Please explain 'bids'

In my experience, KGF is not surefire in 1941 setup.

If you have a meticulous player for Japan and a player with a good strategy for Germany, The Allies focusing entirely on Germany Leaves Japan free to roll over Asia.

Fast forward to 1944/45 And the Allies circling in on Germany.  Yes, Germany will likely fall, but if Japan has meticulously managed her troops up to this point, Russia will have fallen or be about to fall to hoards of Japanese tanks.

My experience is that in any 1941 game with strong players, something has to be done to slow down Japan before she becomes a juggernaught, and this take away from the KGF.

Of course, this is my opinion only and my group of players is 6 strong leading to a heavy bias due to the low sample number.

@DarthMaximus:

But I don’t know if that battle is all that relevant.  The bom placement may be overrated.  So what if you slow down Japan.  Sub bid of six kills 1 J trn and there is no risk of not hitting and you could still place 2 inf elsewhere.
Germany is the main early threat.  Assuming no Russian ground units bid.  Ger takes the 3 Russian territories on G1.  G2 have a shot at holding Kar.  Even if they only trade, they can still stack Bel on G3.  Russia now has to defend Mos.  G4 you move to Euk.  Now Cauc and Mos have to be defended.  G5 you take cauc.
Obviously this is a bit simplistic but I don’t think the loss of 2 trns and a J dd is that big of a deal if the Russian front is collapsing.

I don’t know Darth. Slowing Japan’s expansion to a crawl and allowing Russia to focus entirely on Germany for the first 5 rounds or so goes a long way.

I’m assuming an aggressive G1.  Taking out Sz 2 and Sz 9.  If we are playing the odds game, the odds for these G1 attacks will go further in deciding the game then the 56% odds the Russian bom has.

I don’t know about that either. taking out 2 TP’s and a DD before Japan even gets a chance to use them is pretty crippling. Even sinking just the sz62 TP limits japan a bit.

I’d much rather have 4 units on the Russian front, then the bom.

That’s a matter of personal preference, though. The bomber bid gives Russia multiple options while the infantry bid only has 1 option(defending against Germany). The bomber is essentially an opportunistic unit. It can provide support for Allied interdiction of Japan’s navy as well as supporting it’s ground troops in the area if you see an opening to be aggressive on the ground. And the bomber will start saving Russia units in trades against Germany once it returns from the Pacific.

@CdnRanger:

Russia would have to send a couple of Inf (needed desperately at the front without a Russian ground unit bid) by Rus2 to India to protect it, and perhaps Uk lands the Egypt Fighter there (if it has survived the attack from Germany)

The US can also provide air support to India on US2 if they landed aircraft in Australia on US1.

The India crush by Japan is nasty but it gives China an extra round or two of survival, as Japan needs to go light on Phi, and the 3 Inf in Fic that took Burma are needed to attack and hold India turn 2.

The India crush also draws away a lot of Japan’s navy which the US and Russia can sometimes exploit in the North(threatening sz62 with air and navy, Russian ground attacks into China from Bury, etc)

As this topic has fallen asleep, I want to discuss the allied bidding strategies in aa50-41, no tech, low-luck, bid: 13 IPC

I - Russian fighter

a) fighter on the western front, maybe on Caucasus to eventually kill the German transport in the med or to Karelia to make a German assault to expensive (high losing risk and forgoing too many other targets) and eventually killing the lone German transport (if the cruiser attacked the UK destroyer)

The 3 IPC left can be used for any allied country, e.g. an infantry in Egypt

b) fighter on the eastern front to Buryatia to kill the transport in SZ 62

b1) With 3 IPC go to the US and buy an infantry on the Philippines, land the fighter there. 3 Inf + 1 Fighter is hard for Japan lacking one transport and having no shore bombardment
b2) With the 3 IPC go to UK, e.g. Egypt, land in Yakut und go to the western front against Germany
b3) With an infantry bid in Burma or India: land in Yunnan. Yes, this is a sacrifice, but 3 Inf + 2 Fighters just allow the Japanese to clear the country, but probably not conquer it. This will slow the Japanese very much in moving against India.

II Anti-Manchuria

Bid: 1 Inf to Buryatia and 1 tank to Soviet far east and one to Stanovoj C.

attack Manchuria with 4 Inf + 2 Tanks - 2,5 units left is the expected result in low luck, means 2 tanks or 2 tank + 1 inf
a hard punch against Japan but no bid for Africa/Europe

III-UK fleet

IIIa destroyer in SZ2

While SZ 2 is still attractive, only 2 subs + fighter + bomber is a safe deal.
Which means Germany has to sacrifice one fighter in SZ 12 for at least one battle round to secure the Italian fleet.

IIIb destroyer in SZ12

in SZ 12 the italien fleet is endangered severely so Germany must attack here.
both attacks, SZ 2 with 1 sub+fighter+bomber and at the same time SZ12 with sub+2 fighter make both somewhat risky, probably losing a fighter for Germany too.

the 5 IPC remaining will probably be a UK tank in Egypt or a Russian tank on the front against Germany

IIIc a sub in SZ12 and a sub in SZ 35

the one in SZ 12 is to threaten Italy, while the one in SZ 35 wants to harrass Japanese ships or lone transports

Buying both at the same time is one option, the other is buy only of of those subs and some ground units

IV - pro Russia

buy any units for Russia for 13 IPC placing them on the front with Germany

V pro UK

buy any units for 13 IPC for UK, maybe to strengthen either India oder Egypt/Africa

Have I missed some good allied bids ?

players have experienced with a allied inf bid in asia

Bid is +9 IPC of which it is exactly 3 infantry units which may be placed on any one territory or any combination of territories east of the Arc, Mos, Kaz, Per line which already has at least 1 land unit on it, or any Chinese territory including Chinese territories which are empty (of course Russian units on Russian territories, Chinese units on Chinese territories, and so on)  So you could place 3 UK infantry in India if you wish, 3 Chinese infantry in Yunnan, or even 3 infantry in Hawaii or something like that.

This makes for a fun game

The rules as you state them are correct.  The only way you wouldn’t be able to load and then unload a transport on the same turn is when you load your units on to one of your allies transports then you must wait until the next turn to unload them.  I think if transports worked the way you wanted them to industrial complexes would become very popular in this game.

Japan because it’s as if a modern day army/navy was brought back through time and is virtually unstopable. I’m surprised Japan didn’t come with Cruise missiles and M1 Abrams tanks.

@atarihuana:

ive seen many people hit sz56 yet often i refuse to do this and rather send 4 fighter to the BB for a clean kill. i dislike sending my only naval fodder unit to get killed round 1. also the british DD / TN off india gets kiled and the planes are in range.  the CA would  be at phillipines or at sz51 with the carriers.  so even if it is a tradeoff and i loose my BB, CA, DD  i still have 3 carriers + my naval builds while US has its remaining subs. not good.

since US has invested most to all of its money in the pacific its no big deal if it takes one more turn to take australia or india.

I had considered this as well.

I have even attempted it a couple of times.

I even thought of keeping the destroyer out and using only the fighters.

My conclusions:

The kill in SZ 53 is virtually assured.  It’s a matter of if you lose only the destroyer or also a fighter, if you send Destroyer, 2 Fighters in to attack the Battleship.

If you keep the destroyer, you risk a fighter, however, you have 9 fighters at the start of the game and 3 carriers, so you have some to spare.  Also, if you keep the destroyer, you can use it, in conjunction with at least 6 of your fighters, to attack SZ 56 if America puts submarines in the water.  This is a plus in my opinion because it means America either does not put only submarines in the water, puts them in SZ 10 instead, or builds surface ships which are more costly giving you an edge to get into position.

However, the added transport and Destroyer gives the American’s too much of an edge, IMHO.  Besides, when are you going to have a 33% chance to trade a fighter for a destroyer AND a transport (10 IPC for 15) and a 67% chance to lose nothing and get a destroyer and a transport in this game?

i think it’s fairly balanced to be honest. i’ve seen both sides win, and i’ve won with both sides. anyone who thinks one side has a much larger advantage needs to play the game a lot more  :-P