This topic has been moved to Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition.
Axis Road to Economic Parity - Unlikely
-
This has slowly dawned on me after having gotten into this situation myself, seeing others get into it, reading about it, and now having looked at it closer as well.
At some point if the Axis wishes to win the long term 20 round + war, they need to achieve economic parity with the Allies. The assumption is this is barring unusually favorable dice and mistakes on the Allied party.
It should be obvious, but over many many many rounds, the side that is collecting more than the other should eventually win the game., even if it is a tiny wedge. While the situation may not be changing much from turn to turn given equal flux of dice, eventually the economic wedge will manifest itself and one side will give in. The way the Axis tends to win as I’ve seen so far is due more to Allied mistakes or favorable dice than it is true long term strategy.
Let me now look at the problem - to sum it up, it is KGF, and I don’t think Japan can achieve the IPCs it needs to topple the Allies on its lonesome self.
There are 166 IPCs in territories available on the board. Let’s take a look at these territories in a general but reasonable sense to see if the Axis can reasonably get equal or more IPCs to topple the Allies. I’m scaling my estimates towards the late game where both captals have fallen, and the Japanese have drawn the lines at Karelia/Belo/Ukraine but cannot advance any further.
As for the obvious, let us add up territories that the Allies have almost beyond doubt. The US should have W. US (10), C. US (6), Mexico (2), E. US (12), W. Indies (1), Panama (1), and Brazil (3), and Alaska (2). Alaska is somewhat questionable, but I do not think most Axis players can find the time to tilt there with bb/fighters/inf every turn when they have to expand out to the other islands; their effort is better spent elsewhere, and even if they wanted to work hard, they should go to Africa where the real big cash is. Fight hardest where you win the most, after all.
That is $37 US dollars.
For the UK, they have E. Canada (3), W. Canada (1), London (8), E. Europe(3), Balkans (3), S. Europe (6), Berlin (10), W. Europe (6) and Norway(3) for certain. That’s 43 IPCs.
Now as the game usually progresses, the Allies should have all of Africa if they want it, minus madagascar. This is usually due to chasing the Germans out with a significant force early on, some people even continue to use Africa as a staging grounds (North African Dominance) for the Americans, making it even more impossible than normal to get Africa. There are 11 IPCs in the continental Africa not counting Madagascar or Persia, and I’m assuming the UK has all of it due to them leading with a force in Algeria early in the game, then taking Libya and liberating the whole of Africa from any German influence.
So $43 in unquestionable territores, and 11 is very reasonable for Africa, making the UK income $54.
The combined UK + US is $37 + 54 = 91 IPCs in income. Maybe you can argue that US took W. Europe instead of UK, but it doesn’t make a difference in the sense that the total Allied IPCs in 91. They are outproducing Japan, and eventually they should win. I am even assuming the favorable circumstance in which Japan takes Ukraine/Belo for their own income; not where liberate it and it becomes dead to both sides until the Allies take it.
The problem is that I don’t think Japan can expect to reasonably expand anywhere else. There’s not an inch more that they can hold permanently. I’m assuming they have TJ + Madagascar, Karelia/Belo/Ukraine and everything east of it.
By this reasoning you can see where the Allies seem to have an advantage and where they should focus their attention. As wild as the Japanese can get, they can only really get up to the 70’ish IPC range. Never the $83 benchmark, and certainly not past that. It’s a matter of getting the Allies to the point where they get Berlin/W./S. Europe and can hold the line at E. Europe, and also hold Africa. That isn’t very difficult.
I think if the Japanese want to have any shot at winning the late game, they need to get most of Africa at some point. Using the $91 to $75 number, you need to get 8 IPCs of Africa to bring the economy to an even point.
But this is extremely difficult, if not impossible. There is usually between 8-16Allied units in Africa (not even assuming N. Africa dominance with US) due to the leftovers from the first African flush. In order for Japan to clean them up quickly requires a huge landing. That simply cannot be afforded in the early-mid stages for lack of pressure on Moscow. You can of course try to land a couple units on the coast and hope to bait them into BB range, but they may not take the bait, and that still does not get you the majority of Africa.
You can try it after you get Moscow, but that relieves pressure in Europe.
I have tried and done it successfully where I have created a massive support system for Africa. I’ve shucked 6 units per round from India (3 build from complex, 3 walk in from F. Indo’s complex from last turn), to Anglo. I have also then built a complex in Anglo for 8 units, and also still then build a complex in S. Africa for 10 units total after the chain is in place. 10 defensive inf per round is usually enough to deter the Americans and their 4 inf 4 arm per round. I’ve even got it to the point where I completely discouraged the Allies from Africa with a force of 20’ish inf off of Algeria, so they don’t even consider landing anymore.
But even considering if the Americans don’t want to try to dislodge me, that takes a lot of effort. Built 2 extra complexes and have 3 transports dedicated to shucking to Anglo (+ the 4 to take stuff off from Japan). This usually drains me so hard on units that Europe is floating backwards or I can’t crack Moscow.
I don’t see a reasonable way for the Japanese to achieve economic parity with the Allies who have Berlin. In order to expand IPCs in Africa, which is the only route, I have to spend a LOT to do so (have to kill the units floating around, then deal with the possible 10-16 units per round they can offload and march from Algeria), which the Allies can either match or simply push back in the theater I’m not working on.
So you Japanese players there or just anyone with a good idea, what is the way out of this do you think? Is there something I have assumed that is unreasonable, or is there something I have missed that allows Japan to win the scary late game?
-
The Axis need to do more than gain a <slight>economic advantage to win a long game.
Why? Because:
- they’re always outnumbered 3-2 or 2-1 after capitals have been traded
2). Defense is easier in this game. The axis are forced to try and take ground whereas the allies can just play to hold / fall back strong when so pressured.
So EVEN IF Japan could attain economic equity with UK & US in a post capital trade world, they STILL probably would not win. If you have any A&A Classic experience, you might remember once capitals were traded (or even before), the weapons dice would fly. Both sides would try to parlay their new found booty into some advantage over their opponent. In Revised, this option doesn’t really exist any more. Heavy bombers are pretty tame in LHTR, there’s no longer Industrial Tech, and Long range probably is not a game breaker on it’s own. Japans best bet would be to utilize rockets to try to severely shift the economic advantage in your favor.</slight>
-
I agree, no wonder some of the best players I’ve met bid 11 or so (limit 1 per territory). I’m not even sure that’s enough for 9 VC games. It seems the Allies have to screw up pretty badly not to eventually win. Granted I’m not an Allied expert so I can’t say I can do this yet, and a quick dice roll can shift things in a jiffy, but it’s almost a no brainer to see that the Axis really cannot get the economic advantage they need to win given normal dice.
-
@Bean:
I agree, no wonder some of the best players I’ve met bid 11 or so (limit 1 per territory). I’m not even sure that’s enough for 9 VC games. It seems the Allies have to screw up pretty badly not to eventually win. Granted I’m not an Allied expert so I can’t say I can do this yet, and a quick dice roll can shift things in a jiffy, but it’s almost a no brainer to see that the Axis really cannot get the economic advantage they need to win given normal dice.
I think more important than the economic advantage is the positional advantage. If the Axis can be even with cash but hold key positions, they can be ok, even have a chance to win. The good allied player knows this and will surrender their economic advantage to maintain their positional one as this is the true key to winning the game.
In other words, you can not ‘buy’ a win in Revised as you could in classic (“The Magic 84”).
-
Well, hopefully the allies lost more units taking out Germany then Japan did taking out Russia giving you a major military advantage to even out the score for a few rounds.
-
It’s not often that two capitals falls in the same rnd, or one capital falls the next rnd after the first has fallen.
If Berlin is taken first by either US or UK then Jap will have a very hard time, even if Jap takes Moscow and Cauc and
some TT’s in eastern Europe.
If this is the case then allies will usually win because the TT’s in Europe are worth more than Asia.
If Jap conquers Moscow first then Jap can pull it off, but then again, usually the side who loses a capital will loose
the game. -
I dunno about it not happening often. I actually see it a lot when England/America leave Russia on their own against Japan and jump on Germany hard.
What gives the allies the advantage is, if they set it up correctly, England and America have 22 max in builds (split even with one owning W. Europe and S. Europe (and an IC built in W. Europe) the other owning Germany) vs Japan with 12 max in builds. (Not including the Pacific rim which is significantly far away.)
-
As Bean is aware, I just experienced this in my game against Rising Dragon. By all rights I SHOULD have won that game, having overrun Moscow essentially without a fight and even liberating Berlin with a massive Japanese armor stack. Anyone looking at that game would have sworn Japan would win. However, the economic factor ultimately prevailed for the Allies, because I simply could not keep pace with Allied production, once the American factories in Western and Southern got up and running. America literally went from almost no presence in Europe (after I destroyed everything defending Berlin) to upwards of 100 units in Europe (not counting UK’s units) in a VERY short period of time. My early piece advantage got me to Berlin, but that’s as far as it went.
But I would point out, in addition to the economic factor working against Japan, there is the dilemma for the Axis player of “Do I liberate Berlin?” On the one hand, there is stuff to detroy there and you want to deny the Allies the IC. But the downside is, the moment that capital is liberated, all original “grey” territories on the board revert to Germany, which ends up costing Japan IPCs for German territories it captured after the fall of Berlin. AND on top of that, if Germany manages to cash out one turn, and if you cannot hold Germany (which happened to me), you end up handing the Allies a 20+ IPC gift when they re-take Berlin. So, yeah, the “upper limit” in economy is a real problem for Japan. The Allies simply can sit back, build large stacks of infantry and dare the Japanese player to attack. Even if you crack Berlin or even Southern, a good Allied player will be able to push you right back with available “shuck” troops. The key for the Allies is to build the IC in Western and keep shucking troops until the ICs get up and running and have enough troops on hand to defend themselves.
All things considered, I think the Axis have a less-than-even chance of winning a capital trade scenario. So if you’re the Axis, you need to hold on to Berlin for as long as humanly possible. Once it falls, Japan has a tall order to win.
-
As Bean is aware, I just experienced this in my game against Rising Dragon.
Yes, that was one of the many things that lead me to this conclusion. I didn’t really study your board in detail, but I realized instantly looking at one of the last maps that you were dead because Africa was being liberated without you being able to hold it, and Europe was mostly in Allied hands. Prior to that I was in question because it was a capital trade but a few maps after, I knew it was over, which was confirmed when you surrendered.
Also I quote a Csub message in which a player complained that he had taken Moscow more than 5 turns earlier than Berlin fell, and he still could not win the game with the Japanese.
But I would point out, in addition to the economic factor working against Japan, there is the dilemma for the Axis player of “Do I liberate Berlin?” On the one hand, there is stuff to detroy there and you want to deny the Allies the IC. But the downside is, the moment that capital is liberated, all original “grey” territories on the board revert to Germany,
Yes, I hate this as well. Every so often I kill Moscow earlier than the Allies kill Berlin, but then I really want to question how far I should go after that simply because of liberating German territories which will actually hurt. Of course, grab Archangel/Karelia because those are pure Russian dollars, but if you’re just waiting for the Allies to take Berlin because you don’t want to liberate territories…that gives them more time to leverage their economy and get unbeatable defenses. I suppose as soon as you grabbed Moscow just grab Arch/Karelia and focus on a massive bulwark in Africa…? And then wait for Berlin to fall then hold the lines at Kar/Belo/Ukr? And even in my example I was giving the Japanese a lot of credit for being able to hold Kar/Belo/Ukr without the Allies trading at all in any one of them, which is unlikely.
-
The capital swapping is not very uncommon imo, but it doesn’t happen often either. Less than 1 out of 10 games is
my experience. -
IMO, it really depends on how you have Japan set up as Moscow falls. I think there are two ways to go about it (if you can’t get to 80+ ipc). Although, I think it is very possible for Japan to claim much of Afr. Once you take Moscow or it is clear it will fall you should be heading out pick up any ipcs you can.
Okay now the 2 ways:
-
Control of the Med.
Japan needs to be the one that took Cauc and you need your ships in the Med. This way you can directly threaten SE and Claim the IC from the Allies. You don’t necessarily want to liberate Berlin, you just want to prevent the Allies from placing in SE or better yet you get to place 6 in SE. -
You hit North America.
In this case once you take Moscow, it is clear you won’t advance too far into Europe, and the Med is a real dog fight. You still have troops messing around in Afr, but start backtracking your troops in Yak to Bury and from Jap/Bury to Ala/Wcan. Take the fight to the US, esp if the are going heavy Atlantic or European builds. If you take Ala with 3-4 units and Wcan with 3-4 on the same turn at least now when the US counters you can still threaten Wus while you counter Wcan. You are also still building 12 units in Mos/Cauc and another 2-4 in Asia (earlier ICs), plus 6-8 in Japan for your North American strikes. You should be able to fill at least 24-26 units at 72-78 ipcs a turn. This assumes you have about 6-8 planes.
-
-
Hitting North America seems like a waste of time, the Americans can also back their shuck up! They might even be happy about it since your shuck is now completely abandoning Africa - way too far to get back.
-
IMO, it really depends on how you have Japan set up as Moscow falls. I think there are two ways to go about it (if you can’t get to 80+ ipc). Although, I think it is very possible for Japan to claim much of Afr. Once you take Moscow or it is clear it will fall you should be heading out pick up any ipcs you can.
Okay now the 2 ways:
-
Control of the Med.
Japan needs to be the one that took Cauc and you need your ships in the Med. This way you can directly threaten SE and Claim the IC from the Allies. You don’t necessarily want to liberate Berlin, you just want to prevent the Allies from placing in SE or better yet you get to place 6 in SE. -
You hit North America.
In this case once you take Moscow, it is clear you won’t advance too far into Europe, and the Med is a real dog fight. You still have troops messing around in Afr, but start backtracking your troops in Yak to Bury and from Jap/Bury to Ala/Wcan. Take the fight to the US, esp if the are going heavy Atlantic or European builds. If you take Ala with 3-4 units and Wcan with 3-4 on the same turn at least now when the US counters you can still threaten Wus while you counter Wcan. You are also still building 12 units in Mos/Cauc and another 2-4 in Asia (earlier ICs), plus 6-8 in Japan for your North American strikes. You should be able to fill at least 24-26 units at 72-78 ipcs a turn. This assumes you have about 6-8 planes.
Good advice.
You really ARE a guru :)
I especialy think your first choice is the better one, but it is very hard for the japanese to be the one to take caucasus (and hold it) to enable them to use it. As the allies, I would do all I could to prevent this (even sacrificing Moscow if I knew it would fall before long)
-
-
If Jap has Moscow and allies got Berlin, then UK+US need to plan their moves accordingly. US should have a lot of trans, as should UK, then both fleets should move to med to face the Jap navy. If UK have Berlin then US should have SE. Jap can still take Russia without contesting Afr, but if Jap got bot Cauc and Moscow then Afr can be contested.
This is why Fic and India are good TT’s for building IC for Jap. Also TT’s can have an impact, Jap don’t get income
for TT’s that is German and allies don’t get income for the TT’s which used to belong to Russia.
Japan will only be able to move to the med if US go north instead of the Afr –> Cauc route, if not Jap already
managed to get the fleet into the med, which is always good for axis and bad for allies. Vice versa, to have
US moving back and forth in the med is really bad for Germany. -
Once captials are traded Japan faces the same problems taking berlin that Russia faced. Namely supply line\IC capacity problems. My solution was to take Africa and build IC’s in Egypt and Ukraine, parking the Jap fleet in sz16. With Africa in Jap hands and trading belo, balkans, and Karelia you can maintain rough parity in IPC. The allies will have to put their fleets in sz14 to prevent japan from doing an end run. At this point the slight allied advantage in IPC is negated by the fact that they can’t attack at the same time, and neither ally is strong enough to hit Japan alone, Japan on the other hand can bring all units to bear, even if it’s just for strafing.
-
The mistake Japan usually makes after the capital swap is moving to far into europe before they have built up suffiencient forces. Take a look at this map. It’s round 31 after Japan’s move, the US has a huge army in Eastern but an attack against Ukraine only has a 29% chance of success. Even if they reinforce Eastern this turn with tanks from Germany, Japan has an 55% chance of success. If they add the US fighters then they’re fleet is exposed, if UK also adds reinforcements they are giving up Karelia.
The problem for the allies is that while they have parity with Japan in IPC, Japan has a +$20 advantage over the US and a +$60 advantage over the UK.
-
Good thread here, gentlemen. Many solid posts.
I’ll add a couple of thoughts. I have to admit, however, that I don’t feel particularly well qualified to talk about this topic because I am almost exclussively a FTF player. FTF games are functionally time-limited, and you don’t get many games where capitals fall and the game continues for many more rounds. Usually, good sportsmanship dictactes that after 4-6 hours you make your best guess on the winner and everyone heads to Chipotle’s ;) Online you don’t have the same rules-based or pragmatically-based limits.
On the rare occassions I have worried about countering Allied advantage, my response has been to go with a strong economic Japan game. R1 I’ll build Japan up to 4 transports, and then send them away on cash grabs. ICs go up on the mainland, but they build only inf until A) you have 4 of them and B) you can build 6inf on the 2 forward ICs (IND/MAN) and 6tnk on the interior ICs (FRI/KWA).
The econ transport progression is this: R2 2tra to HAW. This nets +1 IPC and forces some consideration to defending LA. That slows the US a small amount. 2tra more go to Frindo. R3 the HAW 2tra take AUS and NwZ. The Frindo 2tra hit some combination of Africa, often MAD and then wherever the Allies aren’t. R4 you keep living the life of a pirate. The African tra either scoop more land or come back to Frindo to help with a shuck. The AUS/NwZ tra move east, looking for BRA/Africa on the following round. Notice that you’ve set up the Z42 sucker punch which can win some games for you (see CSub paper for that move).
On the mainland, you’ll have avoided a “tank bubble” and instead you’ll have solid columns of inf marching up with no land-swapping at all. The buildup is slower, but what Japan takes, Japan keeps. When the end comes for Russia, the flowing power base is significant.
Now in a 5 or 6 rd game, that strat is not going to pay divedends quickly enough. That’s what I was developing in a longer format, however, and it is the next strategy I would attempt to refine for the longer games.
Have at it!
-
I like the progression Mazer. It’s also used by one of the best players on this site, U-505.
Couple things though - do you do Pearl Light, or Pearl Heavy? And what do you do if the solomon sub was killed by the UK sub and the UK sub survived? It’s not so easy just to plop some transports in SZ60 in that case, so island hopping could be a little bit slower.
Usually if I see the UK sub in Solomons, I will still do Pearl Heavy to conserve fighters, but I will build 3 transports in SZ61 and take SFE with the initial transport. SFE’s seazone is out of reach for solomons and you can still go to hawaii on J2.
One thing I also realized is that the units you send island hopping could conceivably be what you need to push faster in Asia, and there are IPCs in Asia, as well. I sometimes don’t like hopping with more than 1 transport, because it doesn’t appear to pay to me anyways. I’ll let the one transport slowly take islands, because I feel throwing another 14-16 IPCs (filled tran) just doesn’t pay for the one turn earlier you get the islands.
Sometimes also I like reverse islanding; taking Madagascar/Australia on J3, then Zealand on 4, then Hawaii on 5. This allows you to set up strongly in Indo on J2 (land 3-4 tp there with the aa gun for the complex), gets your bbs together for both shots when island hopping, and after you’re done with hawaii then you can annoy Alaska with 4 inf + bb shots + 2 fighters. Going to Brazil sometimes is too difficult because of a mediterranean US shuck.
-
@Bean:
I like the progression Mazer. It’s also used by one of the best players on this site, U-505.
It’s good to be in good company :-D
Couple things though - do you do Pearl Light, or Pearl Heavy?
It depends on the bid situation in Asia. If I need extra gear on the land, I may not go to PH at all. 7 times out of 10, however, I go heavy.
And what do you do if the solomon sub was killed by the UK sub and the UK sub survived? It’s not so easy just to plop some transports in SZ60 in that case, so island hopping could be a little bit slower.
That’s a case to either 1) skip PH or 2) bring ftrs in from the EIN fleet. A bit risky, but the risk hedge is just to build the transports in Z61 instead of Z60.
One thing I also realized is that the units you send island hopping could conceivably be what you need to push faster in Asia, and there are IPCs in Asia, as well.
No doubt, no doubt. That is the trade off: slower Japan in R1-R3, but stronger and bigger when they do come.
Going to Brazil sometimes is too difficult because of a mediterranean US shuck.
Yeah, it’s pretty rare that popping BRA is a good option. Those units almost always end up going to Africa.
Peace
-
Mazer: I like your progression ! Do you push primarily against Persia/Caucasus or Novosibirsk ? I mean, if Russia has a serious counterattack force so that Japan can only have one route in force. Having a slow mid-sized force down other routes is a great waste… cannot advance without being killed/badly strafed, but cannot help other routes.
I did similarly, but usually ending with 3 factories and 5 transports (of which 2 run around islands etc. and 3 shuttle methodically from Japan). First round of purchases from factories - inf, then add enough arty, at times 1-2 rounds of tank-only make a great ‘cumulative charge’ effect at distances of 3-4 areas from factories. That means, 2 rounds of production arrive in 1 turn.
Suggested Topics
