Axis bid to Japan Rather than Germany?

If it’s a large bid, you can throw the allies off track by putting infantry in Indochina, then driving right to Persia with 6-7 infantry, and force Russia to put troops in Manchuria.

Edit!!! Ment to say put troops in Cauc

I had the same thought:
In europe, any additional unit is a relative small gain, while in the east, it’s relatively large. So, if you put an additional two or three Infs to japan, they surely may attack one more country to your gusto, speeding up the attack on russia. Germany, on the other hand, has to go “all-defense” in europe (this can include pre-emptive strikes of course).

Next time i play Axis with a bid, i would surely try to push Japan with it.

Re: Bids

Are you playing RR or ‘normal’.

In RR, it is essential to put all you get in Libya. That is the only hope for keeping Germany in the game.

In ‘normal’ games with a bid, you usually get 5, 6, or 7 units. In those games, it is quite common to give Japan 1 or 2 of the units, either in Manch or Kwang to defend against the Manch/Kwang surprise. Sometimes in Burma as well, which gives you a good hit in Sinkiang. India is rather irrelevant, since by the time you graduate to bids, the Allies rarely even bother trying to hold India.

The problem with the bids for Japan is that they have limited initial effect. Placing a couple in Manch just means that the USSR retreats to Novo on USSR 1, so there is no big hit on Yakut for Japan. Assuming the Allies follow an orderly retreat pattern, the extra Jap guys rarely actually combat anyone prior to J3, or later.

In RR the extra two Japs is of minimal effect, rather akin to did the US get 1, 2, or 3 hits in China on its defence? But for Germany, those 2 extra guys is critical for Africa.

In ‘normal’ bid games, an extra 1-2 units for Japan is worthwhile to prevent the Kwang surprise as noted. Anything more than that is generally acknowledged to be better used by the German. A few people have experimented with Power Asia bids, putting all 5, 6 or 7 units in Asia, but with minimal success. The retreat for the Allies and the Jap supply line distances just diminish the effect.

Nevertheless……experiment…find what works for you :)

SUD

I really dont know what the heck anyone is talking about. Please explain what these “bids” are? :) thanx

Suppose 2 players wanna play A&A and they both wanna play as allies. You got a problem then don’t you? :) Anyhow it’s solved by bids. 1st person says 8, 2nd says 6, 1st one passes. The outcome is that the 2nd player gets to play the axis and receives an additional 6 ipc (bid=6). These 6 ipc’s are spent on troops (like 2 infantry) and these are placed on the board.

Quick further explanation - this is based on the consideration that the game is weighted in favor of the Allies, and unless you are an excellent Axis playing a sub-optimal Allies, you will typically lose under “normal” game conditions, and even “Russia Restricted” conditions.

@greensleeves_16:

Suppose 2 players wanna play A&A and they both wanna play as allies. You got a problem then don’t you? :) Anyhow it’s solved by bids. 1st person says 8, 2nd says 6, 1st one passes. The outcome is that the 2nd player gets to play the axis and receives an additional 6 ipc (bid=6). These 6 ipc’s are spent on troops (like 2 infantry) and these are placed on the board.

oh thankx I was wondering too as I got the 2nd edition game

thanks for the explanation

I am trying to convince my friends that the russia restricted rule is needed for a fair game but they wont believe me. I would really appreciate it if someone could thouroughly explain why this rule is needed so that I may be able to print it out and show them. :-? -Thanx

let’s take a rough scenario where there is no RR. Now to begin the value of the incomes in favor of the allies (allies - 90, axis 57) with a value of the pieces in favor of the axis (axis 319, allies 298). Now let Russia attack the UKR. Assuming a conservative force and approximate odds, the Germans lose 2 arm, 1 ftr and 3 men (allies 289, axis 288). Now the allies start w/ both a unit disadvantage and massive income disadvantage (93-54). Now these numbers are largely meaningless when one considers “position” “ability to grab territory”, etc. At the same time, too look at it another way - For Russia to lose 3-4 inf, it gets to kill 2 arm, 3 inf, and a ftr. Ger never buys another fighter, and it is loathe to buy another arm this early in the game. Add to the fact that it’s Fin crew never really get going, and you have a very sorry early Axis. If you like, i could demonstrate to you in a game just how unreasonable it is to be the axis in a game of no bid, no RR.
(i don’t condone looking at value of units as a yardstick for “how well one is doing”, but it sounds like your friends require that kind of logic if they can not see otherwise how the game is balanced against the axis)

Also, along with what CC has pointed out, the loss of an irreplaceable ftr makes it that much harder to eliminate the allied navy when Ger finally gets to go and there is the possible loss of Germanys ships in the Baltic before she gets to even use them.

Hey Guys thanx a lot for your help :D
I’ll let you know if my friends come to their senses

Usually, my first move as russia without RR would be “get EE surely”. Then all aggression of germany towards the east is stalled, and the western allies have all the time in the world to “come for help”… with the losses in units and money about the same for germany as if losing UKR.

You’re right, of course F_alk. I consider:

1. Norway - It’s a sitting duck, and Germany will never retake it. This i usually leave until round 2 (unless i think i can take it w/ UK in round 1).
2. EEU - forces Germany to fall back on herself leaving UKR ripe for the pickin’s.
3. UKR - all the benefits of taking the other ones, however it robs Ger of one extra arm, and creates a handier “dead zone”. Your one guy sitting on CAU has an easier time of taking it w/ ftr support, etc.

@Soon_U_Die:

Attacking Ukr on R1 is far superior to attacking EE.

As you might have noticed, i don’t agree with that. Your fist buy as russia would be 1 tank plus inf, and the EE-gambit can go on for a very long time. Norway usually then is the first target for the western allies: with a double punch each round it should not survive round two. Taken by the US, they can build an IC there.

I think, attacking EE puts germany on the defense extremely early, taking their initiative, letting them only react to your moves and not the other way round.

yeah but when russia attacks first all of that doesn’t really matter now does it :-?

oh ok
I was blaying a bid game the other day and it was suprisingly equal but…
I was Germany, America took japan through obsenely bad rolls by japan and stupidity of my partner but… Two turns later BAM I took moscow and england Same Turn :) so then it was me against america but he conceded for some reason :-?
it was a really close game though but even through all that they say that they’ll never play with bids or RR ever again :x
What a bunch of freaken Noobs eh :-?
oh well I’ll just have to have them play axis for once to show them just how evenly matched and unbias the game is :wink:

heh heh heh

if someone is playing me and refuses to play with a bid and/or rr, i now say “well, if you think it’s that balanced, then would you mind if i played the Allies?”

Yeah, a couple of games as the axis should teach them the lesson. Having Germany surrounded by 3 allies in round 4 is no fun.

whilst i agree that the axis have a disadvantage in a vanilla game with no bids and no RR, i do not think that the odds are insurmountable. A bit like having the white pieces in chess - an advantage for sure, but black can and often does win. i also think that attacking first with Russia on turn 1 is a big mistake. assuming an attack in UKR then depending on what Russia made the attack with (and hence what was left in UKR) then I would either counterattack Karelia or Ukraine back. I would attack UKR if Russia had used a lot of tanks and therefore were left behind in UKR. Else I would attack Karelia.