What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@andrewaagamer said in Land aircraft in neutral allied territory:

Only LAND units may take control of the now uncontrolled Neutral.

Precisely we are not talking about an uncontrolled Neutral, but about an uncontrolled allied territory.

Bomber in Moscow, possible 1 more fighter or Fighter-Bomber but near manchuria
Remove some Japanese planes, but replace them with another ship(s), probably combination of transport ( AP) and more infantry
Add BB in Hawaii
Combine the Italian fleet so it cant be wiped out
Possible add 1-2 infantry in or near Egypt for UK

@AK_Grown:

Have not thought about Brazil though

If memory serves, Anzac is one move from Brazil (from NZ).  I’ve seen it done, it really didn’t change the outcome though.

It’s two moves.  Once in a while I’ve had ANZAC take Brazil, but never with an eye towards having them spend the money outside the Pacific.  It feels like a bad idea to do so if Japan hasn’t been neutralized yet.

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.

@JimmyHat:

I don’t like the rule either, I think that so long as you have a factory you can earn and spend ipcs.  After you lose your last factory then you hold onto your unspent ipcs until you or an ally liberates one of your factories.  This seems more realistic to me, but I think the current rule is there more to prove that once your capital is captured you might as well surrender.

That’s an interesting idea.  So all nations would be treated like China and keep their unspent IPCs with hopes of one of their factories getting liberated, even if it’s not necessarily their capital.

Actually, there is a kind of historical precedent for having to capture the Axis capitals.  In the “Why We Fight” series, at the end of each film it shows a quote from the Secretary of War Henry Wallace that said “Victory can only be acheived by the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.”  So, as far as the game goes, if you have Japan surrounded but your Japan player doesn’t want to surrender, then you just have to keep pounding him with SBRs until you build up a big enough invasion force and take him out.

@calvinhobbesliker:

In some Guadalcanal games, they switched the US and Japanese cruisers. Thus, we had an orange US cruiser and a Green Japanese cruiser

Wow, I never even noticed that before. But I dont have any of the green Japanese cruisers. Very strange.

@special:

People are playing to slow ;)

Agreed.

BUMP

As soon as I have anything official, I’ll post it.