What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@freh said in Bids for allies - 60???:

Wow, I’ve been away from the game so things must have shifted and strategy must be evovling. I just can’t imagine losing with the opportunity to put $60 worth of allied units before the game starts. Are there any patterns to bids? Does it get concentrated in one nation (defending UK against initial German attacks, or giving Russia some more offensive bite) or is it spread out?

As I said my gaming group in Seattle has gone up to $60. I am not sure that is true for the general community. The placement of the Bid depends on the Player. Sometimes it all goes in Russia, sometimes it all goes to UK Europe. Personally I think that is six of one half a dozen of another. Bid units in Russia protect Moscow so the Allies do not need to help Russia defend their capital. Bid units for UK Europe assist UK in defense of London and in taking out the Italians much faster which allows them to assist Russia either with direct unit intervention for the defense of Moscow or intense pressure on the Atlantic Wall. The end result is basically the same. Either the UK is strong and gets help to Russia fast or the UK is weak and struggles but never has to send help to Russia because Russia is strong. Personally I like a 50-50 balance between UK Europe and Russia. Best of both worlds. :)

One constant is that normally at least 80% up to all 100% goes on the Europe side of the board versus the Pacific side of the board.

I wonder if it is worth taking Norway as USA early on, with USSR assistance in taking Finland. A few things remain unclear:

Does this make USA ineffective against Japan Should USA follow up with a Normandy landing? Or something else?

A few things seem to work though. You can hold Moscow G6, doubtless in part because air can reach Moscow via Finland. Also killing the Scandinavian troops reduces the assault. If Germany kills the USN with the Luftwaffe, it loses too many planes to support the Moscow assault. If it doesn’t kill the USN, it needs to defend Leningrad against an amphibious assault which ties up a bunch of troops.

Good question IKE.
That would be very true to the difficulty of playing allies: Giving up London or Egypt is the dilemma, what will the allies choose… I don’t know what’s best but I think both strategies can work.

Much depends on what happened UK1 and IT1 of course, so lets assume ‘Taranto’ happened (a rather standard move, especially with an allied bid). Without aid of the German luftwaffe (they will be massing against London), Italy cannot safely approach Egypt. Thats 1.

2: After Taranto and Germany pushing through for SL, London is very likely to fall but it is also very likely that it will be a pyrrhic victory for Germany. Russia will be a monster and the USA just needs to destroy the kriegsmarine.

If ‘Taranto’ did not happen UK1 I guess the situation does not change a lot if Uk2 still goes for it and stop Italy in the med… But in this case Uk2 also has the option to superdefend London, indeed possibly giving up Egypt in the long run (but only for a short amount of time if London survives).

I’ll not talk about the the possibility of the USA liberating London, as that also depends on what Japan is doing (and thus, how much investments the USA must make to prevent a pacific sudden death) but the USA should definately have enough ground and naval forces left to prevent Italy from breaking through.

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"

maybe you can find adequate stuff here:

i live in europe as well and once i ordered some chips only…cost less then 50 $. there had been no harassment like special taxes etc. i think for small pieces like tokens you won´t have to pay any tax.

rock on!

Bid the Artillery Breakthrough for India?

@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!!!