What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

If there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that for allies there are no half measures…

At least playing against equal or stronger opponents

In any case, Japan must be crushed (above all) as well as Italy.

If you aim for a KGF and let Japan rage in the Pacific there is always the risk that with a coup they will be able to take the 6 VC and the game is over… even if the Allies are close to taking Rome or Berlin

Of course if you only tighten up on the Pacific perhaps also using the Russians (right @MrRoboto? :))… you have to be very organized in Europe to avoid Hitler arriving in Cairo (or London)…

Very expert players are able to do this of course… but in my opinion there is always a percentage of risk that the game predicts (like all clashes on A&A) but which you can try to avoid.

And above all the Allies should fight in a more aggressive way (which I have not yet learned to do) but not recklessly… aggressive in the sense of making the Axis risk more than necessary in certain battles (land and naval) because otherwise the the outcome is almost always for the Central Powers of the board.

Maphead and I won this tournament last year at Gencon.  We will be playing the 42.2 tournament this year, see you in Indy!

The Axis have a distinct advantage in this version, which is not as “structural” as their advantage in G40.  the Axis start with less stuff, but mostly, its because the Axis have less time to recover their position and go into rage mode, and during the tournament there is only time for 7 turns.  The Allies only have a limited amount of time to challenge the Axis income position, their push has to culminate in the game-ending time.  I believe that you have to get 125 income on the board with the axis at game end.

We played 5 “official games”

Kantcon; Allies (Maphead+Taamvan) vs (Bob Roby, Grandmaster) Axis;  Allies bid +6, goes to Russian infantry.  We used our KGF plan, it worked well but this was largely due to luck.  3-4 fleets have to be protected, Greece backdoor shredded the key income.

Gencon Qualifier;  Allies (M+T) vs Jason/James (Axis).  No Bid. Axis victory.  We lose.  KGF didn’t work at all this time.

Gencon Qualifier 2: Axis (M+T) vs  Axis.  No Bid. Axis victory.  UK made a grand sacrifice turn 1, which Japan exploited, conceded turn 4.

Gencon Semis; Axis (M+T) vs  Bob Roby and Veteran Jake (Axis).  No Bid. Axis victory.  Won by amazing luck against 2 very vet players.  total luck in the atlantic, subs survived somehow.  All the German troops survive the open in one territory, which caused Russia’s position to erode quickly.

Gencon Finals; Axis (M+T) vs Jason/James (Allies) No Bid. Axis victory.  Hard fought, game culminated in a huge fleet contest over java which the Japanese won by the skin of their teeth, which allowed them to retain key income.

As you can see by these game reports, the key to winning was playing the Axis.  In a longer, AAA game, that goes to 10-12 turns, im not sure the Axis has such an advantage, because of the ever-increasing amount of allied pressure on the income.    In the tournament play, the Axis really only need to 1) retain all their income to start 2) gain any 2 other regions and hold.

A region is roughly defined as any two of most of (Africa, china, inshore asia, spice islands, Australia, east Russia, south Russia, north Russia, a capital).

The tournament game works a bit like football or rugby, the Axis have to push the income to a level somewhat above the 125 because they get pushed back down the line by the allies as the last turn concludes.  If you are still “over the line”, you win.  If you can interfere with the Allies ability to hurt your income at the last minute, you pretty much win.

The Allies need a bit of at least 8 in order to change these considerations around.  This should be a DD with the scapa flow fleet, so that Germany has to commit more resources to this attack and potentially flubs it.  Even with this change, the Allies are still at a bit of a structural disadvantage because this is a economic victory scenario;  the allies need to “load the shotgun” by turn 5-6 to make a huge push on the final turn without being picked off or screened off the income.

The territories that are worth 1 don’t change the game.    I would suggest studying the territories that are worth 2, 3 and 4.  If the Allies can set up on the Pacific side near austrailia, on the final turn, they “unload the shotgun” and retake the money islands and Malaya.  Japan must confront them here before they spread out.    A factory on Hong Kong helped me win the game, because I could place BBs near the fight, with a NB for free.  Roby pointed out to me what a powerful defensive Axis base this square is.

On the atlantic side, its a bit more difficult to hold all the $$.  Use your Italian can opener as the Axis to take the $$.  Ignore Africa.  As the Allies, you have to prepare to block Gibraltar, or turtle the facing squares that are worth 3 and 4 (s france, rome, south Italy…)

One strat we did not use that was fairly powerful is to build a factory in Persia.  DO NOT FORGET TO OPEN NW PERSIA.  If you run mechs/tanks out of there, india goes from being a fallback zone to a take-area by turn 5, so UK is grabbing $$ back, and Japan is running away.

Keep in mind that most stuff you buy after turn 5 wont even be able to enter the battle.  There are exceptions (forward bases, bombers).  Buying is critical.  I bought 1 fighter on Turn 5 for japan, after all the other air headed south, wasn’t sure why I did it, but It ended up killing an American invasion fleet coming for Japan that was coming in my back door.    Study what you buy, small mistakes esp with japan, uk and usa can lose you the game.    Wasn’t trying to stall but one Japan buy literally took me 20 minutes, I rebuilt it from scratch 4 times.  Had I chosen any of the first 3 configurations, I would have lost the game.

1)  all else being equal, play the Axis
2) do not play this like a normal game; it is a timed game.  You can sac everything on the final turn, even if you lose everything, the sun sets at 7h 45m game time.  You will not play an incomplete turn. 
3) time is not on the Allies side
4)  but, the Axis cannot protect all (10?) $$ and $$$ zones, this is where the Allied win is at.

Slight Axis bias.  No bias in open play.  Some players do not like to play with a bid, learn your opponents preferences and predilections.

You will be playing for 30 hours, if you are lucky.  My brain was on fire the final day.  Wake up time is 6AM.

Good Luck, Have Fun.  Jon

Im glad we agree on some problems, I just want to find a way to take out Japan without either completly abandon Europe or commit to Europe.

A 60 - 40 economy split should work for the US at the bare minimum

70 - 30 might be better depending on the threat level

UK middle east factory is always a great idea for support
A Norway factory is good for the Allied Power who controls it(Unless it is Russia, because Leningrad Factory)

For the Spanish Beach head what if the UK hit Sweden and/or Norway to contain it , just like we do with Turkey

@knp7765:

As Russia, you should definitely grab Norway. With the large US fleet there and London getting liberated, it’s very doubtful Germany will be putting any more boats in the water (…)

I agree completely. I want Norway out of the way first round after London is liberated, just to rid Germany of another 8 IPCs. If the Germans position themselves in Finland however, USA will take Norway instead. Otherwise Germany can enjoy those 8IPCs one more turn.

@knp7765:

(…)Do you plan to liberate Paris if US troops successfully land in Normandy or Holland? (…)

I usually wait to liberate Paris for the exact same reasons as you mentioned. It is a matter of being able to hold it or not. Trading it back and forth with Germany is often unacceptable (but not always), especially if the USA has to spend a lot in the Pacific (sometimes I am forced to invest near 100% in the Pacific with the USA from US7 and onwards because the Japs have taken Calcutta and are investing near 100% on also getting Hawai). For that reason I keep my men and TRS next to each other in Gibraltar, London, Normandy or wherever they are safe while being the most aggressive.

In this particular situation however, it remains to be seen. If taking Paris means the fall of Berlin in a series of falling dominoes then taking Paris it is!

Those are some good ideas. I think to make this game balanced, I do need to make some adjustments. Just giving Italy the Axis NOs and ANZAC the Allied NOs doesn’t quite work. It seemed to be working for a while, but once ANZAC got the upper hand, it just gradually got worse and worse for Italy. I know that happens even in some games of regular A&A, but I don’t think there was any hope of Italy turning things around once ANZAC started getting ahead.
We just finished this game tonight. It took 15 rounds before Italy surrendered. For the first three rounds, Italy really grew and just about closed the gap between them. Rounds 4-8 were somewhat even between the two. If Italy did well on one front, ANZAC was doing well on another front. From Round 9 on, Italy was more and more defensive. ANZAC managed to take Japan and pretty much ruled all the Pacific and Asia within the next 2 rounds. Once all other Italian presence was eliminated, all ANZAC had to do is keep pounding on Europe until something gave way. Between amphibious landings every turn in Western Europe and a flood of tanks, mechs and planes rolling in from Russia, Italy was finding it harder and harder to maintain any kind of border.
For a while, whenever ANZAC would land somewhere in W Europe, Italy had enough to take it back. There were a few sparks of good for Italy, like when they sacrificed most of their European air force to kill the ANZAC fleet outside of England, including a stack of transports. That delayed ANZAC for a couple of rounds, but soon they were making landings again and Italy couldn’t afford a whole new air force to risk against the navy.
While playing the game this way makes each round go somewhat faster, it is pretty hard keeping track of all the different fronts. You literally have attacks going on in every point of the map on some turns. It’s a little easier when Germany is dealing with England and Russia, Italy is dealing with the Med and Japan is dealing with China and the Pacific. Still, it is kind of cool to be able to carry out ALL your ideas in the same turn.

nope, we didn’t do it  :?

worked out in my favor though lol

Yea, I suppose it’s unlikely for allied units to be trekking across Russia. Still it is a bit odd that in the same round a Russian fighter can land on a US carrier in the Atlantic but not in the Pacific.

I guess the rule is the way it is in the interest of simplicity. It did sort out the whole Russia going to war with Japan in order to take neutrals in Europe thing.

Fighters that are damaged roughly lose around half their abilities @: attack: 2, defense: 2, Movement: 2, they also gain 5 damage points. The reason to this change, was so that players would feel more enthused to strategic bomb knowing they wouldn’t lose a fighter, instead, they could continue using the fighter just at a damaged level. The downgrade in its abilities would be a temporary result until the fighter is repaired at half the price (5 IPCs) of a new fighter.

Fighters that missed or didn’t get hit, are free to return to base like in the OoB rules.

One other thing i forgot to mention, bombers that are not accompanied with escorts are considered ‘locked on’ therefore are subject to interceptor fire @ 1d6 of damage per defending interceptor.

These rules make bombers and interceptors very powerful units. It encourages players to strategic bomb with 2d6 of damage, however there is also the risk of interceptor ‘lock on’ that would minimize the bombers full 2d6 damage potential.