What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@squirecam
Its not if you win or lose a fight but how you win or lose a fight.
If germany does its normal france attack and wins with 1 tank left they got diced pretty badly.
But since they still won you dont consider it being diced?

But with dice the problem is that on average you get the right results but if you get an outlier on the wrong point in the game you will lose the game because of that. And there is nothing you can do about it.
Germany attacking moscow with 90% odds and losing, sure russia might have had bad luck before or you might have gotten lucky somewhere else but that 1 battle makes or breaks the game.

I dont like Low Luck because its basically deterministic to the point where you know the outcome of battles. Its 2 much like playing chess. But i dont like the idea of extreme dice as well. Ideally you want to cap the outcome of a attack/defence roll to like 30-50% of the bell curve of most odds. But doing that would require some app to calculate.

@surfer

Thanks for the advice! Yeah, I really messed up on those British and French bids.

Thanks for the advice regarding the other bid purchases.

@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

Thanks, ColonelCarter!

Those comments make a lot of sense to me.

I can’t remember exactly why I didn’t attack that German fleet that was left without aircover, but I do remember I looked at the possibility. Probably was scared about the axis combination: IT3 take Egypt->GE4 has a NB and can reach Gibraltar from there. Any FTR that attacked that little fleet would be unable to defend Gibraltar. I must admit though, loosing Gibraltar to GE4 would have been perfectly acceptable in this situation (I could have left it completely empty). My bad ;-). Glad I can comfort myself this was not a very crucial mistake of some sorts :-D. Same for the Rhodesian INF.

I guess it all boils down to: put more pressure onto the Japanese First (a lot of people give this advice). And by the way I LOVE your tips about how to do so in the Pac. That will alter the way the Japanese can execute their plans. It’s so easy to forget USN is not ‘glued to their coast’ and Queensland is a valid staging point even when not at war.

The only thing I don’t like is that this will (again!) force the allies into a Pacific Focus. I suspect this must be some ‘revenge’ of the developers for all those years (in the 1st edition) the allies were able to execute their historic plans of ‘Europe First’  :|.

With a J1DOW and Japan taking Calcutta meaning to swing back and take Hawaii as well ~J8, the allies can follow 1 of 2 basic strategies in Europe:

USA invests heavily in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard. This forces the UK to go heavy into the ME with 2 ICs in Egypt/Iraq/Persia (3 ICs is perhaps no unnecessary luxury in this scenario). This is because Calcutta needs to be taken back once Japan grabs Hawaii. A little bit from what comes out of those ICs can maybe get into Moscow as well to aid Russia in keeping it. The UK will have only minor bits of IPCs left to assist the USA in Western Europe (~10/turn, TRS as best buy).

USA invests only mildly in Europe, opening a second front in Germany’s backyard with massive UK aid (not such heavy UK presence in the ME as above). Typically USA serves only as a can-opening threat for UK-follow up. Example: USA takes Norway + Denmark, UK takes Berlin (If Germany ignores the allies and keeps throwing everything at Russia).

Whatever strategy is followed, the Wallies must somehow make sure their threat is in place G5, so that Germany will loose either WG, Rome or Berlin if it builds all aircraft for a G6 assault on Moscow (depending how many investments the USA made and thus, how many the UK was able to assist).

Typical forces USA can expect in Europe with heavy investments: 2DD, 2CV, 5FTR, 1TAC, ~4STR and 2TRS per turn (fully loaded). Early TRS can ofc be filled with Brazilians and other starting units. Once Normany and SF are taken (and/or WG), USA also produces from those factories. US6 should see 27US and 8UK land units and 9 USAF in or approaching Western Europe. A bit too much for Germany/Italy if they focused everything on Russia all the way into G5 and only start building troops against the wallies G6 (10 in Berling and WG each can be overrun -one of them if not both), so if this doesn’t arrest German flow of reinforcements into Russia I don’t know what does…

Investing ‘mildly’ still sees the USA with 2DD, 2CV, 3FTR, 1TAC, 3STR, 6TRS fully loaded.
Because the USA should be able to keep Japan out of Hawaii/Sydney with the extra IPCs put into the Pacific, the UK can put more effort in Western Europe at the cost of the ME, starting a war of attrition with Germany. The few troops the USA has should not be ‘kamikazed’ but used as a can-opening threat (Berlin, see above) and to capture areas Germany cannot recapture (Norway, for example).

On a sidenote: a couple of RAF-FTR really enhances Russian defenses in Moscow. The more ships/early bombers Germany builds, the less RAF the UK needs to send. With Max German land production (i.e. no ships/early bombers at all), Moscow may need 10-12 Spitfires/Mosquito’s to withstand the assault.

These are only the basics of what I know the allies can do. They must be adjusted whenever the Axis adjust… If, for example, the USA invests heavily into Europe and Japan does not look likely to swing back at Sydney/Hawaii but rather continues to invest heavily in Mainland Asia/Russia, the UK may ease their spending in the ME a bit and assist the USA a while in spending much more for western Europe for a couple of turns…

In the games a played it seemed that Japan could help the European Axis more by getting in positon to have enough victory cities on their side of the map than really pushing towards Russia.  If Japan pushes to Russia then USA is free to keep spending in Europe.  Maybe I will give this a try though with the newer edition of rules.

@WILD:

Wow this thread was cool to revive. Haven’t heard from many of those guys much as of late, but they have some great insight for the allies.

Garg’s point was for the allies to win, they first must not loose. Keeping in mind that Cow was part of the conversation, and is one of the best Japanese players (that thrives on early Japanese attacks). Garg’s point of stacking Anz early and def Hawaii so the Japanese can’t steal a win on the Pac side is directly linked to very good Japanese play. It is also noted that the Anz needs to build some navy and air to help the US, but their main goal is to not loose Sidney.

There is also some good advice about how to use Egypt to supply air to Moscow to prop it up (building an IC & AB as early as plausible), while also building up Egypt to be a last resort defensive stand if Moscow falls. I also like that Q mentioned evacuating India as an option to turtlng and losing all your units. I have evacuated India in the past and traded it to stall the Japanese (they can’t land air on it, so it could be a good chance to kill Japanese ground units). This is a little painful because of the stupid capture capital/plunder rule that should be a one time only IMO (house rule). Those India units can really help in Egypt or Russia if they are alive, and is doable if the Anz and Hawaii aren’t weak, or are shielded. Plus once the Japanese take India they need to decide if they immediately head to the 6th VC for the win (Sidney or Hawaii), or possibly make a move on the Mid East, Egypt, Africa, or north to Russia (maybe linking up with more Japanese units pounding through China).

I agree with all this, generally speaking. Japan can take any one power at the time. The only way to slow down Japan is for all nations to cause Japan to enter attritive battles. E.g., put Japan in a position where they have juicy targets to hit (with something to compensate you for it, like time, loss of position or gain on another front), but too many of them to address.

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…)