When counting which side has the advantage from an IPC production point of view, I believe that there is an “effective power” element to introduce in the counting.
For example:
Effectiness of early US / Russian spending is limited by not being at war, to extend that the Axis players delay their entry in the war.
Spending effectiveness of US is reduced by the long lines of supply on both sides on the map, but more so in the Pacific. The US is one turn from Gibraltar on European side, which is a good spot to present a real threat for the Axis (with a multiplier effect in terms of location). On the Pacific side, the Japanese can easily deter the US fleet with their airforce and ground builds.
Spending effectivness of Anzac and China is limited because of fragmented income / facing enemies with overwhelming power.
Both Axis and Allies can adjust their play to address these limitations. The Axis should force the Allies’ game to make their line of supplies long. Similarly, the Allies should aim to strike where the lines of supplies are shorter and adjust their strategy to leverage the builds from the smaller nations.
Anzac / US / Chinese income only counts for 2/3 of their actual income in an average game. UK is closer to 1 for 1 and Russia is definitely 1 for 1 because of its position on the map.
Omega1759,
Your analysis is well stated and seems very logical. Although I would have to say there are a large number of variables that also have their influence.
“Tall Paul”
It has always upset me that the US starts so far behind economically AND have to buy a transport for every two units just to use them.
Don’t get transports then.
I rarely go over 6 transports for the whole game with usa. 1) I can provide UK with a navy so he can transport more effectively 2) sink japan is easier and if we do swap islands we both lose transports.
Guys,
––IMHO the unit with the most POTENTIAL for damaging you is the Transport.
––That’s the reason that these units are my #1 priority targets. Thus, the sea fleets that guard them, making transports possible, are my #2 priority.
----If you can neutralize your opponents capability to send land forces against you via transports you’ve accomplished a MAJOR goal in your defense. Obviously continental powers have other issues/priorities.
“Tall Paul”
Allies are in defense for the entire game. IMHO this is a game designed to entertain the Axis player and confound the Allies. Good luck having fun if you are the USA,UK or USSR. UK has to max defend, as does the Soviet. USA must go on offense as soon as possible and this does not create a fun environment. Potential has not been reached for this map but it is not impossible. 1940 is not an ideal start point.
I have given up on the OOB 1940 setup and only play games with my 1941 setup.
It shaves 3 hours off the front end of the game, and everyone is in the action.
Also there are TITANIC and CLIMACTIC battles in the Ukraine. Huge stacks jockey for position, Russia is actually on the ropes but has a chance.
Logistics for the Allies is probably the most complicated aspect of the game.
The US gets killed early one having to sink 7ipcs to move 2 units, drastically reducing the effectiveness of its economy. Over time the ratio goes down if you can shuck the transports back and forth a couple times.
I usually buy mostly military units up to turn 4, and only after securing Gib, start building the transport hoards.
If that Axis can hold Gib, the US can really get screwed with having large transport fleets with no where to go… except maybe Iceland if the UK can build a harbor
Karl7, I agree with you on US transports. One of my main problems playing the US is getting too many transports too early, then not having enough fleet to protect them properly. One time I had a really good invasion force parked in SZ 91, something like 9-10 transports full of men, artillery and tanks, with what I thought was a pretty decent fleet. Germany attacked with a cruiser, a destroyer, a few subs and 3 or 4 planes. The result: Germany has 1 single bomber survive the battle and sink all 10 of those transports. Now I had all those infantry, artillery and tanks stuck in Morocco with no way to get anywhere important.
By the time I got enough transports plus warships, Germany had quite a few more subs prowling around and were at the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad. Not to mention Japan was having a grand old time in Asia and the Pacific because I dedicated too much to rebuilding the Atlantic fleet so the Pacific got neglected. Lesson learned.
I used to think that the US made just too much for the Axis to compete, especially if the US got in the war early. Since they have to use so many transports and go so far, especially in the Pacific, I can see now that it’s not so overwhelming after all. If done right, the Axis on both boards can make a lot of headway by the time a sizeable US force arrives.
When I was teaching one of my friends to play I told him a very important lesson when he was playing Japan: You don’t beat Japan by fighting it’s navy, you beat Japan by sinking it’s transports.
Of course as Japan you always want those two things to be the same thing but it doesn’t always work out this way. I did a UK2 DOW against Japan because he had four transports that weren’t guarded by enough navy. I ended up losing all of my boats but he ended up losing four transports. That gave India enough time to keep building up infantry and stalled him out against ANZAC and set him back getting money islands.
The opposite is also true for the US and for Japan. Having a huge navy doesn’t do anything for you if you don’t have transports. You can sail around looking for a fight with your 5 carriers and 3 battleships, but that doesn’t win you the game. It looks impressive as hell on the board, but it doesn’t win.
Now I had all those infantry, artillery and tanks stuck in Morocco with no way to get anywhere important.
That’s why I always land in Gibraltar. It’s rare that something horrible happens, but when it does… Spain is always an option. Get with the UK player who can hopefully take on Turkey. Not the prettiest course of action, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and getting an Allied foothold in Spain isn’t the worst you can do.
Now I had all those infantry, artillery and tanks stuck in Morocco with no way to get anywhere important.
That’s why I always land in Gibraltar. It’s rare that something horrible happens, but when it does… Spain is always an option. Get with the UK player who can hopefully take on Turkey. Not the prettiest course of action, but sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and getting an Allied foothold in Spain isn’t the worst you can do.
Hmmm…interesting choice. Early on in playing Global, we had 3 different games where the Axis attacked strict neutrals. In fact, we even adopted a house rule using Neutral Blocks so only certain strict neutrals would be affected – Europe, S America, Africa, Middle-East, Mongolia. So if say Sweeden was taken by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Portugal would go Pro-Allied but Argentina would still be strict neutral. I know some people put Turkey in the Europe block, but we decided to put it in the Middle East block.
We have NEVER had the Allies attack a strict neutral. For one thing, they are usually too busy fighting the Axis to expend resources fighting a neutral. Plus they don’t want to give the Axis any free infantry and territories by turning the other stricts into Pro-Axis, even if it’s just in that block. Also, I guess we just kind of have the mindset that the Allies are the good guys and having them violate a country’s neutrality just doesn’t feel right.
In most of our games, we have played with the strict neutrals basically off limits, both by the Axis and the Allies. Perhaps we should re-think our strategies and start involving the neutrals more in our games.
