What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@WILD:

@weddingsinger:

I usually play as Axis, but in the past the worst problem for me is if the U.S. can gather its starting assets together, maybe a US1 buy, too, all of Japan’s starting isn’t enough to fend it off, so you either have to abandon SZ6, or overspend to keep up, which leaves the money islands vulnerable.

Its why, as Japan, I now prefer J1 and taking out Hawaii and Philippines.  At most you lose a sub, putting the U.S. behind for a change while your other assets shield your transports from the weak Anzac fleet.

I agree, but as discussed I generally do a hit and run on the Hawaiian fleet, and end up at Wake with about 1/2 the IJN. I typically lose a sub and dd in the sz26 battle, and also my dd blocker left in sz26 in the US counter attack for a total of 3 ships (1ss, and 2 dds). I still think it is well worth doing though. Hitting both sz26, and sz35 will kill off 47 IPCs worth of US navy, plus the Phil ftr making it 57 IPCs in navy/air. That is more then the spending allowance of the US in the first turn (52 IPCs). These are units that would get away in a J2 or later attack in most cases. Then add the Brit BB and territorial gains and yea it is a pretty damn strong opening move.

Sucker punching the US in the face causes some issues for them, and they will be torn on what side to build on. If they go Pac they are way behind so can’t challenge the Japanese for several turns. They would need to spend most of their income in the Pac for 2-3 turns just to get to even par w/Japan (and the Germans will love it). Yea they can probably send the home fleet up to Hawaii on the first turn as long as the Anz backs them up, but they really can’t do anything once they get there. Maybe move to the safety of Queensland and wait for their supply chain to catch up. The Japanese can just hop scotch to Caroline’s then probably to Philippines where they set up a defensive posture (maybe merging some more of the Imperial navy/air force).

I don’t see the US sending the home fleet over to Europe (something they do on occasion), because then there is no chance in the Pac. So if they want to go Europe they pretty much have to start from scratch because they only have a cruiser and transport. So going Europe means the Japanese don’t have to worry for a long time.

Oh BTW if you really want to F with the US have the Germans hit the US 101 mini fleet G1 with a sub (when you know there will be a J1 attack). If you get lucky the cruiser may not even get to fire, and the transport sinks too.

Very nice idea, will try it out as Axis this year

@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%.

@oysteilo:

@ShadowHAwk:

Try adding some chinese inf. If you can add only 1 unit add it to the burma road. It will take away at least 2 more ��� units.
Try adding extra units in UK in defence of the standard attacks that germany does, a fighter in schotland would be painfull, a destroyer near the cruiser off gibraltar.

How about a inf for china, 1 fighter in schotland and a sub in the med for a 19 bid.
The attacks germany can do against your fleet off schotland becomes pretty interesting that figher will take 1 or 2 airunits with him at least.

If you place a fighter in scotland I assume you are more or less “forced” to scramble all 5 planes (Scotland and United Kingdom) if Germany attacks both fleets?

I would assume the goal would be for Germany to make a choice on which fleet to kill, and for the UK to have decent odds to do some damage in one of the battles, if Germany tries for it all.  If I were to get an 18 bid, I might try a destroyer in 110 and a fighter in scotland.  If I could place 2 units in a single territory, then a 20 bid would be 2 fighters for scotland.

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…

You can find an example here:

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

@Spendo02:

@Krieghund:

The US cannot win this battle.  The fighters will continue to defend in the air until the battle is over.  The Japanese fighters and US subs can’t hit each other, so the fighters will sink transports until the US retreats.  If the US wishes to conduct this amphibious assault, it must bring units that are capable of hitting the fighters.

This is one of those unique situations where you are required to take Trn as losses before subs because that is all the unit can hit?

Yes.  They just need to be the only legal selection for a loss.  That might mean that planes have no other target (like this example), or that Sub hits have no other ship targets, or that the defenders hit everything else in a round of combat and need to assign some more hits before the defender retreats.  Remember, the defender still has the option to retreat, if they can, and transports are only automatically destroyed when they’re attacked, not when attacking (unless the attacker has no place to retreat).

These are listed on page 32 of the Europe Rulebook.