As dr_anthrax said we played the 41 scenario, him as axis, using national objectives. I wasn’t really convinced that NO’s give the axis a big advantage. The US is pretty much guaranteed at least 10 extra IPC’s a turn, whereas the other powers have to work to get their bonuses. Obviously Russia loses their bonuses quickly, but the UK seems to hold onto theirs for a while.
It was a good match, very tense at times, but unfortunately we didn’t have time to play it through to a resolution. If we’d had the time to play it all out it could’ve gone either way really. At the point we packed up I think the allies had a slight advantage. The US had dominated the Pacific, but had just launched a failed attack on Japan which resulted heavy losses. The USSR had been on the brink of defeat but had built up a huge infantry army to defend Russia. Meanwhile the Germans were put on the defensive due to invasions from the UK who had succesfully captured Germany a couple of times, although it was reclaimed by Italian forces.
I agree with dr_anthrax’s comments on how he played the axis, though I will add that he should have focused on pushing through to Russia with the Japanese, which would have made Germany’s job that much easier. It seems that its easy for Japan to get bogged down fighting China, which IMO isn’t the best idea strategically. While the axis can gain income by taking Chinese territory, they are also not reducing the income of an enemy power in any real way. Focusing on more lucrative fronts in the Pacific or USSR is a better idea.
My own failings were as follows
-Not being aggressive enough with Chinese forces, and often completely forgetting about China’s turn, costing me precious infantry.
-Not wearing down the axis enough before attacking capitals.
-Underestimating the forces needed to take Japan.
We’re planning a rematch with each of us playing the same side in the 41 scenario and I’m looking forward to trying out different strategies against my obviously worthy and now better educated opponent.
