I have a strong win ratio with axis against allies with a bid and without. Most my losses as axis came from experimenting with things.
As allies, I tend to do gambits against players I know have an extremely boring play style. Last thing I want is a game that never ends.
~
I fail to see how people are not dominating with axis, but then I look at how they play japan. I still see people doing nothing but attack china for the first 3 rounds of japan and I see them lose often. One of these days they will figure it out.
Global is pacific centric, if you can’t play japan, you will lose. germany taking london or russia won’t matter if japan sucks balls. If you suck at japan, then play like jen and take russian stuff and bomb russia… give up on the pacific to take russia sooner. That strategy sucks, but at least you can advance to egypt or try to take london after russia. If you do it right, you can take russia on Germany’s 5 turn. Just count the spaces and move every unit you have toward the objective that can make it, it is not hard. Japan bombs it on J3, suicides his air on it j4, wam bam you got russia G5.
If you are going to roll over in the pacific and not take calcutta, you may as well just do a full on europe gambit.
Anyway, I seen japan win in the pacific against full pacific USA, not a single usa unit was in the atlantic. This is a pacific centric game, you have to play it right.
Sure some stuff has to go to the atlantic with usa… but not much. You have to solve the japan puzzle or figure out a way to keep russia alive with just uk / russia because after japan has calcutta… you have to match that income. I find it easier to try to contain/stop/convoy japan first and then turn around and stop the axis win in london/egypt (usa naval investment in the pacific ends the turn russia is taken).
~
aa50/revised was europe centric. global is pacific centric.