First Impressions

@Oyvind:

Could someone explain the “bid” in the first question?

It is a way of evening up the playing field when it is generally considered that one side has an advantage over the other. Using this as an example:

@Colt45:

Personally, i take Axis with a 3 bid otherwise il take Allies.

Colt45 554 has said that they’ll take Axis if they are given a bid of 3. This means that at the start of the game before the first turn they either get to put down units to the value of their bid, 3, in any of their territories, or accept 3 bonus IPC into one of their countries for spending at a later time.

In a general bidding arrangement, the opponent would have the opportunity to take the Axis for a bid of 2 if they thought they could win with that and that process repeats until a bid has been determined and teams are set.

A bid of 3 is considered a pretty well balanced game. I believe the current bid for 1940 Global is sitting between 20-30 for the Allies. We can read into that that people think that playing the game without bids leads to many more Axis wins than Allied wins by evenly matched players.

@wittmann:

Have fun, Worsham.
Kill Italy and it will be easier for  the Allies. You might need an Allied bid for this. The Axis have it easier, with the generous Axis NOs.

Great to hear from you!

@fatal_papercut:

I just realized that I cant invade through turkey unless I declare war on all strict neutrals.  is there a big downside to that??Â

The downside is that, when you invade a strict neutral, every other strict neutral starts to lean in the direction of your opponents: if you’re an Axis power, all the strict neutrals become pro-Alllied; if you’re an Allied power, all the strict neutrals become pro-Axis.  This means that your opponents can walk into those countries and take control of their income (if applicable) and their standing armies (if applicable), without meeting any opposition, whereas you can’t do the same: if you enter a “pro-the-other-side” country, it behaves like an enemy and you’ll have to fight its standing army, if it has one (check for the silhouette of an infantryman on the map, with a number next to it indicating how many infantry units are present).  In essence, invading a strict neutral gives your opponents the chance to pick up lots of free infantry units.  (Incidentally, invading a strict neutral doesn’t exactly involve “declaring war” on the strict neutrals in the same sense as declaring war on a player power; it simply changes the political status of the strict neutrals.)

Fine, so I can choose between both versions. thanks a lot fot the anserwers!

@Ruanek:

@Gargantua:

Don’t ever capture paris - you’ll see why.

Advertise to your opponent, if you want to stress him out, all your “Possible angles” of attack…  all the territories you can take… he’ll likely try to underdefend everything, and forget what actually matters.

Why wouldn’t you take Paris?  It’s not really that difficult, and every turn you don’t take it you’re denying yourself France’s IPCs and letting them build up more (probably not a huge amount, but it’s so easy to stop early).

Depending on who you capture Paris with, when you do it, and when the Axis takes it back, it could be bad. For example, if Great Britain liberates France (their capital, not the other territories), Italy can ignore it. If the US doesn’t have a lot of units to reinforce it, France will collect their income of X IPCs. Then, on Germany’s turn, they can take France back, not only gaining back the income of the actual territory, but also getting all the IPCs that France is holding at that time.

1. USA
2. Russia
3. Germany
4. Uk
5. Italy

I assume the German player will destroy the French DD and CA in SZ91 on their first turn.  The UK could make an ill advised attack on the Italian fleet, and might not destroy anything(flip the BB?) and in return lose a FTR and a TAC.

Stay on topic. Geez.