Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

What typical Axis moves necessitate these high Allied bids?



  • Sorry if this same question is embedded elsewhere.

    My (small) playgroup actually plays with an Axis bid of 5-6(2nd Edition), with the extra U-boat being the biggest bid factor. We’ve played around 30 games. Standard G1 moves like on forums with G2/G3 Barb w/ common Sea Lion feign or Sea Lion if UK is ballsy. Almost always full Pacific as US for first 3 rounds, at least. J1 DoW is atypical for us, with most focusing on China crush while getting in position for J2. Is the J1 DoW what makes the Axis so lethal and constitutes Allied bids ranging in the teens? Is Taranto that crushing? We don’t buy a crap-ton of mechs so maybe we’re misplaying there. Also don’t send many, if any, Italian units to Eastern Front, with all resources going to Med/Mid East. Allies/Axis win around 50/50 so maybe its not so bad that we comparatively suck as Axis lol.

    Thanks for any input. New here, so don’t be too harsh  🙂


  • 2019 2017 2016

    I think strategic bombing by Japan on Calcutta is a big factor: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37391.0

    YG mentioned it in his Japan strategy video.



  • I see. So even with US full Pacific, one can expect India to fall from J1 DoW, J2 FIC minor, and SBR, barring very unfavorable dice?


  • 2019 2017 2016

    That seems the conventional wisdom on the board. But it doesn’t happen that way in my games and it sounds like yours also. When I saw how devastating SBR was to India I figured a counter.

    So I think we might start seeing some equalisation once the third fighter on India becomes a standard buy UK1.



  • @Colt45:

    I see. So even with US full Pacific, one can expect India to fall from J1 DoW, J2 FIC minor, and SBR, barring very unfavorable dice?

    Don’t forget that well placed convoy disruptions to go along with those raids can hurt the UK a lot.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    Uk Pac only 3 production which is not convoyible - West India and Burma.

    To counter the convoy disruption if from a sub, I’d be looking at a destroyer from Africa. You start with a UK and French one neither of which can participate in Tarranto, plus an ANZAC and one off India.

    Can the French destroyer move into the square on the non combat move and not attack an existing Japanese sub or subs there? Once there, they turn the sea zone hostile and the sub has to attack or withdraw, and the UK can scramble fighters out of India which are virtually certain to hit the sub. My reading of the rules is that move is eminently legal. I guess scrambling fighters can’t defend against a strategic bomber raid though, so still better to use a UK destroyer on UK’s turn. But it’s a useful possibility.


  • Customizer

    Yes, you can do that with the French destroyer. Warships, even destroyers, can ignore subs because of their stealthy nature. Then if the Japanese subs decide to attack the French destroyer, India can indeed scramble fighters to help the French. 
    As for whether you want the fighters to scramble to protect the French Destroyer or to intercept Japanese bombers during an SBR, you will have to decide which action will do you better. I will tell you that I don’t care to use my fighters for intercepting. They only hit at a 1 and the attacking bombers also hit at a 1 so you have as much chance of losing your fighters as you do killing Japanese bombers.
    I always seem to get burned when intercepting bombers. One time as Russia I lost 3 out of 5 fighters against 1 German bomber killed during a German SBR on Moscow. So not only did they plaster my factory, I had less defense of my capital.
    On the other hand, when fighters scramble they hit at a powerful 4 so those Japanese subs will be toast.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    That sounds a pretty annoying roll in Moscow. Anyway, you have to think that you did the right thing by intercepting and be happy about that.

    I think intercepting is pretty required when you have a numerical superiority against unescorted bombers. Every hit prevents damage to your factory and do you really want your opponent to feel confident that they can bomb your factory without facing an intercept? It’s when they have an escort that a numerical superiority might not be enough. If you have 5 interceptors vs 2 bombers and 2 escorts, you have to think if your fighters are worth more to you than 1.25 of his.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '12

    Having played a couple hundred games on the forum against some of the best players (and losing many games to the Axis), I can say authoritatively the reason for the high bids is the difficulty of the Allies in putting together a European invasion force big enough to ward off German air attack but not so big as to drain off too may resources from the pacific.

    If you want to see the true power of the Axis, play w/no bid for either side and have Germany employ the Dark Skies Strategy.  That should be fun.  😮



  • Great, thanks guys. Karl, great point. We prefer south or west europe invasions as opposed to flying figs to moscow. We havent done dark skies and friend wants to try that so next game il take allies 0 and see how he does. Definitely will be a pain when hes hitting SZ91


  • 2018 2017

    The bid isn’t aptly used in Calcutta, because if Japan is going to attack Russia, he ignores Calcutta, Anzac, and everything else.  If you had put the fighter there, it might eventually fly to Moscow but there are better moves from a time perspectiive.  Even a second transport to permit taking money island + Persia.

    Bid seems best used to smash Italy and second best used to try to preserve part of the british fleet.



  • I pretty much always let the other player bid first and end up accepting whatever he proposes, since the bid offered has been consistently below 20. As a result I’m seeing a lot of subs in the eastern Med combined with a fighter either on Scotland or Malta.


  • 2018 2017

    The dilemma is that the bid is fixing something (the defense of the UK) which isn’t broken.  The UK can defend itself, it just can’t project power very well against the Germans.

    I’ve never been exactly sure why the bid doesn’t go to some element of Russia, especially to give the eastern forces…something.  Anything.  The Russians may not need whatever is purchased on R1 but as long as its there R4-6 it’ll get used purposefully.

    The problem with the game writ large is that Russia is underpowered and there is no way that it can stand the combination of Germany and Japan.  Japan can fly its entire air force to German held Russian territory;  the move is pretty much impossible to stop.  No matter what you have stacked up in Russia, no matter what you did with US buys, or how much of a bid there was can prevent the strangle and smash on Russia.

    Germany and Italy alone are enough to destroy Russia, so there’s pretty much no way it can stop a full Axis press.

    Preserving some UK fleet doesn’t really change any of these factors, it doesn’t get the UK much more ready to fight the Germans than they are without a fleet.  Without the cross-cover and cooperation of the US, even with all of its money the UK is very easy to fend off.

    It can build in Persia, Egypt or Iraq, but funding those operations and units is all it can do, it cant also build planes or ships.

    The short answer;

    “Without a bid, The Axis can smash Russia before the conduct of the Allies (what they attack or purchase, the choices they make) even matter.”

    In our last game 97G40, the Axis virtually ignored every other power (UKPAC, UKATL, ANZAC, US) besides Russia and China and this is really smart because all of the ignored powers are weak and cannot project power even at maximum income.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Couple of thoughts to add:

    1. Placing the allied bid in R probably merely costs G a few more units as it gets to and captures Moscow. It is very difficult for R to survive a serious G onslaught in the hands of an experienced player. The best option for the bid I have seen is UK forces in the Middle East & Med. The opportunity is to immediately undo Italy’s ability to make a meaningful contribution, except through eastern front can-openers until its units there are depleted. There may also be a north Atlantic fleet option, which would also make a strategic difference to the game, but I’ve never had the chance to try it, as my opponents build a significant north sea fleet G1. If someone has the answer I’d love to hear it!

    2. However losing Moscow is not defeat for the allies if the R stack withdraws south to the Caucasus, rather than engaging in a suicide mission.



  • Bids aren’t going to fix the logistical nightmare it is for the US to project force in both theaters.

    That is really the underlying problem as it takes nearly 6 full turns of US income to simply establish a consistent threat against Europe (10 units per round) - and that is at Normandy assuming the UK can defend the SZ there.

    By this time, the Germans have nearly encircled Moscow and can afford to spend to repel Allied landings.

    This does nothing to consider Italy or Japan’s influence.  And in Japan’s case, it can win the game entirely on it’s own in 6 turns if the US doesn’t spend anything in the Pacific.

    So… Moscow falls because the Allies cannot land and hold Normandy in time to open a second front.  Taking Paris is only a token addition of units that does nothing to put the Germans on their heels - and in some cases makes it worse for the US because it can no longer produce units in Europe now.

    Japan can run rampant without any US interference.  As suggested, Japan could entirely ignore the Pacific and speed up the fall of Moscow.  Or, it could strangle Calcutta, build an economy that rivals the US and then sack Sydney.

    Really, the weakest link is that the US cannot project force in two theaters at the same time that requires the Axis to respect their presence.  This enables the Axis to full on ignore the US and concentrate on weaker links and it will just “Deal with the US later.”

    Which is why we see operation dark skies and KIF strategies that abuse airpower and fast moving units.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    Point of order: US can build 20 units per turn for the Atlantic. Central and Eastern USA. Only makes a difference for air units to build in Eastern USA.

    Sounds to me like Dark Skies is a strategy to keep USA and UK out of Europe when Germany is already winning.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    In our games a standard move is for Germany to sit in SZ109 and convoy 8 production off London/Scotland. This lasts until the US can come in with a big enough force to either scare off the Kreigsmarine or damage it sufficiently that the brits can take it down. Does this not happen in other people’s games? Perhaps players feel it is a bad investment for the Brits or something.



  • @simon33:

    In our games a standard move is for Germany to sit in SZ109 and convoy 8 production off London/Scotland. This lasts until the US can come in with a big enough force to either scare off the Kreigsmarine or damage it sufficiently that the brits can take it down. Does this not happen in other people’s games? Perhaps players feel it is a bad investment for the Brits or something.

    It depends on the situation and terrain.  Sometimes its worth moving out of port, others, it is not.

    Much depends on what kind of threat the UK can generate on UK2 against the fleet - which could be enough to send it limping back to port depending on what happens on UK1, what it’s purchases were, and if it elected to scramble or not on G1.

    @simon33:

    Point of order: US can build 20 units per turn for the Atlantic. Central and Eastern USA. Only makes a difference for air units to build in Eastern USA.

    Sounds to me like Dark Skies is a strategy to keep USA and UK out of Europe when Germany is already winning.

    Yup, projecting power - even if its mutually assured destruction, really makes the Allies delay an arrival in Europe.

    I’ve had some success including not only SB, but also some SS to threaten the SZ off of Gib which further forces the Allies to invest in DD which is generally something they’d prefer not to have to purchase to secure their fleets in the Atlantic.


  • 2016 2015 '10

    @Colt45:

    Sorry if this same question is embedded elsewhere.

    My (small) playgroup actually plays with an Axis bid of 5-6(2nd Edition), with the extra U-boat being the biggest bid factor. We’ve played around 30 games. Standard G1 moves like on forums with G2/G3 Barb w/ common Sea Lion feign or Sea Lion if UK is ballsy. Almost always full Pacific as US for first 3 rounds, at least. J1 DoW is atypical for us, with most focusing on China crush while getting in position for J2. Is the J1 DoW what makes the Axis so lethal and constitutes Allied bids ranging in the teens? Is Taranto that crushing? We don’t buy a crap-ton of mechs so maybe we’re misplaying there. Also don’t send many, if any, Italian units to Eastern Front, with all resources going to Med/Mid East. Allies/Axis win around 50/50 so maybe its not so bad that we comparatively suck as Axis lol.

    Thanks for any input. New here, so don’t be too harsh   🙂

    If you download TripleA, you can view the games we are playing in the league, and that might give you some ideas.  Or you can read the text summaries in the forum threads.

    For the most part, it seems to be more optimal for Japan to DOW J1 or J2.

    Some Italian (mechanized) units should be on the Eastern front in you want the quickest possible advance.  They can serve as “can openers” for mech/armor attacks.  They can also bolster defense by occupying a territory so that Germany can land its fighters there, allowing you to advance further and faster then you normally would.

    I think experience pushes the bid for Allies higher.  If 2 inexperienced players are playing, Allies have the advantage because Axis does not expand rapidly enough in the first few rounds, allowing Allies to hold onto their economic advantage even if they are making mistakes.  With more experience, Axis learns to expand rapidly without taking big risks n the first few rounds, which pays dividends later in the game.


  • 2019 2017 2016

    Back to the OP. One other point I’m coming to see is devastating is to land 4 ground units on Kwangsi J1. These units really make a big difference in being able to hold on to Yunnan. While you can’t get the TTs back to Japan J2 unless you combine a Naval base on Hainan or Kwangsi, the main game in Asia isn’t to get Japanese land units on Asia but to deny the Burma Rd. If you can do that, your one step on the way to Axis victory in the Pacific. One of the land units can come from Okinawa, two from Japan so you are only relocating one unit within Asia, the artillery from Manchuria, but in a very advantageous way.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 19
  • 4
  • 13
  • 16
  • 9
  • 36
  • 16
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games

28
Online

13.3k
Users

33.6k
Topics

1.3m
Posts