What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@andrewaagamer

Thank you! That was very helpful!

@windowwasher I’m getting my PC fixed but then I’ll have to download Triple A, thanks again for the advice. I just tested out bids by myself with allies at +30 on the Europe map. The difference was huge, they put a fighter in Scotland and a destroyer in the 110 fleet I believe-with the French cruiser. They also put a sub in the med for Taranto and a tank for Tobruk. The Axis definitely is limited in what they can do the first turn and they don’t have near total domination of the sea right away.

Yep. Fortifying the money islands - well we’re only talking about Celebes aren’t we? UK can take Sumatra and ANZAC can take Java. Or do you mean two transports to the same island? I don’t think that strategy is much good with a J1 DOW though. Japan will just crush your force for no real losses and you’ll have taken troops off India.

From South Africa you can also hit Ethiopia which you might not do without that transport. Or take Persia and do something else with the SZ98 Transport. The two inf who start on South Africa normally only arrive after Egypt has been secured so I think that is worth something. You can also land the troops on West India if you think fortifying India is the most important thing.

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 ;)

I think the point is, all three of my opinions infer that Germany is waiting until at least round 3 to declare war on Russia.  Personally, I see no good reason to declare war on them before then anyway and, personally, I prefer to have Italy declare war on Round 3 with Germany maybe not even declaring war on Round 4…that way Italy can take the road and Germany can reinforce it.  That allows Germany to collect the NO for Russia and move towards Moscow.

Guys,

––Just to add to your answer a bit. ‘Kreighund’, the rules guy, basically said that in order to CONQUER an Allied teritory, there must be a ‘COMBAT’. What that in essence means is that the teritory must have been previously conquered by an Axis power.
----If the Allied territory still has the same ownership after having it’s Capital subjugated,…you are simply ‘Re-inforcing’ the territory for the current owner.

Tall Paul"

Any player can concede for any reason; you just have to learn who throws a hissy fit and who doesn’t.  I’ve had an Allied player forfeit on me after UK ROUND ONE.  Yep, a scramble didn’t go his way, and a couple of bad rolls in the Med and claimed there was “no way back”.  Meh, a win’s a win, but I’m still in it for the long haul with expectations of an epic game.

In general, a sucessful Sealion doesn’t an Axis victory make.  I’ve lost as the Axis after a sucessful Sealion; the Russian player knew what to do and put immense pressure on a front stripped-bare for landing units.  If Japan gets some bad luck and isn’t threatening victory, it’s bad.

That said, i’ve won plenty of times after a good Sealion, so it’s not an unheard of response.

Maybe you should move this thread you hijacked to whatever game it belongs in…