Is it idiotic for UK not to attack France?

[Argothair]

I’m looking at UK strategy on the 1941 scenario for A&A: 50th Anniversary edition, and the more I look at the map, the more I’m convinced that a UK attack on France is basically mandatory. That would be kind of boring, so I’d love for someone to prove me wrong! Let me know what you think.

Reason 1: The National Objectives favor an attack on France

There are an insane number of national objectives based around France. If the UK takes France with enough force to protect it from Italy, then you’ve got a swing of 6 IPCs for the French income, 5 IPCs for the UK’s national objective, 5 IPCs for denying the Italian NO (assuming you can boot the Italians out of Gibraltar, which is pretty trivial if you’re bothering to attack Europe even a little bit), and 5 IPCs for the USA’s NO. If you manage to conquer France with enough troops to protect it from Germany, you also swing another 5 IPCs for ruining the German NO and another 6 IPCs for denying the French income to Germany, for a total swing of 32 IPCs.

That’s worth repeating: a 32 IPC swing for taking and holding a single territory. It’s really hard to even get close to that kind of return on your investment anywhere else on the board. To get a comparable swing in the Pacific, you’d have to take the Philippines and New Guinea and Wake Island and Solomon Islands and the Hawaiian Islands and the Caroline Islands.

Reason 2: Allied Atlantic Naval Supremacy

After the first couple of turns, the Allies can control the Atlantic Ocean without really breaking a sweat. The German Baltic navy can’t really defend itself against Allied air power, let alone against an Allied naval invasion. Germany can’t afford to supplement the Baltic navy with anything more than a single carrier if it wants to make gains against Russia, but even with a carrier build, the Baltic navy is toast by roughly US-3.

The Italian navy can survive if it stays inside the Mediterranean, but it can’t really ever break out into SZ 12, because there’s no way to build Axis ships in SZ 12, and SZ 12 is in easy range of US air, US navy, UK air, and UK navy. An Italian navy that stays inside the Med can’t stop the Allies from invading France via the English Channel, and an Italian navy that leaves the Med is a dead Italian navy.

Because the US/UK will control the Atlantic, they have the edge in terms of mobility. Once you start getting up to 6+ loaded Allied transports in the Channel, the Germans can’t afford to defend France, defend Germany, and supply a serious offensive march toward Moscow – the Germans just don’t have enough IPCs to maintain 3 large armies at the same time. Because landing even a single infantry in France nets the Allies a minimum of 11 IPCs (for both the UK and the US, sometimes in the same turn!), the Allies can afford to launch attacks on France even when the invasion winds up killing more Allied units than Axis units. To protect against 6 Allied transports with bombardments and air support, the Axis need 20+ units in France and 25+ units in Germany. Germany is big, but it doesn’t have 45 units to spare – if the Allies build up their invasion fleet, then the Germans have to either abandon the drive on Moscow, or start leaving core European territories totally undefended, ruining the German economy. Again, this is an amazing positive result for the Allies that is really hard to match elsewhere on the board.

Reason 3: UK Factories

It looks like there are several good locations for a UK factory, but that’s just an illusion: the only good place for a UK factory is Norway. An Indian factory is horribly unsafe; it can and will be snapped by the Japanese at low cost to the Axis on J2 or J3 at the latest. The Japanese can hit India with 12+ land units and 4+ fighters; the Allies will have at most 9 land units and 2 fighters to defend. It’s ugly.

A South African factory is safe, but not particularly useful. If you build a South African factory on turn 1, then you can’t get to Egypt with tanks until UK4, but by UK4, the Axis will have had ample time to reinforce Egypt, and a single pair of tanks won’t be able to liberate Egypt. Similarly, you can’t get new transports from South Africa to Sumatra until UK4, and by the time UK4 rolls around, the Japanese will be able to spare a couple of boats and/or a couple of fighters to sink anything you send into the Indian Ocean.

An Australian factory could be made safe if you use part of the Allied bid there and also make a strong, early move with US forces (50+ IPCs) to the southern Pacific. There’s a great thread about this strategy a little further down on the forum, and it’s not terrible, but I still don’t think it’s very useful, because unless you’re going 90%+ Pacific with the US, then the Aussie factory isn’t going to let you flip any national objectives. You can get really close – the Allies can take and hold Hawaii, the Solomons, New Guinea, Australia…but if the USA is splitting its income between both theaters, and the Japanese build a factory in French Indochina and play solid defense, I think the Japanese can hold the rest of their empire for many, many turns. Maybe the US can grab Wake Island and collect a single extra NO, for +5 IPCs/turn. It’s kind of underwhelming.

If you are going 90%+ Pacific with the US, then building the Australian factory might speed up some of the Allied Pacific conquests by a single turn…but only at the cost of slowing down D-Day in France by a turn. Because each island in the Pacific only gives you a swing of at most 14 IPCs, whereas France gives you a swing of 32 IPCs, getting to France a turn earlier is worth a lot more than getting to (e.g.) the Philippines a turn earlier.

So where do you build a UK factory? If you build one at all, it makes sense to put it in Norway. The whole structure of the map just rewards you for concentrating all of the UK’s income and power in a tight little bubble in western Europe. From a single, easily defended sea zone that’s right by your capital, you can strike at France, Norway, Finland, NW Europe, Germany, Gibraltar, Algeria, Poland, and Karelia – including NOs, you’re menacing over 100 IPCs’ worth of territory, you can get whatever survives of your starting navy into the fight with zero difficulty, and if you’re willing to invest in the occasional fighter and bomber, you don’t need to build any factories at all.

So why fight for the colonies? Why go toe-to-toe with an absurdly overpowered Japanese navy to defend a dozen IPCs’ worth of UK colonies that are doomed to fall anyway when you can abandon the colonies, concentrate in the Channel / North Sea, and get rich by conquering France?

[axis_roll]

@Argothair:

I’m looking at UK strategy on the 1941 scenario for A&A: 50th Anniversary edition, and the more I look at the map, the more I’m convinced that a UK attack on France is basically mandatory. That would be kind of boring, so I’d love for someone to prove me wrong! Let me know what you think.

–-------------------------------
So why fight for the colonies? Why go toe-to-toe with an absurdly overpowered Japanese navy to defend a dozen IPCs’ worth of UK colonies that are doomed to fall anyway when you can abandon the colonies, concentrate in the Channel / North Sea, and get rich by conquering France?

You are 100% correct.  This is why a KGF is the most employed Allied strategy and a massive German infantry buy G1 (and afterwards…) is mostly employed by the Axis.

When there are too many Axis units in France, UK/USA should go to Africa (Algeria) as a plan B.  That would be the only other logical move versus D-Day landings.

[Argothair]

That seems kind of boring, axis_roll. I mean, I love the look and feel of Anniversary Edition, but what’s the point of the extra territories and extra rules if the game still winds up as a traditional tug-of-war where the whole game boils down to whether Germany can dump infantry into France (or Italy) faster than the USA and UK can stockpile infantry in London (or Algeria)? Why not just play Revised?

I got so mad about this that I drafted an alternate set of National Objectives for the 1941 scenario – I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.

SOVIET UNION

Murmansk Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Norway, Finland, Karelia, and Archangel if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 3 and 4.
Persian Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 34.
Vladivostok Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Buryatia SSR, Stanovoj Chebet, and Soviet Far East if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 63.

UNITED KINGDOM

Defense of the Commonwealth: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of W. Canada, E. Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
Mediterranean Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Gibraltar, Egypt, and Trans-Jordan if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 13, 14, or 15.
China-Burma-India Campaign: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of India, Burma, French Indo-China Thailand, Kwangtung, and the East Indies.

UNITED STATES

Monroe Doctrine: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Alaska, Hawaii, W. Canada, E. Canada, Mexico, Western US, Central US, Eastern US, West Indies, Panama, and Brazil.
Pacific Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of Philippines or Manchuria
European Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of France, Italy, or Balkans
South Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Hawaii, Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Caroline Islands.

GERMANY

Atlantik Wall: 5 IPCs if Germany has at least one land unit in each of Norway, Northwestern Europe, and France.
Lebensraum: 5 IPCs if Germany controls three or more of Poland, East Poland, Ukraine, and East Ukraine.
Mideast Oil: 5 IPCs if Germany controls two or more of Trans-Jordan, Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR.

ITALY

New Roman Empire: 5 IPCs for Italian control of three or more of Balkans, Libya, Egypt, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Italian East Africa, and Rhodesia
Mare Nostrum: 5 IPCs if Axis control Gibraltar and France, and there are no Allied ships in sea zones 13, 14, and 15.

JAPAN

Barrier Islands: 5 IPCs for Axis control of three or more of Midway, Iwo Jima, Wake Island, and Okinawa.
Strategic Resources: 5 IPCs for Axis control of Borneo and Kiangsu if there are no Allied ships in sea zones 49, 50, 61, and 62.
East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: 5 IPCs for Japanese control of India, Australia, or Hawaii

CHINA

Over the Hump: If the Allies have at least one fighter or bomber in India, then you may place one Chinese artillery unit in Chinghai or Sikang or Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements. You cannot place the artillery in a territory China does not control.
Burma Road: If the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan, you may place one additional Chinese infantry in Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements.

[axis_roll]

@Argothair:

That seems kind of boring, axis_roll. I mean, I love the look and feel of Anniversary Edition, but what’s the point of the extra territories and extra rules if the game still winds up as a traditional tug-of-war where the whole game boils down to whether Germany can dump infantry into France (or Italy) faster than the USA and UK can stockpile infantry in London (or Algeria)? Why not just play Revised?

Agreed with the ‘boring’ aspect, especially since the opening rounds are pretty standard, and only mid/late game are there new moves/strategies that can be employed.

There are several ways to try to balance this game.  It is a great base with much potential.

With a few modifications the game can be much more than it currently is.  We’ve done so with our own set of house rules (“Chicago Rules”).  If you shoot me your email (PM or here), I can send you our base rules, our tech system (I loath the current unbalanced/random tech in the OOB rules) and our National Advantages.  I would say that we have over 100 games played as we’ve fined tuned ou rules for AA50. You can see in the revision history of each document what the changes were as we went along.

Some more simple ways to make the game better are:
An Allied bid of pre-game units or cash, or a mix of both
No island complexes (slows Japan somewhat)
Close the dardenelles straight (really helps Russia)
Beef up China in some fashion (more infantry to start?)

@Argothair:

I got so mad about this that I drafted an alternate set of National Objectives for the 1941 scenario – I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.

When I have more time I will offer some feedback on your NOs.  Want to give them proper consideration instead of a quick response after a single read thru.  HAve you game play tested any of these?  In our book, that is the best way to see how good/bad house rules are….
yes it’s a little more work, but in the end, the end result (better playability) is worth the extra effort.

[Argothair]

Hi axis_roll,

I’d be happy to look at your Chicago rules – you can e-mail them to me at jasongreenlowe@gmail.com.

Thanks for being willing to look at the alternate national objectives – I appreciate it. I haven’t had a chance to playtest them yet, in part because I don’t own a copy of Anniversary edition. I only play Anniversary with some buddies who live a couple of towns away, so if they’re not in the mood for variants, then we don’t play with variants. We typically use a flat bid of IPCs to balance the game, like you would in a game on the TripleA server. I have no complaints about how that bid works; with a reasonable bid (10 to 20 IPCs) for the Allies, I think the 1941 scenario is very nicely balanced. I’m just disappointed with the lack of variety / replayability.

What I’m looking for is not a way to give the Allies more advantages, but rather a way to give the Allies more choices about where to concentrate their forces, so that the Allies can try different things in the opening without throwing away the game, even against a competent Axis opponent.

If you have thoughts on some of the interesting choices (or even just a list of some of those choices) that the Allies have in the mid-game / end-game under OOB Anniversary '41 rules or Chicago Anniversary '41 rules, I’d be very curious to hear them.

Yours,
Argothair

[axis_roll]

@Argothair:

What I’m looking for is not a way to give the Allies more advantages, but rather a way to give the Allies more choices about where to concentrate their forces, so that the Allies can try different things in the opening without throwing away the game, even against a competent Axis opponent.

yes, avoiding the ‘boring’ is the goal, as there is presently no real way for there to be a viable pacific campaign in the OOB rules, IMHO.  Actually, our play group found that the axis should win the game 80% of the time (OOB).  Basically the axis has to roll poorly round 1 or the allies get favorable weapons (ASAP) to make it a game.  If I wanted a dice game, I’d play Yahtzee, the set up time is much shorter!

In order to enable more strategic outcomes, the allies need to be able to not focus on ‘staying’ alive in the game (forced early defensive moves), so they need to be stronger.  In our rules, these additions are ‘phased in/delayed’ by the mechanism in which they can be deployed.  In essence, stronger weapons/National Advantages are more costly/take longer to get in the game.  It is all not one sided, the axis have new options as well, encouraging them to play outside the same old game plans.

Regarding allied OOB rules options, I can post some thoughts when I have more time.  Perhaps tonight.  In the Summer, my A&A time is reduced cause I love the outdoors.

[axis_roll]

@Argothair:

I’d be grateful for any feedback you can offer, both in terms of whether they’re reasonably balanced, and in terms of whether they’re likely to open up any alternate big-picture strategies besides KGF vs. German Turtle.

SOVIET UNION

Murmansk Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Norway, Finland, Karelia, and Archangel if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 3 and 4.
@axis_roll:

Relatively easy to achieve and maintain.  No penalty for allied units in russia.

Persian Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 34.
@axis_roll:

Like that the axis can stop a very easy to achieve NA for Russia

Vladivostok Convoy: 5 IPCs for Allied control of two or more of Buryatia SSR, Stanovoj Chebet, and Soviet Far East if there are no Axis ships in sea zone 63.
@axis_roll:

Like that there is some goals to holding the line against Japan.

@axis_roll:

Russian NA’s a good, a bit more attainable

UNITED KINGDOM

Defense of the Commonwealth: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of W. Canada, E. Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
@axis_roll:

Substituted New Zealand for Egypt, good swap

Mediterranean Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Gibraltar, Egypt, and Trans-Jordan if there are no Axis ships in sea zones 13, 14, or 15.
@axis_roll:

Very difficult to attain, not a good swap for the UK Pacific theatre OOB NA.  I like that USA can help UK via the pacific

China-Burma-India Campaign: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of India, Burma, French Indo-China Thailand, Kwangtung, and the East Indies.
@axis_roll:

Hard to achieve except for round 1

@axis_roll:

why remove the NA for France / Balkans?  Mixed overall on these

UNITED STATES

Monroe Doctrine: 5 IPCs for Allied control of all of Alaska, Hawaii, W. Canada, E. Canada, Mexico, Western US, Central US, Eastern US, West Indies, Panama, and Brazil.
@axis_roll:

Encourages Axis attacks on the Americas, I like it

Pacific Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of Philippines or Manchuria
@axis_roll:

Adding Manchuria is fine, why not Kiangsu as well?

European Liberator: 5 IPCs for Allied control of France, Italy, or Balkans
@axis_roll:

Does USA need to have an extra bonus for taking Italy

South Sea Lanes: 5 IPCs for Allied control of three or more of Hawaii, Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and Caroline Islands.
@axis_roll:

original is still good

@axis_roll:

USA NO’s are ok

GERMANY

Atlantik Wall: 5 IPCs if Germany has at least one land unit in each of Norway, Northwestern Europe, and France.
@axis_roll:

Hard to achieve except for round 1 & 2.  Norway should fall after that

Lebensraum: 5 IPCs if Germany controls three or more of Poland, East Poland, Ukraine, and East Ukraine.
@axis_roll:

neither like nor dislike

Mideast Oil: 5 IPCs if Germany controls two or more of Trans-Jordan, Persia, Caucasus, and Kazakh SSR.
@axis_roll:

So if Italy controls Trans-Jordan, that does not count for Germany? Should be axis powers… Like otherwise

@axis_roll:

Removed northernly pressure on Russia (Karelia no longer a target, neither is Baltic States or Belorussia), overall hard to like or dislike all changes

ITALY

New Roman Empire: 5 IPCs for Italian control of three or more of Balkans, Libya, Egypt, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Italian East Africa, and Rhodesia
@axis_roll:

too restrictive to only Italian Control

Mare Nostrum: 5 IPCs if Axis control Gibraltar and France, and there are no Allied ships in sea zones 13, 14, and 15.
@axis_roll:

swapped Gibraltar for Algeria, not needed to be swapped

@axis_roll:

Prefer original Italian NOs, These are too hard for Italy to achieve

JAPAN

Barrier Islands: 5 IPCs for Axis control of three or more of Midway, Iwo Jima, Wake Island, and Okinawa.
@axis_roll:

Encourage Japanese Pacific battles, I like

Strategic Resources: 5 IPCs for Axis control of Borneo and Kiangsu if there are no Allied ships in sea zones 49, 50, 61, and 62.
@axis_roll:

The sea zone addition is intriguing, but not very likely to keep Japan from achieving this easily

East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: 5 IPCs for Japanese control of India, Australia, or Hawaii
@axis_roll:

Not too often will India fall to anyone other than Japan, insignificant change to OOB

@axis_roll:

overall hard to like or dislike all changes

CHINA

Over the Hump: If the Allies have at least one fighter or bomber in India, then you may place one Chinese artillery unit in Chinghai or Sikang or Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements. You cannot place the artillery in a territory China does not control.
@axis_roll:

OK

Burma Road: If the Allies control India, Burma, and Yunnan, you may place one additional Chinese infantry in Yunnan while placing Chinese reinforcements.

@axis_roll:

Seems good.

@axis_roll:

Seem like nice additions.  Hard for me to judge these too well since Chicago Rules treat China very differently

Not sure these changes are going to drastically alter the game play.  I know when I play, I will forgo some extra IPCs to maintain a better position on the board, as it is a better long term affect than having an additional $5 IPCs (IMHO).

[axis_roll]

@Argothair:

We typically use a flat bid of IPCs to balance the game, like you would in a game on the TripleA server. I have no complaints about how that bid works; with a reasonable bid (10 to 20 IPCs) for the Allies, I think the 1941 scenario is very nicely balanced. I’m just disappointed with the lack of variety / replayability.

What are those bid rules?  we use these

Bids under Chicago Rules

Add units before game play begins.  Only one additional unit per territory/sea zone.  The territory/sea zone must already contain at least one unit to permit a bid unit to be added.  No Bombers, Battleships, or Aircraft Carriers can be placed as part of any bid.

Russia may not place more than $10 worth of units (no tanks may be bid) in the following combination of territories:
Karelia, Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, Belorussia, Archangelsk, Urals, Russia, Caucasus, Kazakh, Novosibirsk or Evenki National Okrug.

Chinese inf may be also be bid units, at a cost of $2.  Other Chinese bid units are regular cost. 
Bidding Rules:
1.  Allies may bid $28, with a maximum of $25 being placed as instant units, remaining $3 can be split amongst the allies, being added to their first round IPC bank.  Dardanelles straight is closed.
2.  The allies can bid to Open the Dardanelles straight, with the resulting bid increasing to $30.  Same restrictions apply.
3.  If the allies have not opened the Dardanelles straight (bid option #2), the axis can ‘force open’ the Dardanelles Straight, but the bid level is now $36 (as a penalty for forcing open the canal).  $4 of that bid must be an artillery for Russia in the Caucasus.  The Caucasus artillery must be included in the $10 limit of Russian bid units.  The $25 unit limitation is still in effect.  In other words, the bid is $25 in units, $4 (Russian artillery in Caucasus), and $7 in cash to be split amongst the allied countries as the allies deem fit.

@Argothair:

What I’m looking for is not a way to give the Allies more advantages, but rather a way to give the Allies more choices about where to concentrate their forces, so that the Allies can try different things in the opening without throwing away the game, even against a competent Axis opponent.

If you have thoughts on some of the interesting choices (or even just a list of some of those choices) that the Allies have in the mid-game / end-game under OOB Anniversary '41 rules or Chicago Anniversary '41 rules, I’d be very curious to hear them.

The pregame bid helps to give the allies more strategic options.

Other things than can be done strategically in OOB rules are:

1. Gang up on Italy.  Move into the Med ASAP with a combined UK and USA navy. More doable with an allied bid of $ to UK (think forst round naval build in SZ8.  Once set up in sz14, can trade for Balkans to get some NO IPCs, keep Italy from getting their NOs and/or reinforcing africa.

2)  Russian advances against Germany covered by allied air support.  A stack of Russian infantry and art can be hard to kill if 3,4,5 etc UK/USA fighters are adding to their defense.

[Argothair]

The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:

Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.

However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.

That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.

Briefly commenting on your ideas for OOB strategies, I think the idea of going after Italy immediately is interesting. I could see how it would be hard/impossible for Italy to simultaneously defend the Balkans and North Africa, and once you’ve liberated one of those, you’ve got a solid economic advantage that lets you overwhelm Italy in a few turns unless Germany pulls out of eastern europe altogether to babysit Rome. I’ve always wanted to invade the Balkans, but I’ve never been able to until the game is basically decided anyway. Maybe I’ll try it next game.

I dunno that a Russian stack supported by US/UK fighters is really going to be able to “advance” on German troops. I’ve seen fighters help a Russian stack stand its ground, and maybe even deadzone the adjacent territory to the west, but I’ve never seen fighters turn the territory to the west into a safe territory for the Russian infantry to move into. How would that work, exactly?

Also, more importantly, I’m still not seeing a viable KJF strategy, let alone off-the-wall strategies like focusing on the Middle East or China or the Southern Hemisphere, but I’ll talk with you more about that in our e-mail chain.

[axis_roll]

@Argothair:

The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:

Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.

However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.

That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.

Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side.  I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.

what is the bid level that you usually see used?  For example, what do the allies usually get?

@Argothair:

Briefly commenting on your ideas for OOB strategies, I think the idea of going after Italy immediately is interesting. I could see how it would be hard/impossible for Italy to simultaneously defend the Balkans and North Africa, and once you’ve liberated one of those, you’ve got a solid economic advantage that lets you overwhelm Italy in a few turns unless Germany pulls out of eastern europe altogether to babysit Rome. I’ve always wanted to invade the Balkans, but I’ve never been able to until the game is basically decided anyway. Maybe I’ll try it next game.

I dunno that a Russian stack supported by US/UK fighters is really going to be able to “advance” on German troops. I’ve seen fighters help a Russian stack stand its ground, and maybe even deadzone the adjacent territory to the west, but I’ve never seen fighters turn the territory to the west into a safe territory for the Russian infantry to move into. How would that work, exactly?

with enough ftrs, the russians (as you point out) can dead zone some key territories on the eastern front.  Once you have taken out the German threat to break out into Russia, then you have contained them (i.e. their growth is then limited), and things become easier for the allies in the sense that more resources can be used elsewhere (weapons, africa recapture, Italy pressure, D-Day)

@Argothair:

Also, more importantly, I’m still not seeing a viable KJF strategy, let alone off-the-wall strategies like focusing on the Middle East or China or the Southern Hemisphere, but I’ll talk with you more about that in our e-mail chain.

I never said that there was a viable KJF in OOB rules.  There is not, unfortunately, even with a moderate bid.  The only way might be to give UK an IC in India in conjunction with a bid.

[Midnight_Reaper]

@axis_roll:

@Argothair:

The TripleA bid rules are pretty simple:

Auction off the right to play with the Axis by saying “I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 15 IPC…”, “No, but I’ll take the Allies if you give me a bid of 14 IPC…”, “No way, man, because I’ll play the Allies with a bid of only 13 IPC…” until someone says “OK, fine, you can play the Allies with that bid” because they don’t want to bid any lower.

However much IPC you collect with your bid, you can split any way you like among your nations, as any combination of cash and/or pre-placed units that hit the board on round 0, subject to the following restrictions:

(1) You can’t buy more than one unit per territory or sea zone
(2) You can’t place a nation’s unit in a territory or sea zone where that nation doesn’t already have at least one unit.

That’s pretty much it! You can spend your money on whatever you want, including bombers and eastern european tanks and things, but the bid is usually lower than it would be under Chicago rules, so if you do buy a bomber, that’s most of your bid right there.

Funny, the axis have a better chance to win, so it would make sense to bid an increasing amount of units to take the stronger side.  I know this bid system has been around for a while, but it is seems so counter intuiative to me.

Thinking about this comment, imagining how this would go:

“I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 12.”
“No way, I’ll play the Axis against an Allied bid of 14.”
“Chump change, I’ll play Axis against an Allied bid of 15.”
“All right, I’ll take the Allies with a 15 bid.”

-Midnight_Reaper