A thought experiment

[Jennifer]

So I got to chatting with a friend and we were talking about bids.  The question was raised, given the following parameters, what would your bid be?

1)  The Axis must take Eastern United States (Washington DC) to win the game.
2)  The same Axis power that took the Eastern United States must still be in control of the Eastern United States for one full game turn for the Axis to win the game.

Now yes, I realize that a perfect allied strategy for this scenario would be 100% infantry builds in the United States and stack the ever loving CRUD out of Washington, but let’s assume we have normal game play for the sake of this mental experiment, okay?

[Black_Elk]

Hmmm I’d think to get there you’d have to be able to take London immediately, with enough heat to hold UK and maintain Atlantic naval dominance, and still with enough units left over in the east to hold the line against the Russians. Preplacement bid, hard to say, I’d definitely want a lot more transports and a carrier or two I guess. Save for income, much higher, maybe upwards of 100 hehe.

All G, since Japan would have a hell of a time getting there :)

[Final Run]

The Allies still need a pretty large bid IMHO. Having to eventaully take out the USA for a mandatory victory condition would obviously stop Japan from getting a cheesy win by taking Honolulu as their 6th  city… Unless the Allies are right on the verge to capturing a Axis capital (Not Rome) as the Axis capture Moscow, then I really don’t think it will effect the game other than dragging to game out longer in the case the Axis gaining the upper hand late game.

I’ve played a game where the all the players agreed that the axis would have to take all allied capitals to secure victory, but we played without bids. Long story short, the Axis really had a easy game due to some luck on the rolls, and Russia and India fell rather quickly. London was really tough to crack but eventaully was captured as the USA shifted more forces to fight the Japanese to protect their NO’s. Naturally the U.S player was the last allied player to be in the game after the beat down but it was obvious that there was no use to continue playing.

[Jennifer]

Well, when I play table top, I usually play allies win with either Berlin or Tokyo under their control for one full game turn, Axis win with any two major industrial capitols under their control for a full game turn.  Major capitols are:  Washington DC, London and Moscow.

As for bids on this, I was saying probably 30 Germany, 16 Italy and 30 Japan. 
Germany:

• 4 Artillery, 3 Armor (makes France fall harder, faster less losses and can race those units to Russia for a strike sooner than later.)
  Italy:
• 2 Destroyers (protects the fleet better, gets you ready for Med and N. Africa domination sooner.)
  Japan:
• 5 Armor (pound the CRUD out of China, save a lot of infantry since you can anchor those units with tanks now.)

Just my personal opinion.  The over all idea was to crush India and Russia as soon as possible while neutering London with the loss of Africa and isolating the United States.

[ItIsILeClerc]

I was thinking along the same lines, Flottenmörderin ;-).
The only reason why the Axis can win this game is because the USA is forced to spend on the pacific to prevent that 6VC sudden death…

Apart from that, the allies rule and the axis cannot win.
Sometimes I think it’s a bit too easy for Japan in the Pacific the way it is now but anyway, if this Pacific 6VC thing is taken away from the axis, they need a big bid to win.

Maybe not 76 spread out over all axis partners, but more like giving (roughly) that to just one of them.
But then again, that 1 axis major power may just become a tad too strong. I think each and every suggestion would need to be playtested extensively.

[Jennifer]

Figured spreading out the bid would save more units for all three than if you just gave all the bid to one nation.  Just my thought process.

[theROCmonster]

If the axis get a bid you would have to specify that neither Japan nor Germany could bid sea units. Otherwise you could see a  T1 Japan that could take and hold Hawaii, while still doing everything else they need to do. On the Europe side it would be even worse. London would fall T1 if Germany were able to bid transports.

[theROCmonster]

I still think the bid would have to limit Germany to no sea bid. There is too much that he can do with a naval bid that really breaks the game. I also don’t think the bid would need to be as big as you are saying. A combined bid of 76 is insane. Not sure what would work, but anything higher than a total 30 bid just seems like it is too much.

[knp7765]

@ShadowHAwk:

If you are only making 50 and the axis are making 200 and only US is left it does not mather if you have 1000 inf on your capital it will eventualy fall. ( convoy zones and strat bombing will ensure you dont buy anything )

We had a game like that some time ago. The Allies had a pretty bad game – some unlucky dice, some just bad strategies – and it became an Axis win on both boards.
Germany had Russia and England. Italy swarmed over Africa and the Middle East. Japan took everything in the Pacific.
So, just for kicks, we decided to see how long it would take the US to fall. It got down to the point where Germany had a large force up in Canada, Japan had the Western US and Italy had a decent force in SE Mexico.
The US was left with Central US and Eastern US with enough units that the Axis didn’t feel confident in an outright attack. Germany stationed about 12 subs plus 2-3 Italian subs in SZ 101. All three Axis maintained a fleet of bombers while slowly building up their ground forces for the final attack. They kept SBRs up and all the US facilities were pretty much maintained at max damage levels. We sat there like this for 2 or 3 rounds until Germany and Japan could get enough troops in position for the final attack, then the US finally fell for good.
It was just kind of weird seeing the US in a position where they couldn’t get any money or buy any units.

[Jennifer]

ROC,

I don’t think losing Hawaii round 1 is as bad as it seems given the parameters of the thought experiment.  In a normal game sure it would really be bad because Japan would be that much closer to a VC win.

[theROCmonster]

I played it out, and you’re right. It really isn’t horribly bad. My US was only making 57 after T1 and he was at war though… 2 subs off east coast killed cruiser transport and convoyed.

[Final Run]

@theROCmonster:

I played it out, and you’re right. It really isn’t horribly bad. My US was only making 57 after T1 and he was at war though… 2 subs off east coast killed cruiser transport and convoyed.

Still not very good though I think. Japan still gets 1+5 IPCS while the USA loses a total of 6 for not securing its NO. Of course this would likely promt America to start dumping IPC’s to Pacific and eventaully force you out, but your still making some nice gains while making America to halt whatever it’s doing and shift attention to you. If the USA doesn’t answer this the following would probably happen:

-Japan would be in a far better position to defend territory from Hawaii
-Japan now has a much easier time completing another NO for +5 ipcs controlling the Islands behind Hawaii
-Japan can always drop down an entire force on Queensland in one move from hawaii, making ANZAC think twice before moving into position to harass Japan.

Like you said, not horribly bad, but I can really see how this can result in a headache for the Allies if Japan takes advantage of it.

[Jennifer]

It would be far worse in a traditional game, however.  That’s where I was going with it.

[Final Run]

@Cmdr:

It would be far worse in a traditional game, however.  That’s where I was going with it.

For sure.

[theROCmonster]

ya giving Japan 30 means he is almost for sure going to take out Anzac on T3. No real way to defend against it :/. The plus side is that Japan can’t take the 4 money islands if he does that. He still gets Philippines the first turn though.

[JDOW]

@Cmdr:

Now yes, I realize that a perfect allied strategy for this scenario would be 100% infantry builds in the United States and stack the ever loving CRUD out of Washington, but let’s assume we have normal game play for the sake of this mental experiment, okay?

No it’s not. Doing this would allow the Axis to win 100% of the games.
It is a more than viable option for the Axis to play for an economic advantage. In case this happens earlier or later they would conquer the entire world, the same way like Allies would conquer the world if they could establish permanent economic advantage without losing to victory conditions.

In case US does nothing but buying inf the world domination by the Axis would be inevitable and earlier or later Washington falls.

[Jennifer]

maybe I play my brother too often then.  By about the time he looks at a territory with 250 infantry defending it, he generally flips the board over and leaves. :P

[CWO Marc]

@Cmdr:

maybe I play my brother too often then.  By about the time he looks at a territory with 250 infantry defending it, he generally flips the board over and leaves.

Your brother should take inspiration from General (later Marshal) Foch, who at the First Battle of the Marne reputedly said, “My centre has caved in.  My right flank is giving way.  The situation is excellent.  I attack.”  A positive thinker.

[Jennifer]

@CWO:

@Cmdr:

maybe I play my brother too often then.�  By about the time he looks at a territory with 250 infantry defending it, he generally flips the board over and leaves.

Your brother should take inspiration from General (later Marshal) Foch, who at the First Battle of the Marne reputedly said, "My centre has caved in.  My right flank is giving way.  The situation is excellent.  I attack."  A positive thinker.

Wouldn’t President Truman be more appropriate?  Just nuke the stack with some atomic weapons?