What to do with the bid?

There are three TT’s within reach of Korea.
What stops Japan to clean up Korea and conquer East Russia?
A J 1 might be off the table, but you just handed over Russia.

The starting bid should go to the Med where it makes a significant impact.
Toranto Raid and Tobruk run can be managed simultaniously.

It does not garant an easy win for the Allies but it reduces the pressure immense and allows minor mistakes made by the Allies…

Calcutta not falling for a J-3 India Crush … is a good trade off.

AEV, problem is that if Bid is too Mediterranean focused, then Japan gets a free pass.
  J-1 if done correctly , piles on the Axis pressure and compounds the Allied misery … mainly by taking India out of the game by J3…stopping help to Chinese or Egypt/Middle East.
  With $10 for Far East… killing Korea… killing Mainland Japanese Inf and a FTR… forcing Japan to respond … takes some pressure off India.

If G-1 build was a Navy… then USSR has a choice to keep the 12 remaining Far East Soviets in Buryatia… (evacuate Amur)…maybe send the 3 planes to Yakut…  If Japan bring in the 6 Inf+ Art+ Mech into Amur from Manchuria… USSR threatens to wipe them out.

If Japan goes about normal J-1 DOW, and just kills Korea… and Air Power moves South… then USSR goes 2,3,4,5 - Amur, Manchuria, Jehol, Anhwe threatening Shanghai and HongKong (giving Chinese extra help) or at least… restraining the Manchurian army in Korea/Manchuria…
Without anything to threaten from the North… The Manchurian  horde can walk to India or through China into USSR… which on J5-J6 causes major headaches for Allies.

The Soviet Far East Bid is mainly to reduce the chances of Axis Pacific win…

As far as Europe goes… use the remaining $10 Bid there … an Art in Sudan, should take care of Ethiopia… Sub in SZ 98 helps Taranto or Malta… (dep on SeaLion threat)
  Doing Ethiopia cleanse takes care of 33% problems in Africa for UK.

The advantage of a Med bid, with respect to the Pacific, is that if Allies can take out the Italy fleet in the first few turns, that frees up USA to go after Japan.

A Siberia bid to Russia seems suboptimal because while taking out some units in Korea might help, you’re forfeiting the Mongolia troops on the first turn.  Unless its a hardcore KJF where you’re putting tons of pressure on Japan, this could give Japan an opportunity to make some extra money in Siberia.

An extra mech on Burma is a good investment.  Extra infantry for UK Pacific and China can also be effective if used strategically.  But as bids I don’t rate them as highly as extra UK subs in 98, 91, 110 etc.  Those extra subs are great protection against round 1 dicings and make it very hard for an Italy fleet to survive.

@MeinHerr:

Calcutta not falling for a J-3 India Crush … is a good trade off.

Not convinced that what you propose would achieve that outcome. And you’re sure to lose the survivors of the Korea assault J1 leaving only 12 inf 2 AAA to defend Amur - assuming you don’t run units back to Moscow.

Unless you think that going Crussia is a better option for Japan that going for an India crush - then why are you making it easier for them to go that way?

I’m not sure I like the Siberia plan much, but it’s an option to be considered. But if I’d try it, I’d rather buy a fighter in Buryatia instead of a tank. The tank will die in Korea no matter what, but the fighter can make it back and make itself useful later on, either against Japan or by moving it back west. And there’s still 6 IPC left for that much-needed SZ98 sub.

That is, if we’re assuming a 20 IPC bid. Lately I’ve been reading that the Allies need more.

If the Far East Russians run away to Moscow… the Mongolians may never get activated… or get activated too late.

Timing is the key in this game.  Axis generally controls the tempo… there are few occasions for Allies to do so…    The Korea attack is one of them.

@Zhukov44:

The advantage of a Med bid, with respect to the Pacific, is that if Allies can take out the Italy fleet in the first few turns, that frees up USA to go after Japan.

A Siberia bid to Russia seems suboptimal because while taking out some units in Korea might help, you’re forfeiting the Mongolia troops on the first turn.  Unless its a hardcore KJF where you’re putting tons of pressure on Japan, this could give Japan an opportunity to make some extra money in Siberia.

An extra mech on Burma is a good investment.  Extra infantry for UK Pacific and China can also be effective if used strategically.  But as bids I don’t rate them as highly as extra UK subs in 98, 91, 110 etc.  Those extra subs are great protection against round 1 dicings and make it very hard for an Italy fleet to survive.

When there are 12 Inf in Buryatia… (with 2 FTR+TB in Yakut - striking range) … and Japan has to take back Korea… and also Amur… it will have to commit not just the Manchurian troops… it will have to commit the TRs.

Once the TRs move North… (only 2 can)…then they are out of position…at least for 1 turn.
The initial strike potential using the TRs if used up North… where there are  $1 territories, no ports, no airbases , no Capitols…is a good thing for Allies.

If they over-commit to Amur… wanting to do Crussia… then they do so without 4 Infantry + FTR  (and possibly, 2-3 less…as they have to take Korea back). They have Max ability to put in only 4 more units in Amur… as only 2 TRs can reach there on J-1…

Remember… the Soviets can just decide to hold the line with their 12+2 AAA in Yakut SSR…  then Japanese will then on J-2 have to land all their planes there… and there will be a 1 Hex withdrawal a turn…  this is sure to burn Japan in the long run.

If Germany has bought a Fleet on G-1… and Japan does the above moves… then… prospects of Axis win are reduced.

@simon33:

@MeinHerr:

Calcutta not falling for a J-3 India Crush … is a good trade off.

Not convinced that what you propose would achieve that outcome. And you’re sure to lose the survivors of the Korea assault J1 leaving only 12 inf 2 AAA to defend Amur - assuming you don’t run units back to Moscow.

Unless you think that going Crussia is a better option for Japan that going for an India crush - then why are you making it easier for them to go that way?

The point of the tank is two-fold….

1. If the Korea attack is very successful … and say the survivors are 3-4 Inf + Art+ Tank in Korea… Japan will have to commit greater resources to taking it.
2. The $4 that is saved… goes toward ensuring Ethiopia is killed off with the Art in Sudan.  This is pretty important too.

Yes… thrift and economy is desired… but… the early goals are such that this is these are the best choices available.

Tempo is the key in this game… esp for Japan if they are going J-1.

Almost Every single initial unit, TRs, Planes, and ships have their stated purpose and goals… when Japan does a J-1 DOW… on W. Allies.

Screwing up the movement of a variety of these …as well as forcing them in a direction that does not hold promise… as well as then reducing the movement potential in the subsequent turn… are all small wins for the Allies… much appreciated by the player playing India , China and Anzac.

Lastly… US can comfortably go about its business… and not under pressure… that a J-1 usually puts on it.

@Herr:

I’m not sure I like the Siberia plan much, but it’s an option to be considered. But if I’d try it, I’d rather buy a fighter in Buryatia instead of a tank. The tank will die in Korea no matter what, but the fighter can make it back and make itself useful later on, either against Japan or by moving it back west. And there’s still 6 IPC left for that much-needed SZ98 sub.

That is, if we’re assuming a 20 IPC bid. Lately I’ve been reading that the Allies need more.

Come off it MeinHerr. The fighter is clearly better than the tank unless the 4IPC difference is going to something more important.

It’s an interesting theory but I honestly think that there are so many other things better to do with the bid than this.

fighter scotland for the full scramble.

sub in the medit sea is always a thing.

inf in new guinea is good stuff.

arty for the attack on ethiopia is a thing.

if the g1 dow is giving you problems try an arty for russia to attack finland.

1 inf in france can force germany to do just france (and usually cuts into the mech that down the line would attack Russia)

In some triplea live games, I played against a guy who gave his bid to Russia. Art to Amur and than tanks to the 2 other siberians territores. On R1 he crushed Korea and got fair dice. Than he defended with fair dice in Korea. Along with that he did a KJF all out effort stacking Yunnan with UK and China; just shoving everything everywhere.

Mainly my poor game abilities; but Japan was overwhelmed quickly and fell apart. UK got the right amount of fighters to Moscow in time for the US to switch to building in the Atlantic side.

Maybe not in a PBEM game where you have the ability to study the board and battle calc out several countries’ turns, but in live play I think there is something to be said about Russia using a bid to attack Japan.

The problem with bidding 6 infantry for Moscow is that it’s passive, long-term, and dice-dependent. In some games, Moscow will hold just fine even without the 6 infantry. In some games, Moscow is doomed even with 6 extra infantry. In some games, adding 6 infantry will give you an extra 30% chance to hold Moscow, but you will still get diced. It’s actually pretty rare that putting 6 infantry in Moscow will swing the outcome of the game. Even when the infantry are decisive, they usually don’t result in a change in who controls what territories in the early game. If you put subs up Italy’s butt, then you drop Italy’s middle-game income from ~25 IPCs all the way down to 5 IPCs, and you probably also boost the UK’s income. If you put infantry in Moscow, then you don’t drop Germany’s middle-game income at all, and you probably don’t boost the USSR’s income.

If you hold Moscow but do not otherwise stop the growth of at least one Axis power, then you lose the economic race in the endgame. If Germany is earning 80 IPCs (easy enough with Norway, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Caucasus), Italy is earning 30 IPCs (Egypt, Greece, Med, Iraq, Persia), and Japan is earning 65 IPCs (China, India, money islands), then the Axis are at 175 IPCs, and the Allies just can’t match that. You get maybe 15 IPCs from Russia, 15 from ANZAC, 30 from UK, and 80 from USA = 140 IPCs total. So it’s not enough to hold Moscow; you also have to shut down the Axis growth somewhere.

Maybe America can contain Japan and roll back Italy while UK flies fighters to Moscow…but that’s risky; you make a mistake or you lose a 50-50 battle, and then you lose the game.

If you’ve got a 20 IPC bid to play with, better to use it on something more certain, like 2 subs and a DD for Taranto (Kill Italy First), or artillery & tank in Siberia, infantry in Yunnan, artillery in Szechuan, and infantry in New Guinea (Kill Japan First). Those purchases start paying dividends from the very first turn, and they decisively swing a lot of small but important battles for high-value territories.

I have never seen the point of bids that are meant for a turn 1 attack on Tobruk. If you can win control of the Mediterranean (and with 2 subs for Taranto, you definitely can), then the Italian forces in Libya are no threat at all to Egypt. If they don’t win through to Cairo, they’re not going to do anything important. At most, they conquer 3 IPCs in French North Africa for a couple of turns before getting wiped out by Americans who would want to stop over in Morocco anyway on their way to Rome. Similarly, gaining British control of Libya doesn’t do anything exciting for you – it’s 1 IPC. People freak out over the north African campaign, but it’s just a bunch of yawning, empty desert. It’s not strategically important.

Same thing with bidding an artillery in Sudan – yes, if you really want to, you can take out Ethiopia early, but it’s only worth 1 IPC. Italy only has 4 units in East Africa, and if you keep control of the Mediterranean and Cairo, then Italy has no way of getting any reinforcements down there. The French infantry in West Africa and the British infantry in South Africa have nothing better to do than contain the Italians in East Africa, and you can build more units in South Africa as needed, and/or send the tank from Alexandria south to help out. You can pick off the Italians in East Africa any time you like – there’s really no need to rush that attack. You will collect your UK Europe on turn 1 no matter what you do, and you will miss your UK Europe NO on turn 2 no matter what you do, and you will wipe out the Italians in East Africa and collect your UK Europe NO on turn 4 no matter what you do, so taking Ethiopia early flips your NO for, at best, one turn. This is not the kind of high-priority target that justifies a bid.

@Argothair:

The problem with bidding 6 infantry for Moscow is that it’s passive, long-term, and dice-dependent.

I haven’t seen anyone give an 18 IPCs bid to Russia in the form of infantry to be used against Russia. I guess Russia could be free for aggressive purchases than.

The allies would have to come for Germany for a few rounds in the beginning I guess to make this bid useful.

Stating this as more of a game test than a challenge.

Next game Weddingsinger that I’m axis against you (could be a non-league game), you can have 18 IPCs (6 infantry for Russia, league placement rules).

I think Germany will stack Baltic on G2, occupy Leningrad on G3, and then build on Leningrad G4 (my usual Barbarossa route).

However, if you also simultaneously send over lots of US transports and enough fleet to protect…start doing landings, than Germany might run into trouble when deep into Russia or lose key positions like Normandy / Norway.

In order to shape what the bid is intended to do, but retain it, I think that Russia should simply get 4 infantry and 1 armor anywhere, and 1 extra fighter on Moscow.    Because the bid is hard to apply and understand for new players and interferes with team selection, and Russia is the primary point of imbalance in the game, it should probably be a preset tweak to Russia, then, if desired, you bid.  I don’t really think the above alone goes far enough, if it went a bit farther, you could bid from that starting point and in theory the axis might get a small bid to counterbalance a tenably defensible russia.

We’ve tried some different modding but the most direct and simple way to make sense of the imbalance at this point is to

Reduce all the Axis territory capture bonuses from 5 to 3
Add BM air interception
Add some Russian units (28 bid)

I think Germany will stack Belarus on G2, occupy Leningrad on G3, and then build on Leningrad G4 (my usual Barbarossa route).

However, if you also simultaneously send over lots of US transports and enough fleet to protect…start doing landings, than Germany might run into trouble when deep into Russia or lose key positions like Normandy / Norway.

Fwiw, I agree with your analysis…and my point is that a US foothold in Normandy and Norway isn’t enough compensation for a runaway Italy and Japan. Normandy, Norway, and the iron ore NO are a regional swing of 15 IPCs (+5 for USA, -10 for Germany). If you figure that having a strong US force in northern Atlantic puts pressure on Germany to buy more infantry for the Western front in ways that cost Germany progress in the east, you can give Germany another -10 IPCs, for a total swing of 25 IPCs.

Meanwhile, Italy owns the Med, is collecting New Roman Empire, and is not getting convoyed – that right there is a swing of +20 IPCs for Italy and probably about -2 IPCs for Allies. Japan takes and holds the money islands, which is +19 IPCs for Japan and -14 IPCs for Allies, even without counting New Guinea. So the Axis are down 25 IPCs for Germany, but they’re up about 55 IPCs for Italy and Japan relative to where they would be if you bid a pair of British subs in the Med and some infantry for Yunnan and New Guinea.

Taamvan, I think your proposed “standard bid” would get you an interesting historical simulation, but it wouldn’t make for very exciting gameplay…by protecting Moscow, reducing the German income, and reducing the German ability to bomb out the Russian income, you make it nearly impossible for Germany to conquer or even neutralize Russia, even if Germany focuses 100% on Barbarossa. Without the possibility of a dead-or-crippled Russia, I think Global loses most of its spark. The UK can afford to surrender Cairo and stockpile infantry in London, Persia, Iraq, and South Africa. The USA can put 100% of its assets into the Pacific and grind Japan down. Meanwhile, Russia casually shrugs off German assaults, holds Moscow + Archangel + Stalingrad, and makes almost the same trades every turn until Tokyo falls on turn 9 or 10.