What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@SGT-Pitbull
Rulebook Europe 1940.2, page 21, under
“Liberating a Territory” (especially second paragraph).

I had a good bid once for China- a tac bomber and another fighter, to be used as part of the Flying Tigers.

Hitting Turkey turns all true neutrals pro-Allies.  Not sure if it is worth it when the allies are already making SO MUCH MORE per round than the Axis.  Not saying it is not worth it, just wondering if it wouldn’t be better to go around via transport instead, since it also secures the med and n. Africa.

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.

We started at 3:00 PM and finished at 2:30 PM the next day with a one-hour catnap.  We were able to complete 2 games of 1940 & one game of 1942.  I one 2 out of three games. (one1940 and one 1942)

Who ever is the defender when the pact is broken gets +1 defense to all their units on the first round of combat, in combats launched by that opposing power.

So that encourages players to keep some units on the border….because they will defend as if they were tanks on the first round.
Or an AAA would defend at ‘2’ on the first round.

Think trench warfare…both those powers were expecting an attack on that front (defensive posture) but didn’t have the initiative, or reason, to launch an attack.

@McLovin1985:

With the new rules it seems to me that an airbase in Korea would be the way to go every game, stationing 3 fighters in Korea and at least 3 in Japan if theres any sense that an attack on any vessels or Japan itself is imminent. That would give you an extra 6 fighters to defend SZ6. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I did that in a game last week. Worked great. The U.K. attacked my Japanese fleet first and then a small ANZAC fleet did the same on their turn all in the same round. Wiped them all out with small losses.