What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@Young:

I don’t mean to derail the topic, I just want some opinions about my own house rule NOs for G40 balance… please PM me with any comments about the following NOs so that we can keep this thread about Balance Mod.

Thanks.

New & Modified National Objectives

Germany (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if an Axis power controls London

Soviet Union (2 NOs which will replace the original National Prestige NO)
-5 IPCs if there are no Axis warships in sea zone #125, and the Allies control Archangel as well as London
-5 IPCs if there are no Allied units on any original Russian territories

Japan (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if Japan controls all original Chinese territories

United States (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the United States are at war with the Axis powers

UK Europe (in addition to all original NOs)

5 IPCs if there are no German submarines anywhere on the board other than in the Baltic Sea (sea zones 113-115), the Black Sea (100), and the Caspian Sea (unnumbered)

ANZAC (in addition to all original NOs)
-5 IPCs if the Allies control Cairo (when at war with Germany/Italy)

Grasshopper, Germany already gets +5 for controlling UK in Balance Mod (its “+5 if Axis control EITHER UK or Egypt” now)

Only on triplea have I had the pleasure of successfully pulling off Sea Lion. I’d love to do it on a table top game. The most recent time I had I think 8 tanks standing. No loss of aircraft as hits (2 fighters due to an AAA gun hit). I left the tanks there to really make it costly for the US to liberate London. My team won the game…London didn’t get liberated until like round 11. It was a very long game.

I prefer Barbarossa, but if the UK hands London a silver platter because it got too aggressive…then it needs to get punished. I don’t care what anyone says, no allies player like the advantage of London being knocked out for several turns. I’m not going to G2 purchase of a Sea Lion if several factors occur of course. But if Sea Lion is done right, the US has to respond and Japan has the chance to rage. Also, if Germany DOWs at the right moment, Russia can be pushed away from E. Poland (which I think is the critical position to keep Russia from getting to). They will come back, but then Germany might have the chance to get in position to start pushing Russia back from the border territories. Scandinavia might fall for a time being. Private Panic mentions losing a battle with favorable odds. That’s not going to occur on a regular basis.

If the UK gets really aggressive in it’s spending in the middle east UK1 and Sea Lion doesn’t occur, then in those situations I have a very difficult time overcoming a substantially large stack of UK fighters.

When our group gets together, we usually have 6 players:
#1 = Germany
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC
#6 = Italy

5 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC

4 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = Japan
#4 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

3 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

2 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

1 Player:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan/Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

Okay, that last one was just a goof. It’s late and I’m getting silly now. Later all.

@Cow:

Get the African NOs for Russia as well. African NOs are very important for Russia.

Agreed wholeheartedly!
I must admit though, I’m still a little in doubt about when to take them and when not to.

For example, if Germany is doing SeaLion it seems better not to (correct me if I’m wrong)? If Russia goes there (early) in this situation, it has just too few units to start contesting Eastern Europe and/or Scandinavia RU3 (assuming GE did sortie into London). Contesting those area’s with Germany seems better than getting into Africa, since the Russian profit is the same or even higher but it also denies Germany valuable IPCs. Maybe in this case get the African NO’s at a later point?

In all the other situations I’d go for African NO’s (except perhaps a G1 DOW?).

@variance:

@builder_chris2:

maybe i just need to face up to the fact that the reason the games i play in seem to be so diffeernt is me and the dudes i game with msut suck no matter who plays the axis, cuzz most of our face to face games result in an allied win and we play with no bid.

The axis only have the advantage for the first half dozen rounds or so.  After that America kicks into high gear, so the longer your games go on (like 10-15 rounds or more), the greater the allied advantage will become. Â

True only if the Axis don’t close or pass the Allies on the Economic gap by that time or maybe 1 or 2 rounds after.

@Spendo02:

@Krieghund:

The US cannot win this battle.  The fighters will continue to defend in the air until the battle is over.  The Japanese fighters and US subs can’t hit each other, so the fighters will sink transports until the US retreats.  If the US wishes to conduct this amphibious assault, it must bring units that are capable of hitting the fighters.

This is one of those unique situations where you are required to take Trn as losses before subs because that is all the unit can hit?

Yes.  They just need to be the only legal selection for a loss.  That might mean that planes have no other target (like this example), or that Sub hits have no other ship targets, or that the defenders hit everything else in a round of combat and need to assign some more hits before the defender retreats.  Remember, the defender still has the option to retreat, if they can, and transports are only automatically destroyed when they’re attacked, not when attacking (unless the attacker has no place to retreat).

I am kind of interested in what people are having trouble with these 18 inf that russia can throw towards japan? I think those 18 inf are a lot less annoying than say giving brittain more troops, though giving china more troops at the expense of russia’s 18 inf might be a good change. I honestly like it when Russia keeps her 18 inf on the japan border or near it (18 inf and 2 aa guns less for germany to kill in moscow). If you weaken russia’s power here too much it might be worth it for japan to attack russia’s north. Maybe a good way to test it would be to make a house rule where russia looses 6 inf in the east and china gains 6 inf, but you can only put 1 inf per territory. I don’t know if letting china have the Burma road from the start of the game would be fair for japan? US going 100% japan for first couple turns might prove impossible for japan to beat it china is now significantly stronger with those 4 extra inf yunan plus the extra money and possibility of buying artillery. I see japan as being much weaker on the land since china will be more than just a pain, but a real threat and japan will have to buy more ground to compensate making japans navy weaker and in turn making US’s navy that much stronger. I haven’t played and extensive amount of games, so what do people think about the pacific side of the board and those 18 russian inf? Are you guys having a hard time beating japan as the allies, or keeping japan in check?

Yes