@ROCmonster:
Yes, you are right. I said 102 vs 111 maximum, minus German losses from the opening turns, the unpredictable bombing damage, AAA-fire, escort- and interceptor losses. If things go the good way for Germany, allies will still win with 7units. Hell, if things go so stinking Lucky for Germany, they can even take Moscow! But it will be a worthless Pyrrhic victory. On the other hand, talking about stinking luck, the allies may still win with 20 units left! And the truth is, there can still be 5 more UK FTR in Moscow. I just never needed them there and don’t think they should also go to Moscow. But apparently there is room for adjustments on the allied side if need be.
G6, G7, G8, the economic game, Japan going for the VC win in the Pac, those are all valid and very strong axis drills.
But we are running around in circles, as to the last comments I can only reply like I did at square one already:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33833.msg1299395#msg1299395
Including Volgo/Cauca, Germany won’t be spending more than ~35IPCs per turn (because of raids/convoying), Wallies are producing 16 units/turn in WEurope and that’s without any investments from the USA even (considering both Japan and the USA are now spending 100% into Pacific for control of Hawaii/Sydney), so after adding 10 INF in Berlin, Germany has max 5 IPCs left to spend on outproducing Russia… Russia will not have less than 18IPCs to spend unless also being bombed every turn in which case Russia will still produce 2INF per turn (with a maxed out IC) and this will continue to cost Germany more air than the allies (who can even add more FTR at this point)…
But like I said, we are starting to run around in circles, neither one convincing the other.
You firmly believe the axis can never loose if played by your playbook. Except, maybe if the allies go KJF. I, on the other hand, believe that the allies have more options than that and also that there is no guaranteed axis win if the allies go for a 'K’G/IF. If this option is permantly busted for the allies with convincing arguments, I would be done with A&A because of too narrow strategic options for the allies (I’m not interested in bids to ‘correct’ this as long as it isn’t official). But luckily I haven’t seen/heard any such convincing argument yet.
So let’s leave it at that and agree to disagree. I don’t like to run around in circles with arguments.