Standard Rules: Japan moving into US Sea Zone before war declared

@Wittmann Thanks :)

as bidding is not a part of the official game, bid rules differ upon who is playing.

i have played hundreds of games of triplea live in the lobby and pbem(play by e-mail) in the old triplea ladder ranking, the vast majority of games i have played are revised, some global, and very few anniversary.  below is what i have seen.

the most common rules that i have played with(near universal amongst triplea players) is
1. bid ipcs can be used to place units pregame
2. units can only be placed in territories or seazones that already have a unit of the same power

rules that i have seen frequently
1. only one bid unit per territory or seazone
2. bid for the alliance that you think is disadvantaged and bid down. (i prefer to use the method used at conventions of bidding for your opponent to play the disadvantaged alliance and bid up.)

rules i have never played or been asked to use but have seen
1. all bid ipc must be spent in units and not added to any powers starting income
2. no bid units to certain powers(such as china)

OK thanks!

If there is a Burmese stack, I almost ALWAYS attack on Round 2 with the intention of taking India round 3 - because I can park my fleet south of Burma (transports loaded to bear) and not have to deal with any blocking by the allies.  21 Fighters vs 10 Infantry, 2 AA Guns (give or take) may sound like a “WTF” moment, but if it means India’s a cake walk, it’s worth losing the 4 or 5 aircraft to clear it.

If there is no Burmese stack, it really depends on what Russia and Australia are doing.  If I can clear out all the potential blockers, then I’ll probably try for India, if I cannot, then I’ll set up my attack on the DEI and Philippines instead.

Just played a game of Global A&A today. I played Japan and Italy, and a friend of mine played germany. I (being used to europe 1940 A&A) said sea lion is a money trap. Now in my opinion sea-lion is twice as effective as a Russian attack, this is because it can eliminate a major allied power very soon in the game. On the other hand if Russia is invaded, than it can offer two quick VCs to the axis cause where a sea-lion would only offer one. So my opinion is split. The one thing I can agree with is that Sea-lion is very viable plan to destroy the allies unlike the lack of time in Europe because of the undivided american attention.

@leddux:

@Krieghund:

@leddux:

can you upgrade the minor complexes to major status paying the 20 IPCs while still neutral?

No.

They changed that rule.

@Frontovik:

@Krieghund:

Territories with Chinese symbols printed on them are original Chinese territories, so Japan may not build major ICs on them.

so it just leaves Korea for an IC?

Yup.  It leaves Korea for a MAJOR IC.  As stated above, Minors can still be placed in foreign soil.

@Flashman:

I was thinking of adding a “Persian Corridor” around here along the lines of the Burma Road.  Being able to use the Caspian would be vital in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor

In our game, the US player moved 4-5 ftr from Persia to Moscow, and inconsciously he remade the history :-)

It’s a fine strategy for the US to take Persia for himself and build there a minor complex to send reinforcements in Russia, and it’s historically accurate.