What is the most unusual/annoying/strange allied bid

@colt45554
That’s a good point, I’ll try that out

I wonder if it is worth taking Norway as USA early on, with USSR assistance in taking Finland. A few things remain unclear:

Does this make USA ineffective against Japan Should USA follow up with a Normandy landing? Or something else?

A few things seem to work though. You can hold Moscow G6, doubtless in part because air can reach Moscow via Finland. Also killing the Scandinavian troops reduces the assault. If Germany kills the USN with the Luftwaffe, it loses too many planes to support the Moscow assault. If it doesn’t kill the USN, it needs to defend Leningrad against an amphibious assault which ties up a bunch of troops.

@Ichabod:

@Sovietishcat:

Since I have joined Triplea, I had more success playing with no bid than bid.

Do you think that’s because when you get a bid you bite off more than you can chew, or did you play the same?

I see you often do Taranto, SZ 96, and Ethiopia. If you don’t change a thing, but still accept a bid and use it just for those battles, then it I’d think you’d be just as successful. Should just increase the odds of those battles. A bid might lead to UK Europe sending fighters to Moscow quicker while the US and company hammer Japan.

Actually I have played differently with no bid and I started to put more pressure in Pacific first and it seems to work out better, because lot of times seems like the Japan player starts panicking and do not know what to do or gets offcourse in their plans… The only time I have struggled is against you Icha :)

USA only makes 17 on the pacific map alone.

I think Japan can take it.

1. Yes.

7. France controls it, until it is taken by an Axis power.

Oh yeah, and isn’t INVADING RUSSIA!!! actually an invasion of a True Neutral country by Germany due to their NON-AGGRESSION PACT they had signed with them in 1939???

HERP.  A.  DERP.

Dumb rule is dumb.

Fighters that are damaged roughly lose around half their abilities @: attack: 2, defense: 2, Movement: 2, they also gain 5 damage points. The reason to this change, was so that players would feel more enthused to strategic bomb knowing they wouldn’t lose a fighter, instead, they could continue using the fighter just at a damaged level. The downgrade in its abilities would be a temporary result until the fighter is repaired at half the price (5 IPCs) of a new fighter.

Fighters that missed or didn’t get hit, are free to return to base like in the OoB rules.

One other thing i forgot to mention, bombers that are not accompanied with escorts are considered ‘locked on’ therefore are subject to interceptor fire @ 1d6 of damage per defending interceptor.

These rules make bombers and interceptors very powerful units. It encourages players to strategic bomb with 2d6 of damage, however there is also the risk of interceptor ‘lock on’ that would minimize the bombers full 2d6 damage potential.

@Krieghund:

It was felt that the number of French troops that were in the region didn’t warrant a full infantry unit.

Okay, that makes sense.  Thanks Krieghund.