Hey ItIsILeClerc,
I understand your frustration with the Allies only seeming to be able to win with a Japan first strategy. In most of our Allied won games, that tends to be the prevalent strategy. Either the US totally takes Japan out (taking Tokyo) or neutralizes Japan by wiping out their navy then parking subs in SZ 6 for convoy raiding and bombers on Iwo Jima for SBRs. If China/India/Russia and possibly ANZAC can deal with the Japanese force on the mainland, Japan will be to a point where they can’t buy or repair anything because what little money they are making gets taken away by the US subs.
After either of those scenarios, then the US starts sending stuff in bulk to Europe.
Then it mainly depends on how long Moscow can hold out and how much resources Germany is putting into Russia.
If Moscow falls too early, then Germany will be strong enough to contest the US and UK and you might end up with a stalemate. However, it will still be really hard for Germany to defend Europe and Western Russia from the UK, the US, India and ANZAC. Germany will have a lot of area to try and cover and there will be a lot of spots for the Allies to possibly attack.
What has happened on at least a couple of occasions was Germany threw so much into Russia that they were desperately weak in Western Europe. So while Moscow ends up falling, so does Berlin and Germany has all their equipment way over in Russia.
Anyway, I don’t think I can remember a Germany first strategy that ended in an Allied win. At least not with more or less “regular” game play. There was one game where all 3 Axis tried to take out the US and it failed miserably.
The plan was for Germany to feign a round 3 Sealion then on round 3 move to Gibraltar. Italy gets control of Gibraltar Round 2 and on round 3 sends what’s left of it’s navy out to clear any American blockers in Sea Zones 89 and or 102. Then on round 4, Germany pounces on the US east coast. Meanwhile, Japan simultaneously attacks the US west coast. If the plan works right, Germany controls the US capital with a lot of money to spend in Europe, Japan controls the Western US, the US navy is sunk and the Americans have nothing to try and liberate their capital with. Then Germany and Japan, while experiencing some setbacks, will easily be able to go back and deal with the more “minor” Allies.
However, this game started bad. First, Germany failed to take Paris round 1, resulting in less money for transport buy round 2. So instead of attacking the Eastern US with 11 transports, they only had 6 or 7 and the invasion failed. Japan did manage to take the Western US, but the US simply put up a wall of men in Central US and booted the Japanese out next round.
This game was technically a “Germany First” game since Berlin actually fell first before Tokyo or even Rome. However, it was really the Russians that finished off Germany as they steamrolled into Eastern Europe round 4. With Germany’s miserable failures first in France then the US, they really didn’t leave much left to actually defend Europe with. The UK went after Rome and Liberated Paris. The US didn’t really have any presence in Europe and weren’t really needed there. They concentrated on rebuilding a navy and going after Japan.
However, I know what you really mean is with a more or less “standard” opening move on the part of the Axis and the US sending more into Europe while simply holding off the Japanese to keep them from winning. I don’t think I have seen a successful Allied win with that strategy yet.