What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

It was my first game… So I thought i might try…

So Gargantua – what you doing next in our game? Surrendering?? Or going to chew me up like the cookie monster?? LOL

@Ichabod:

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

Actually I have played differently with no bid and I started to put more pressure in Pacific first and it seems to work out better, because lot of times seems like the Japan player starts panicking and do not know what to do or gets offcourse in their plans… The only time I have struggled is against you Icha :)

Well some interesting facts.

All agree that in Europe 1940 the axis need a bid.
All agree that japan is hard to stop unless US invest heavy in the pacific.

In global nearly all players give the bid to the allies on the europe board and nobody gives the bid to the pac board.

Has anyone tried the “China first” proposal I made? I used this solution in AA50 as a bid alternative, and I think it works well in G40 too, but haven’t received much feedback from actual games other than my own group.  Maybe its because the HR forums are a wasteland of forgetfulness? haha.  
:-D

The basic idea is pretty simple, everything else stays the same, but China moves first in the turn order!
So in Global that’d be…

China, Germany, Russia, Japan, USA, UK/Pac, Italy, Anzac, France (then back to China)

I’m not saying that this change does away with the need for an Allied bid entirely, but it surely makes the bid range a bit narrower, and a lower. I mean if you can bring it down from 15, back into the single digits that’s a definite positive right? And China is a lot more fun to play this way. Its not like you’re getting “11 infantry in Yunnan”, but it does allow China to pull back and consolidate their starting forces, and build 1 round worth of additional units. It gives them their artillery in the first round, and bonus for control of the Burma road. What’s more it gives them a much better chance to secure their National Objective in subsequent rounds. This adjustment in turn order, also affords the Chinese an opening attack option in they want to get balsy!

The reason I really like this approach is because it doesn’t mess with the Europe side of the map (e.g it doesn’t break the med.) Doesn’t change the situation outside of the Chinese theater, since those units are restricted on where they can move. And most importantly, it gives Japan more to worry about. Sure, you’re probably going to kick a lot more ass as Allies if you give UK an extra carrier in the Med, but if that kind of bid strikes you as overly distorting you might try this instead. It’s pretty easy to implement and makes China a lot more effective as a player nation, which eases the pressure on the other Pacific nations. China has an advantage (over India) in that it can’t be strategically bombed or convoy raided into non-existence. Also, you can preserve the illusion that the OOB force distribution of units on the gameboard, actually corresponds to something in reality. As if the units OOB units where chosen for some reason by the designer, to be at least vaguely historical. This change in turn order of just one Nation, allows to avoid bringing too many extra units into the board outside of the normal purchasing/placement mechanisms. Its at least as easy to explain to your opponent as a standard bid, and if you still want to bid anyway, then go for it. But the change is so simple, and it really does give Japan more to chew on, and it seems like the Pacific side of the map is the one that is grabbing all the attention lately in terms of balance.

Also, for the history buffs…I feel like this tweak gives a slight nod to the fact that the War had been going on in China, even before all of Europe and the rest of the world was embroiled in the conflict.

“July 7, 1937 a day that lives in”… I don’t know, the first turn of G40 at least? hehe. There are crazy numbers of potential players in China. The materials are produced there more often than not. Why not roll the dice and see if a China first approach will work? Anathema to all Americans, like me! But in the game’s turn order I think it is kind of cool ;)

@MeinHerr:

@ChocolatePancake:

Yeah, the main problem I see with this strategy is it doesn’t matter if the Allies capture Tokyo first. The Allies win condition is to capture all 3 Axis capitols, and the Axis can still win on the Europe half if Tokyo is in Allied hands.

So, it doesn’t really matter if it takes Germany a turn or two after Japan falls to take Egypt.

I must confess, truly, i was in error.  Never saw the rulebook on that one. The games I played, usually if G to Moscow… or US took Tokyo… the other players conceded…  Thought Victory conditions of Allies mirrored that of Axis  (either Berlin+Rome or 8 VC… in Europe… or Tokyo or 6 VC in Asia).

It is laughable… i agree, but honest confession is proper here.

I agree that the allies win conditions are laughable. I’d like to see a win condition that states either Germany or Japan in allied hands is a victory, but I still don’t see how the allies could win with this strat. It would take too long to take Tokyo. Egypt would be in German hands at least 2 turns before tokyo fell. Like many have stated, all Japan has to do if he see’s Russia doing a crazy tactic, like you described, is all out defense. Then Germany takes Egypt turn 10-12 100%.

You can find an example here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31303.0

how is that good for germany to see bombers take out his naval? you get like 1 or 2 drops in before usa slams it… that sets you back from the VC win… with the naval and air lost there and the cost of the airbase is enough mech to just have shoved down there anyway.

Not to mention bombers take 1 round to get in position then it hits… it is the fastest way for USA to have an impact. bombers hitting stuff is fast and furious in an otherwise slow process.

there is no infrastructure required for bombers either. you just buy one beer and GO, epic winning, it is bi winning. who needs to drop men to trade ipcs with germany/italy? when you can just blast their stuff in the ocean?

Romania minor is ok for ground units. the naval and airbase is not going to pay for itself.

how many rounds can you get swinging at russia with just carrier 2 transports? and say you pull your air back before the bombers hit? I’ll give you round 1 place romania round 2 drop the 3 naval pieces (30 ipc and + airbase cost which is not really lost and has somewhat a tactical advantage from there… but it can be bombed later).  Anyway caucasus is worth 7 so you would need a good 4 rounds of drops to pay for itself in theory.

trying to defend it is a dumb idea, you’ll typically lose even more out of it and it stalls you from taking russia and reduces threat levels from axis on sz 97.

not to mention bombers are up there in optimal buys for USA anyway. they do lots of things and can switch fronts pretty fast. plus if you shove 7 bombers at 2 tanks, you break even in terms of IPC (1 bomber for 2 tank).

Giving usa a reason to give russia the ability to call in an airstrike on whatever he could not get to… iz not like a good outcome for axis.

It is like call of duty man, spetnaz will air strike the flag and cap it. Allies get gangsta like that when you throw naval down in the black sea.

Trust me, someone did this to me and bombers own. In all fairness I like having some bombers around… mmm munch that naval.

usually bombers are a part of my opener because usually people like to sea lion feint… if they do go through with sea lion I can at least rest assure that japan won’t declare war or 4 bombers fly into uk. Before 3.9 bombers just increased the casualties of germany in taking uk, now it just too much fodder for germany so it actually delays japan if germany wants to go through with it.

if I see a romania IC early on and no naval buy in the baltic… I’ll only have a couple bombers. if naval is bought in the baltic I’ll still get 3 bombers and a couple dds and a carrier.  It’s the typical reaction from usa. bombers can hit naval up top and land in belarus. 3 bombers layin around is never bad either it can hit an italian fleet that moves out. or industrial bomb an airbase before uk attacks italy fleet so no scramble. or bombers can just strafe italian guys between algeria and egypt… so all russia has to do is blitz a tank through tobruk and that other spot for +7 russia.

bombers are good units to have for usa. I don’t see how they are bad.

Russia’s NO has changed so that bombers are more optimal to have so you can just blast all that stuff and clear it out for russia if there is nothing better for them to do.

@AllyAxis:

@orania:

There is a major IC in Paris. This isnt possible with A2 rules. Captured Major IC turn into a small one.

Really.  I didn’t see that one in the rules I downloaded.   No Majors in non native territory can be built.  but France falls to a minor?  Didn’t see that one at all.

Holy crap your right.  I guess it only mattered for France since Britian did not fall  or russia. Not sure if we placed that many forces there anyway.  Because the Germans did not build that many forces there throughout the game.  The italians moved troops in,  well maybe before berlin fell late in the game the Axis player on turn 9 may have built more forces there,  but largely he used the Italians to defend western Europe and built germans in West germany to defend Denmark.

Ultimately I don’t think it impacted our game or its outcome,  but will note that for the future!!!

Oh yeah, and isn’t INVADING RUSSIA!!! actually an invasion of a True Neutral country by Germany due to their NON-AGGRESSION PACT they had signed with them in 1939???

HERP.  A.  DERP.

Dumb rule is dumb.