G40.2, do u bid for allies? if so…WHY?

I’d agree with everyting said.

I believe that any 2player game should be played with a bid or a handicap based on skill (in a broad sense of the word). We have had players here who believe the axis can’t win, and need a bid of 20. That is probably correct for the way they play the game. That being said, it is an interesting exercise to figure out what the bid would be on an expert level.

One thing that has not been mentioned is the game LL or not?
a LL game has to have a higher bid than a luck game. LL attacks can be optimized a lot better, an a smaller force in needed to ensure a win. Just try to calculate how much you need to be 99 % certain of paris falling in a LL game vs a regular game

Any player can concede for any reason; you just have to learn who throws a hissy fit and who doesn’t.  I’ve had an Allied player forfeit on me after UK ROUND ONE.  Yep, a scramble didn’t go his way, and a couple of bad rolls in the Med and claimed there was “no way back”.  Meh, a win’s a win, but I’m still in it for the long haul with expectations of an epic game.

In general, a sucessful Sealion doesn’t an Axis victory make.  I’ve lost as the Axis after a sucessful Sealion; the Russian player knew what to do and put immense pressure on a front stripped-bare for landing units.  If Japan gets some bad luck and isn’t threatening victory, it’s bad.

That said, i’ve won plenty of times after a good Sealion, so it’s not an unheard of response.

Yep. Global has issues.

I wish the allies had more NOs and japan too, but it would make things more complicated. Maybe just nix a germany or italy NO.

@MadPup77:

You don’t have to wait a turn to hit Japan. You place them, next turn they’re in SZ 6. You place them in SZ 10, next turn Hawaii, next turn SZ 6.

-MadPup77

If you put a NB in Alaska, they can move in 1 turn into SZ 6, via SZ 8 and SZ 7.

I do not like the idea of having Japan need all those territories for an NO.  There are so many avenues of attack, it seems hard to imagine Japan getting the NO for more than a round and if they did, then they would be in a position that they would not need it.

I feel it may be a better solution if Japan were to have an NO for Hong Kong (Kwangtung), Manilla (Philippines) and Kiangsu (Beijing).  The problem is, those are all victory cities, so wouldn’t Japan already be going for those?

Maybe Alaska would be better, since Japan actually did invade Alaska (Aluetian Islands) historically.

With the relative ease of taking London and Calcutta (in opposition to Sydney and Muskva) it seems better to go after England

But beyond that, if you take London, you negate all of England’s income, even if you cannot take the territories!  Worse yet, Calcutta can take stuff and can liberate stuff on the Atlantic map, but can never collect for it, so you’ve effectively, permanently ended England.

Just my current thoughts, I reserve the right to change my mind with little to no notice and for whatever reason I so choose. (Woman’s perogative.)

Yes, of course. Feel free to load them up FieldMarshal and if there are any improvements or corrections, let me know and I’ll fix em up quick. Glad you guys like em.  :-D

Cheers man thats awesome……by chance where abouts in NZ do you live?