Who is more difficult to contain?

[Young Grasshopper]

We’ll assume that all players are very experienced using some of the most effective strategies known.

[ColonelCarter]

This was kind of a tough choice; I went with Germany for my vote. Both will become monsters if you focus the other, but I feel Germany has the upper hand when unfocused.

If they manage to get their hands on Moscow (presumed to happen if they aren’t focused by the WAllies), they will have a tremendous income and can push south through to Egypt, an overland (and thus cheaper) route while Egypt is pretty far away from Allied reinforcement (6 ground if it has a minor + planes from Britain and units multiple turns away from the US, if they have safe places for transports away from the Luftwaffe).

Japan will have a huge income as well if the Allies spend more against Germany first, but for them to get the Pacific win, they have to take some territory over sea (which can be blocked in the absence of German bombers). Not only that, but I feel the WAllies get more income from containing Germany (Norway, Finland, Normandy, SFrance maybe, NAfrica sooner [though maybe it stays in French hands which is bad]) as opposed to money in the Pac (DEIs worth quite a bit, but ANZAC will likely have to take some to get them out of Japanese hands and they can’t effectively use the money, Philippines [pretty late to get this because of the threat Japan can project from it])

Simple version: Since it’s harder to “pressure” Japan it ends up being harder to “contain” Germany and since it’s easier to “pressure” Germany it’s easier to “contain” Japan.

[WILD BILL]

I agree w/ColonelCarter

When you say “contain” I guess that you mean what resources you need to throw at one power to slow, or stop (maybe retard) expansion as you go hard after the other. As pointed out below Italy doesn’t really belong here, but they can be used to prop up German defenses, or take out blockers for their big bro. So I guess you are looking for how many turns the US would need to focus on one power to “contain” them (spend income for 2-3-4 turns or more) then switch gears to cripple the other.

Italy is by far the weakest especially if the bulk of their navy is taken out on the first turn. So they would be the easiest to contain because once the allies control the Med they can convoy them to near zero income w/o actually taking them out. So unless the Germans give them a lot of help they are the easiest to contain (no news here)

I think that Japan would be next on the list because again if you manage to take out the Imperial Navy, you can crack into the DEI and Asia which is a large part of their income source. Take away half their income and their empire will collapse. However with a J1 attack the Japanese navy will be very hard to put a dent into early in the game (depending on what they hit). By say the 5th turn Japan probably has most of SE Asia including DEI and most likely India. They will be in a defensive position at sea that because of the massive air power could go offensive so it will be an uphill battle for the Allies. So containing them (take out the fleet) will be very expensive and time consuming IMO. With that said though, the Japanese Empire is vast and much is over water, so it is difficult to protect it all. In the Pac the Anzac is the key. They need to build ships to def the combined allied navy, or possibly work as a clean up crew if/when the US gets the chance to attack or defend in a naval battle. The Anz also need to be ready to grab Japanese possessions or trade them when the US takes out blockers. Anz having subs ready to convoy can also be helpful too, even if you are just forcing the Japanese to trade destroyers for subs (how many DD’s do they have?). If the Japanese get greedy and splinter off part of the Imperial navy to push deeper into the Mid east or Africa they will have some weak spots.

I chose Germany (assuming no Sea Lion) as the most difficult to contain, mainly because they will push to Moscow regardless of what you do, and as time goes on will set-up def to use against allied landings. As the allies you will need to get some help (UK ftrs) to Moscow to cause a delay. With the newer bomber strat they are more difficult to crack. The Allies need to build more navy to get over which means fewer ground units for the landings. The Germans don’t necessarily need to take out the combo allied navy when they come over (very costly), they can position a few ground units in keys places to use with the over powering Luftwaffe to wipe out allied landings w/o taking much of a hit on the air force. The Germans with some navy (seems to be popular) and say 3 transports in the Baltic is part of that strat for def/reclaiming Norway if the allies blow the wad up there. So if the allies are going north, they will need to take out the German Baltic navy ASAP (if it exists).

Like I said above there are some things that the allies can do to stall the Germans when going after Moscow. Getting UK ftrs to Moscow for one, or ground units heading north from the Middle east. I also like to boost Russia’s income like having them take Iraq asap for the NO bonus (gives them 5 IPCs/turn) and getting the lend lease/no western units NO (until you land UK ftrs).

So my question back to you is if you are able to stall the Germans from taking Moscow for 2-3 or more turns, is this containing them lol?

[Young Grasshopper]

I guess what I meant by contain, is who is more difficult to prevent from getting their victory condition. thanks for the great comments.

[teslas]

“Contain” and “Prevent from winning” are pretty rough words. Full disclosure: I +1’d ColonelCarter’s post.

Japan I feel is a matter of dumping 75-100% of America’s income into controlling. You must do this. The problem with that is what happens with Germany as you do it. Japan getting that last VC for the win is pretty rough before fairly late-game. Hawaii can be turtled up, and ANZAC’s capital can be defended very well. While you do that, Japan tends to begin to seep into the Atlantic theater.

The problem with this question is that its simplicity begins to fall apart by the 6th-7th turn of the game. For the first few turns, no doubt, the axis lead the way and the allies must react. By the midgame, however (turn 4-7), both sides must react to what the other is doing. By the 6th-8th turn, nearly every game is quite different. In that instance, which side do I find most difficult to handle? Well, Germany: as I voted.

Whether this is an artifact of the way I, personally, experience the game, or whether this is a catch-all response, is entirely unclear to me.

I hope my vague words help >_>

[Karl7]

Japan.  Not debatable.

From Australia or the Carolines, the allies can keep Japan on the defensive, picking away at its assets, unless Japan sacrifices their home waters, which is doom for Japan.

Germany has a good defensive position since US/UK must come by sea.  The USSR is too weak to really threaten Germany offensively.  So, often Germany can sit on its butt, so to speak, hold off the allies and then kill Russia at will.

[taamvan]

It really does depend on the game, as our last night’s game 92 had Italy take Paris, with nearly 50 income, holding all the oil states, Germany never either Sea Lioned or attacked Russia and was mostly proactive/defensive with around 55 income, and Japan was DoW3 and took about 60 including China.  The Axis choose where to go and are the “white player” with first mover advantage.  So the one that is the hardest to contain is the one that happens to go completely haywire in that particular game

Italy took all the oil states, softened India by putting a factory in East Persia and attacking India from the west, with any two attackers, it eventually fell no matter how turtled.  This despite losing most of its guys at Taranto–it made up for that temporary loss by attacking all the landed planes and retaking Cairo en masse with German help.

If all 3 of the Axis have threshold income (~50) that’s a pretty obvious win, even though Russia was free to go wild and had 50 income as well…

[WILD BILL]

@taamvan:

Italy took all the oil states, softened India by putting a factory in East Persia and attacking India from the west……

Just to note East Persia has no IPC value so you can’t build an IC there

[innocentbystander]

I said Japan is harder only because they have more…. options than Germany (IMHO.)

[Vanerost]

I say Japan. As they really are a case of containing. If they are left unchecked they can spread quite quick due to their navy and Air Force. It requires the USA to spend quite a bunch of its income I the pacific. But a steady constant attack from the USA even if they are loosing ships every match will dwindle Japan’s offence and force them into defence. Russia and the U.K. Can work together to weeken Germany and if the USA has two turns to spend all of its income in the Atlantic nary turn one and two most games, then Germany has a hard time geting momentum. Unless the the Italian fleet survives then I would change my vote to Germany as the Italians will be a force to allow the Germans to focus on one enemy since the Italians will be covering their back so to speak. Or that is my opinion after a couple of games anyway. What does everyone think?

[Private-Panic]

Germany - because of the weakness of R and It’s ability to help in the Med and in R with can openers.

By contrast J is on the receiving end of can openers from the US for UK or either for ANZAC. Thus far I have found those a real problem when playing J.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

To me it would be Japan.
But I also let everyone know it is my personal opinion.
Japan has no canopener, is facing four enemys at the same time and need to be played aggressivley. Risks cannot be easyally taken, because if you mess up, you messed up.
The VC’s are spread and cannot be taken without landing close.
Japan depend on her Navy.
If you take out Japans TT’s, then Japan is not able to get all the VC’s.

Germany needs to pile up a stack and getting momentum.
Germany has a canopener and is only facing three enemys.
French don’t count in this equation.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

This is quite a tough question… Allies must first contain Japan because if it ever gets more income than the combined Pacific Allies, then it will inevitably win.  Hence the US must focus for the first few turns in the Pacific theater.  Success is guaranteed if they keep spending enough against Japan, but doom is also guaranteed if they don’t turn focus to Germany early enough.  One turn makes the difference between winning and losing in most games.

Containing either Germany or Japan by themselves is a piece of cake; getting the perfect timing and strategy to first contain Japan and then switch to Germany is the struggle.  My question:  at what turn do most players shift a majority of spending to the Atlantic side?

[teslas]

@Arthur:

Containing either Germany or Japan by themselves is a piece of cake; getting the perfect timing and strategy to first contain Japan and then switch to Germany is the struggle.  My question:  at what turn do most players shift a majority of spending to the Atlantic side?

That really depends on what all Germany/Italy are up to, and on what turn Japan pulls the US into the war. If you gave some scenarios, I might be able to have some kind of feedback for your question. It varies wildly–for me at least.

I made this thread a while ago, but sadly nobody had any great ideas to share:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36220.0
Well, except for Pherman1215 on the third page.