Poll: Most Powerful Nation

However, after that (in a no bid game) Germany is usually pretty much boxed in with the Allies retaking Africa. Not the hallmark of the most powerful nation.

But that merely indicates the weaknesses of playing w/o a bid and not in Germany itself. Germany and Russia are strongest because they need to rely on naval units for troops the least. As it were the US is the most dependant upon them and Japan a close second. In theory if you could eliminate either the US or Jap navy then they would be irrelevent as a fighting force in the game. On the otherhand Germany is very difficult to box in past the EE/WE border in that it takes time and skill to do so.

Russia, I think is the most critical nation as usually the main focus of the game is fought on Russian territory. But needing the help of its allies to even survive also doesn’t make it the most powerful, just the most important IMHO.

But again Russia is only weak because they are the only country to have to might a two front war. Even Germany can more easily defend on of its fronts by virtue of being protected by the sea(WEuro). Just because the Russians have the most to deal with does not make them the weakest only the most pressed. Again what would happen should the Jap navy be destroyed, or if Germany were nuked each turn with HBs. The two front war would very quickly become a one front war which Russia can win very easily.

I’ll throw a kink in.

At first I thought it would have to be one of the Axis powers. They both start the game in a position to expand rapidly and for this reason they are by default militarily powerful. They are also able to expand while outnumbered two to three. This reminded me of an adage that goes something like: You can judge a man’s (woman’s) strength by the strength of his enemies. If you apply this idea then clearly the strongest nation has to be Russia. Sandwiched between the two most aggressive powers Russia has to hold out, and quite often does.

So… Russia gets my vote.

Smith,

But that merely indicates the weaknesses of playing w/o a bid

Of course, a bid changes everything. But then the question becomes, with a 15 ipc bid to Germany, which is the strongest? What about a 10 ipc bid to Germany, 10ipc bid to Japan?… Bidding does radically change the game in ways that can be difficult (at least for me) to assess.

In theory if you could eliminate either the US or Jap navy then they would be irrelevent as a fighting force in the game.

We disagree here. Either would only be set back about 2-3 turns as they would simply build a navy as required. Still, a 2 turn setback would hurt.

On the otherhand Germany is very difficult to box in past the EE/WE border in that it takes time and skill to do so.

We agree. But with only these territories, Germany has about 25 ipcs of income with no opportunity for growth. Thats not enough to be considered the most powerful IMO as other nations will have more income and therefore will (eventually have more forces and be able to do what they want). The same is true, I believe for Russia as there is almost no potential for economic growth unless either Germany or Japan gives way (which shouldn’t happen without Allied help), but Russia can sustain economic shrinkage from both.

However, the real power in the game is the teamwork that is played between players. Thats why the US should never go after Japan alone but should instead focus its resources on Germany first.

Of course, a bid changes everything. But then the question becomes, with a 15 ipc bid to Germany, which is the strongest? What about a 10 ipc bid to Germany, 10ipc bid to Japan?… Bidding does radically change the game in ways that can be difficult (at least for me) to assess.

Not really though DF makes a good argument you can’t analyze strength b/c the game as such is not balanced. Assume if you will that rather than playing with a bid one of the Allies was assumed to be neutral. The Allies would be at their strongest if they were to play with the Uk and Russia, and at their weakest if it was the Uk and USA. This indicates that they are weaker than Russia. The same methodology can be reasonably applied to the Axis as well. If Japan had to face off against Russia one on one Russia would still possess a great advantage. Were Japan to go one on one versus America Japan would probably win. So by this reasoning it can be determined that the US is the weakest power, followed by Japan and Britain, then Germany and Russia.

We disagree here. Either would only be set back about 2-3 turns as they would simply build a navy as required. Still, a 2 turn setback would hurt.

And yet as either you cannot afford to rebuild your navy can you as it takes guys off the board. What if you could continuously kill naval units ie HBombers. This is a predictable outcome of HBs and in fact Allied HBs IMO should always be used to kill the Jap navy. Once Japan has no navy and cannot build one they must build ICS. Since the brits can build more bombers they can then SBR both Japan and Russia to nothing, and it becomes cake for the Allies to win. The same methods can be used with Jap HBs however in that case the Axis can and should quickly gain M84 b/c of the limits of US production at that point.

We agree. But with only these territories, Germany has about 25 ipcs of income with no opportunity for growth. Thats not enough to be considered the most powerful IMO as other nations will have more income and therefore will (eventually have more forces and be able to do what they want). The same is true, I believe for Russia as there is almost no potential for economic growth unless either Germany or Japan gives way (which shouldn’t happen without Allied help), but Russia can sustain economic shrinkage from both.

No Germany with 25-28ipcs is still quite a threat b/c they don’t have to worry about anything at that point. They push up new troops and keep their fronts secure. Then for the Allies to win they must be able to defeat Japan, and the Japs should’ve been able to secure Novo at this point unless the game is a blowout which is irrelevent to this discussion. At this point with the Japs in Novo, and the Allies ‘boxed’ in to Karelia/Russia the Allies becomes very vulnreable to M84 if timed right. However, to actually kill the German stack is very hard as their supply lines are very short.

However, the real power in the game is the teamwork that is played between players. Thats why the US should never go after Japan alone but should instead focus its resources on Germany first.

No it shouldn’t go after Japan alone b/c the game as such is imbalanced. The US versus Japan forces 2 Allies which are weaker than Germany individually. Again in my scenario above if the game started in 1940 and the US and Japan were not included, or if the game was Germany versus the UK and US the Germans would win every time. If the game was Germany versus Russia the Germans would win. This means Germany is strongest followed by Russia and America and Japan are the weakest. Since America is weaker than Japan how would this ever help the Allies win.

Agent Smith,

Ok, I better see your reasoning behind why you think Germany is the strongest. I’m not sure if I agree or not, but I will think about some more.

Regarding the HB threat to building a Navy, its not really a problem for the US as I can build off Texas, out of range of any Axis aircraft (unless they also get LR). But that assumes the Axis will try to tech and will get HB (and LR) and also will quickly build sufficient bombers. I bet I’ll have my Navy built before they can do this.

Regarding the HB threat to building a Navy, its not really a problem for the US as I can build off Texas, out of range of any Axis aircraft (unless they also get LR). But that assumes the Axis will try to tech and will get HB (and LR) and also will quickly build sufficient bombers. I bet I’ll have my Navy built before they can do this.

Except that in order for your navies to be useful they have to move out of Texas. This throws them into the lions den so to speak, and Hbombers are far more powerful than any defensive naval unit you could add including loaded Carriers which are actually weak as they risk not just the navy but also a nations defensive airforce as well. 4-5 HBs can destroy just about any navy from my experience. It may cost a lot in terms of lost bombers, but these can be rebuilt lost bbs, Carriers, ftrs cannot.

Japan and Britian can both land-bridge quite effectively to invade their closest enemies. (Whereas Germany and Russia really cannot until either Germany or Russia is destroyed.)

But this expresses why both Germany and Russia are so important and strong as they both have a necessary function to pin down each others forces. In fact when Russia gets sufficient help from the Anglo Americans so that they can send all or virtually all of its army eastward against Japan this usually spells the death nell of the Axis powers. Japan cannot match a full power Russia becuase Russia starts off so much stronger than they do, and produces at a comparable amount.

So who would win if the game was….

Germany versus Britain?
Germany versus Russia?
Japan versus the US?

My answers are Germany, Germany and Japan, and this tells you of the relative strength of each.

Russia, they are they only country really fighting both axis powers at the central fronts!

Hbombers are far more powerful than any defensive naval unit you could add including loaded Carriers which are actually weak as they risk not just the navy but also a nations defensive airforce as well. 4-5 HBs can destroy just about any navy from my experience. It may cost a lot in terms of lost bombers, but these can be rebuilt lost bbs, Carriers, ftrs cannot.

I agree that the HB would severely restrict the movement of this Allied Navy, my only point being that it could be built without being sunk.

But how did the issue of HB come up? I guess you are assuming thats how the Allied (or Japanese) Navy is eliminated. HB (along with IT IMO) is almost always a sure win in the game for whichever nation has it.