, you hit Spain and Gibraltar  (for the naval base). Then every single turn the US can land more stuff and set up a nonstop funnel. If Russia does its job then axis should not be able to keep up on both fronts. If Germany sent its Dark Skies bombers to try to stop the funnel, then fine you can wipe each other out and still land more US troops the next turn.

My friends and I have done this to each other and the Spain landing always overwhelms the Axis eventually. …

What have you all experienced when trying this?

Yes, this is a good strategy.  The weak point is then the Germans blitz into the middle east, ignoring Moscow.  They can get an economic advantage and then just sit back and outbuild the allies.

Perhaps have Iraq and the Persian territories be treated as True Neutral, just give the UK and USSR extra units to make up the potential difference.

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.