What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

Only on triplea have I had the pleasure of successfully pulling off Sea Lion. I’d love to do it on a table top game. The most recent time I had I think 8 tanks standing. No loss of aircraft as hits (2 fighters due to an AAA gun hit). I left the tanks there to really make it costly for the US to liberate London. My team won the game…London didn’t get liberated until like round 11. It was a very long game.

I prefer Barbarossa, but if the UK hands London a silver platter because it got too aggressive…then it needs to get punished. I don’t care what anyone says, no allies player like the advantage of London being knocked out for several turns. I’m not going to G2 purchase of a Sea Lion if several factors occur of course. But if Sea Lion is done right, the US has to respond and Japan has the chance to rage. Also, if Germany DOWs at the right moment, Russia can be pushed away from E. Poland (which I think is the critical position to keep Russia from getting to). They will come back, but then Germany might have the chance to get in position to start pushing Russia back from the border territories. Scandinavia might fall for a time being. Private Panic mentions losing a battle with favorable odds. That’s not going to occur on a regular basis.

If the UK gets really aggressive in it’s spending in the middle east UK1 and Sea Lion doesn’t occur, then in those situations I have a very difficult time overcoming a substantially large stack of UK fighters.

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

Gotcha.  I think we’re talking about two different things though.

My understanding was the other poster was saying “Placing fighters in CUS is no different than placing them in EUS” which of course wouldn’t be the case.  I see your point though and I agree  8-)

Good answer by Marshmallow.  I remember wondering the same thing when G40 was new, but Krieghund* set me straight.  Dizzkneeland is correct that you can still disable an air base and then attack the adjacent sea zone free from scrambled aircraft, but it must be on separate powers’ turns.  Marshmallow said it perfectly, that the scramble decision is made at the beginning of the conduct combat phase, so the aircraft are scrambled before the base is bombed.

*(Krieghund is the official A&A answers guy, and one of the writers of the rule book)

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…

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…)

@special:

People are playing to slow ;)

Agreed.

BUMP

Saving money can be wise but for Italy, I don’t buy it since Italy is forced into a reaction based plan rather than true offensive since you have to see what UK does to the Italian navy before anything comes into play.

Italy always ends up doing one of three things: 1. Get aggressive and go after Egypt. 2. Can open for Germany. 3. Play defense exclusively to buy time for Germany to get to Moscow.

Anything else I’ve seen usually ends up with Rome going to US.