What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

If there’s one thing I’ve learned it’s that for allies there are no half measures…

At least playing against equal or stronger opponents

In any case, Japan must be crushed (above all) as well as Italy.

If you aim for a KGF and let Japan rage in the Pacific there is always the risk that with a coup they will be able to take the 6 VC and the game is over… even if the Allies are close to taking Rome or Berlin

Of course if you only tighten up on the Pacific perhaps also using the Russians (right @MrRoboto? :))… you have to be very organized in Europe to avoid Hitler arriving in Cairo (or London)…

Very expert players are able to do this of course… but in my opinion there is always a percentage of risk that the game predicts (like all clashes on A&A) but which you can try to avoid.

And above all the Allies should fight in a more aggressive way (which I have not yet learned to do) but not recklessly… aggressive in the sense of making the Axis risk more than necessary in certain battles (land and naval) because otherwise the the outcome is almost always for the Central Powers of the board.

Stratbombers and Dark Skies are so flexible and effective, that buying up to 6 is optimal play.  Strategic bombing is a bit too powerful OOB because Russia has little defense.  But on top of that, the 6 range and cheap cost makes them a bit overpowered–they are one of the few units that can consistently reach some interesting target the turn after they are built.

After almost 200 games in the last 3 years, I need to try new things.

Thanks, ColonelCarter!

Those comments make a lot of sense to me.

I can’t remember exactly why I didn’t attack that German fleet that was left without aircover, but I do remember I looked at the possibility. Probably was scared about the axis combination: IT3 take Egypt->GE4 has a NB and can reach Gibraltar from there. Any FTR that attacked that little fleet would be unable to defend Gibraltar. I must admit though, loosing Gibraltar to GE4 would have been perfectly acceptable in this situation (I could have left it completely empty). My bad ;-). Glad I can comfort myself this was not a very crucial mistake of some sorts :-D. Same for the Rhodesian INF.

I guess it all boils down to: put more pressure onto the Japanese First (a lot of people give this advice). And by the way I LOVE your tips about how to do so in the Pac. That will alter the way the Japanese can execute their plans. It’s so easy to forget USN is not ‘glued to their coast’ and Queensland is a valid staging point even when not at war.

The only thing I don’t like is that this will (again!) force the allies into a Pacific Focus. I suspect this must be some ‘revenge’ of the developers for all those years (in the 1st edition) the allies were able to execute their historic plans of ‘Europe First’  :|.

I’d be curious about a minor in Egypt paired with successful Taranto. Egypt would be pretty hard to get without Germany sending considerable resources.

Thank you for the answers. I just needed to be sure

Yes, here:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20043.0

@Funcioneta:

They will attack each other first round 90% of games if you don’t agree a penalty for the attacker … something like 15 or 20 IPCs. Higher penalty -> later attack

Not sure about that 90% on turn 1, but sooner or later, they certainly will atack!

USSR/France/UK.
US/ANZAC/China