An alternative to bidding

@mobius1:

You know, maybe you’re right. My countering Japan strategy is mostly a throwback to the old version. But now it may be a better choice to have Russia go all out against Germany, since I think I have a good chance of pulling it off.

There have been many times that I could have secured Poland if I had enough tanks…

Put some allied (UK/USA) fighters with that stack of forward Russian troops and you should be able to safely get to/hold Eastern Poland.  That territory is a key piece in the theatre of war.  Whoever controls that (Germany/allies) can effectively dead zone 6 territories that it borders.  Also, those allied fighters are not out of play based in EPL.  In conjunction with the a/c strategy that Argothair posted for an allied navy, the ftrs can even hit france.

They can be, goof2658, but Japan has the option of moving two of its carriers over to Tokyo Bay on J1, and up to four fighters can land there after the Pearl Harbor / San Diego J1 attacks. That’s plenty of protection against one bomber.

So, if you want to maximize your attack on Asia, rather than your attack on the US Pacific navy, you can kind of stack up near Tokyo instead of stacking in the Caroline Islands. Depending on how many of your fighters survived, this is often a good idea anyway, because your stack may not be safe in the Carolines.

@DarthMaximus:

But I don’t know if that battle is all that relevant.  The bom placement may be overrated.  So what if you slow down Japan.  Sub bid of six kills 1 J trn and there is no risk of not hitting and you could still place 2 inf elsewhere.
Germany is the main early threat.  Assuming no Russian ground units bid.  Ger takes the 3 Russian territories on G1.  G2 have a shot at holding Kar.  Even if they only trade, they can still stack Bel on G3.  Russia now has to defend Mos.  G4 you move to Euk.  Now Cauc and Mos have to be defended.  G5 you take cauc.
Obviously this is a bit simplistic but I don’t think the loss of 2 trns and a J dd is that big of a deal if the Russian front is collapsing.

I don’t know Darth. Slowing Japan’s expansion to a crawl and allowing Russia to focus entirely on Germany for the first 5 rounds or so goes a long way.

I’m assuming an aggressive G1.  Taking out Sz 2 and Sz 9.  If we are playing the odds game, the odds for these G1 attacks will go further in deciding the game then the 56% odds the Russian bom has.

I don’t know about that either. taking out 2 TP’s and a DD before Japan even gets a chance to use them is pretty crippling. Even sinking just the sz62 TP limits japan a bit.

I’d much rather have 4 units on the Russian front, then the bom.

That’s a matter of personal preference, though. The bomber bid gives Russia multiple options while the infantry bid only has 1 option(defending against Germany). The bomber is essentially an opportunistic unit. It can provide support for Allied interdiction of Japan’s navy as well as supporting it’s ground troops in the area if you see an opening to be aggressive on the ground. And the bomber will start saving Russia units in trades against Germany once it returns from the Pacific.

@CdnRanger:

Russia would have to send a couple of Inf (needed desperately at the front without a Russian ground unit bid) by Rus2 to India to protect it, and perhaps Uk lands the Egypt Fighter there (if it has survived the attack from Germany)

The US can also provide air support to India on US2 if they landed aircraft in Australia on US1.

The India crush by Japan is nasty but it gives China an extra round or two of survival, as Japan needs to go light on Phi, and the 3 Inf in Fic that took Burma are needed to attack and hold India turn 2.

The India crush also draws away a lot of Japan’s navy which the US and Russia can sometimes exploit in the North(threatening sz62 with air and navy, Russian ground attacks into China from Bury, etc)

@Veqryn:

@cts17:

Reviving this a bit, I think that a 6 IPC bid is sufficent. Two infantry to Egy is often enough.

bids generally don’t allow more than 1 unit to a territory….

at least, that is what i’ve always been told

(a max of 1 unit to a territory, and you must have units in that territory already)

That’s a ‘house rule’ from the Triple A lobby, from what I understand.  Usually bid limits are listed with how the bidding works (i.e.  all cash (no immediate units), 1 unit per territory, etc).

In other words, bid rules are all over the board.

@Subotai:

It is not possible to be prepared against tech rolls, or any dice rolls regardless of regular dice or LL. The only way to be prepared, as such, is to look into the future, and we humans are not able to predict the future.

True.  True.

That’s why I said, “…trying to be prepared…”

Peace.

That is true at some sites but is not the case with bids here.

OK, voting is over, China inf bids won but by a very small margin. I’ll move the discussion over to the League discussion forum and we’ll see what people think there! Join in and we can influence how the game will be played!  :-)

@chunksoul:

subs turn 1 for america to kill italian fleet turn 4

even building more fleet every turn it can’t survive

then bring american fleet underneath

Just wondering, how exactly do you get the fleet of subs close enough?  If I see 6 subs off EUS on A1, I’m going to take the Italian fleet back to SZ14 and build 2-3 DDs per turn.  You see, the problem is that you can’t get the subs close enough, because if they go to SZ12, I’m just going to move my fleet there and make them defend.  If you scatter, then I’m just going to block with 1 DD, or take out the front sub with DD+FIG.  There’s nothing you can do to get close enough to the Italian fleet, I can just stall the subs forever and keep building more DD.  If the point is just to lure me out to SZ12 so you can hit the fleet with a plane strike, well, ok, you’ll probably kill the fleet, but at the cost of a bunch of subs and planes.  I’ll take this trade at turn 4+, the fleet has done its job and now it’s all up to Japan.  I still think a surface fleet is the only real way to get the job done on the Italian navy in any sort of cost-efficient manner.