What to do with a Power Africa bid

I would add that one reason why I thought your move was not wise was b/c it left Yak open to attack which isn’t a bad idea.  IMO the only way to defend against a bid of 2unit Asian bid is to either give up Yakut, or to get 8units there.  I will ignore China if it comes to that, or even better is to have bid an armor into Kwan and move 1inf somewhere else.  Once you made your Russian move you were more or less committed to Yakut and therefore not placing your ftr there was an invitation to attack.

Yeah, my intention was to land the UK ftr there.  I thought you’d do Syr and possibly leave the w med bb.  Which ment I would have reinforced Yak with the UK ftr.

I’m actually glad you did that move (not because of the outcome or anything like that), because I don’t see that a lot and it is nice to know that I better take into account that move in the future and that good players may indeed bypass Chi.

I guess, That’s why you play the game.  :-D

So what is the problem for the allies with a tranny fleet off Spain?  In order for it to be much of a threat, Germany has to stage forces in Western, or bleed off forces in Norway.  Either way, it severely weakens their position against Russia.  It also weakens Germany’s position for moving troops into Africa.

So UK hits that fleet with 2 figs and a bmb.  They score 2 hits.  The subs can;t fire back, the BB hits one, the tranny’s may or may not hit one.  The bmb fires again and sinks a 3rd unit, and is lost on the counter.  Let’s say Germany took 2 of the 3 losses as subs, so they maintain air-defense.  Then the US flies over with 2 figs and a bmb, killing 2 hits on the first pass, taking 1 or 2 hits in response.  They hit 1 more on the 2nd round, and lose another one.  Let’s say that was the end of their planes.  So the total is 6 Allied hits on Germany, 6 Germany hits on the Allies.  No planes in UK or US, right?  And Germany has a navy of ONE Battleship, period.

Germany also would have lost 2-3 planes against the UK navy on G1, planes that Germany can;t afford to replace.

So at the end of Round 1…
Germany has no fleet, has lost half of its Air Force, has delivered either no forces to Africa, or stripped forces from Norway and Western to send forces to Algeria.  So either Russia is going to take a weakened Norway, or Germany will not have forces in Africa and will lose a LOT of IPC’s from an India counter-attack un Africa.  The US built aircraft, and probably a sub or 2, on US 1.  UK probably built a few INF as a precaution, and a couple of figs.

In G2, Germany is stranded in Europe, has either lost Norway, or is going to lose Africa in UK2, has a Navy that can;t do anything except move into the UK Sea Zone for a last-ditch battle against the new RAF; or suicide into 1 or 2 US subs (if it doesn’t die attacking the subs, it will die when those new US figs take off in US 2).  With the lack of extra IPC’s either from lack of gains in Africa and/or from the loss of Norway, Germany is now barely building at a rate above Russia.  And unless that Battleship somehow managed to HOLD the UK Sea Zone, UK has a fleet re-built in UK2, defended by US figs in US2, and does not have enough air-force left to combat it in G3.  Even if they saved their BB and moved it to Gibraltar in G2 to use with the AF for a G3 attack, 1 BB and 2-3 figs plus a bmb against a carrier, 2 figs, 1-2 subs, and 1-2 tranny’s is a suicide mission for the Germans.

A far better use for a 2-tranny bid-buy with Russia RR would be Souther Europe placement to be more flexible and allow for a significant air/land/amphib strike on Caucuses, or strikes in Africa and Middle East.  You can still take out the UK Navy using subs and air-power, consolidate for your Karelia push in G2, while potentially creating a significant second-strike prong in Caucuses that Russia has to consider/counter rather than simply “building in Karelia”.  If you take Caucuses in force, Russia has to sacrifice SOMETHING, and it will probably be Karelia (since they won;t want it to be Russia).

@Linkon:

The main cases to use SBR:

You have Heavies.

Do you build anything EXCEPT bombers if you have heavy’s???

Let’s be honest, Heavy Bombers are so powerful that it is an almost assured game victory for whichever side gets them.  And I have never seen a game last long enough after one side gets heavy’s for the other side to also get them.

@Linkon:

Your opponent has (1) low income, but a (2) ton of defensive units holed up in the capital, and (3) your seige forces are not sufficient to win the capital battle.

Combining SBR and the trading of territories next to your opponents capital will allow the build-up of your seige forces to gain the eventual edge.  By then, your income should be several times higher than the opponent you are about to kill off.

I still like using SBR’s to PREVENT my target from building up massive defensive forces.  That is why as Japan I bomb Russia every chance I get… each run means less INF in Moscow upon my force’s arrival.

Of course it could also be that I just HATE siege warfare.  I’ll press a battle against a strong oponent just to weaken those forces if I feel I can re-build faster than he can; rather than wait for me to build to overwhelm.  That way, if one of my allies gets to a position to ALSO be able to strike, they face a weaker target.  And if my allies don;t get a chance to strike, my nation that made the original suicide run will still be outbuilding the target and can move more forces in and take it anyway.  Now, I have to be able to last long enough to do SOME damage… I won;t attack with a fighter and 3 INF against 30 INF.  But give me 7 INF, a couple of tanks, and several fighters on 30 INF, and I’ll blast in, inflict damage, and retreat; then do it all again as more cannon fodder arrives at the front.

Lather.  Rinse.  Repeat.

I updated the links (in the games section), although the AAMC dice seemed like it was down.

I have the DAAK LL dicey there though.

Hbombers are far more powerful than any defensive naval unit you could add including loaded Carriers which are actually weak as they risk not just the navy but also a nations defensive airforce as well. 4-5 HBs can destroy just about any navy from my experience. It may cost a lot in terms of lost bombers, but these can be rebuilt lost bbs, Carriers, ftrs cannot.

I agree that the HB would severely restrict the movement of this Allied Navy, my only point being that it could be built without being sunk.

But how did the issue of HB come up? I guess you are assuming thats how the Allied (or Japanese) Navy is eliminated. HB (along with IT IMO) is almost always a sure win in the game for whichever nation has it.

ive never played with bidding…

The point being if you are sending troops [Manchuria -> Yakut] and [Burma -> Sinkang] there is no reason to move into Mongolia.

Perfectly said.

I asked the same basic question under Player Help. Look there and see if the answers I got help you.