Critical Issue 1: IPCs

One thing I’d add to your analysis is that in a typical KGF Germany will lose 7 ipcs early on (WR, Nor, Alg-Lib) and is usually forced to trade 6 more in the early game (Belo/Ukr) plus often EE and WE in the late game.  So acheiving economic parity is not so easy for Axis.  For Germany’s early game and Japan’s late game, Africa is critical.  But its possible to gain the economic edge w/o Africa by squeezing Russia.  If the Russian front is at stalemate, then I’d say Axis will have to firmly control Africa to have a chance of winning (and breaking this stalemate).

In this regard the island ipcs (HW, NZ, AU) are a critical 4 ipc swing in a KGF.  Japan also wants to conquer India, China, and Siberia, so Japan’s income should be at least 44 by the end of Turn 4 if the Allies are focused on Germany.  By that time Germany is probably starting to hurt–-even if it remains above 40 it is probably trading a good deal of those IPCs with the Allies.

I don’t have any set numbers (yet) to judge my progress…generally as Axis I want to be over 80 ipcs at the end of any given Axis turn, and if I’m over 90 ipcs then I’m feeling pretty good about the game.  If it’s mid-game (past Turn 5) and I’m totaling less than 80 at the end of Germany or Japan’s turn then Axis is probably in trouble.

Are you asking if it’s good to take Karelia in force early on in order to threaten any early landings in Northern Europe?

If so, then my answer is yes, but ONLY IF YOU CAN HOLD IT. You have to factor in any losses of suicidal British troops and everything Russia has. You deny Russia the $2 from Karelia, have the ability to trade the $3 from Norway with the Western Allies as long as the beachhead isn’t too big, and have the ability to trade $2 from Archangel.

If you can hold Ukraine, that might be a better move, it depends on the game. It has other benefits since Russia must choose to defend West Russia or Caucuses. You can read a more detailed analysis of the pros and cons of stacking those territories in an article on the German Lurch.

It’s for this reason my Russia will always buy at least one tank on R1 to help deadzone Karelia, Belorussia, and Ukraine.

Fleetwood Dan: I absolutely agree, stacking Karelia on G1 can be a watershed moment for Germany, even a game-winner if it holds for the long run.  By the way, if suicidal British are a danger in the first round, you can always NCM a sub to SZ 3 to take that out of the equation.  In my mind, it’s well worth the loss of the sub and the reduced defense in SZ 5.  Long term is trickier, especially if you’re trying to hold it while also ramping up your defense in Western Europe; I’ve seen some very, very good players abandon Western Europe in order to hold onto the Karelia stack (and done it myself a few times).

In answer to the original post: It’s not too unusual to see the Axis equalizing the income by round 2-3, however, it’s often for a fleeting moment because the Allies can recapture Africa and may start to make gains in Europe.  Sometimes you can make a second income surge in round 5 or so, due to Japan hitting 50+ income while Germany holds the line at 35ish (assuming KGF, of course).

One thing that’s important to keep in mind is that comparing the incomes at any one point in time isn’t the best way to assess the economic balance, because any territories that are getting constantly traded will only be counted for whoever owns them at the moment.  (So if you compare after your team’s turn, things will look better than they are, and if you compare after an opponent’s turn they’ll look worse.)  A more accurate index is to compare the total amount of money collected on each side over the last 5 turns.  That may sound tedious to add up, but since people generally don’t save too much, you can get a good estimate by comparing the cash on hand (unless there are a lot of SBR’s going on).