What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

Instead of escort @1 and interceptors @2 is now in BM escorts @2 and interceptors @2 ?
Then I agree with that. Promotes more bombing

guess its a good point then, if DoW changes nothing about Mongolia then do it!

@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.

@Entek:

AFAIK in league you can’t add any units to China or to France with a bid, and you can only add units to territories or Sea Zones that already have units.

The Chinese bid is perfectly legal in the Global `40 league (unless it just changed).  Strictly speaking it is also legal to bid Chinese units which they cannot buy in the normal course of a game, but that probably will be changed if it hasn’t already.  There has been plenty of discussion on that topic.

Placing a French bid in Paris should also be perfectly legal.  I don’t think doing so would be that helpful since at best maybe you’ve delayed the German attack on S. France or Normandy by one turn, which i don’t see as having a lot of strategic impact on German play.

it says “and/or” and it is the most common way to phrase such a requirements in games.

for basic gramar;
a, b and c = a and b and c;
a,b or c = a or b or c;
a and/or b = means if you have a and b, its ok, if you have a, its ok, if you have b, its ok.
same way you can make a list.

I see what you’re trying to do with these ideas, but you need to be careful or you’ll make the US-China partnership in the game become a penility for the US which wouldnt be fair. Ideas I have heard have been to do things like;

If the burma road is open allow the US to replace the Chinese fighter if it gets destroyed.
If the burma road is open AND the US is at war allow them to purchase 1 unit for the Chinese per turn.

I like both of these and would better represent the US’s support to the Chinese, and also the importance of the Buram road. The second idea would need to be limited to land and air units only (obviously) but to have no more then 1 of each non-infantry/arty unit type (no more then 1 fighter, tatical bobmber, tank, mech infantry, ect…)

@MarkVIIIMarc:

If you have the AA guns around do you have the white complexes from one of the old games?

I use the complexes & AA Guns from old games. I much prefer that over the silly little squares that are so hard to pick up.

bump