Are most A&A games about Axis power momentum?

[greyleaf3]

So I know there are so many versions of A&A out there in 2021. I know that some versions been extensively studied and analyzed (Don Rae essays for example). I also know that certain versions have been proven to be imbalanced towards one side or the other.
I was wondering if most axis and allies games can be “reduced” to a simple overall concept: Axis power momentum or lack thereof?
The initial IPC income and military force distribution on most A&A Variants is easily summarized as follows:

1. The Axis powers start with significantly more combat forces already on the map, in striking position of key strategic targets, but a lower combined income than the allies.
2. The Allies start with relatively fewer combat forces, some of which are quite vulnerable to Turn 1 (T1) attacks , but they start with a higher IPC income that can turn the tide as long as they gain or at least NOT lose too much ground

Maybe there is a 1939 (or 1914:)) variant that doesnt match the above description, but generally speaking points 1 and 2 above are true.

Given the above, I think the Axis goal is almost always to “win quickly”, to quickly gain ground and IPC income through aggressive play-style and even some high risk/high reward attacks.
The optimal Allied play style can be summarized as “play defensively” until superior income combined with the “long-cycle” might of the USA player can be brought to bear to wear out the axis war machine and slowly overcome the axis power.

I know there is a lot of nuance I am not accounting for such as the "politcal state/declaration of war rules in the 1940 games and time-proven concepts such as KGF or KJF. But overall, it still seems to boil down to “Axis need to strike first, strike hard, and achieve a quick victory, or they lose the long-term war of attrition”.

[Imperious Leader]

@greyleaf3 Force Projection is what you speak of. The whole reason why IPC favors the Allies, is due to advantage in Force projection for Axis. Its the offset, so you need to know how to use it.

[Imperious Leader]

The idea is you need to maintain a dynamic force projection the prosecute your enemies into submission. The “reach” is everything. One reason why planes are so important ( attack all three types of targets: Land , sea, air)

[greyleaf3]

@imperious-leader : I looked up real-life force projection or “power projection” on wikipedia, and maybe the real-world geopolitical definition is broader than what it means in an A&A board game, or maybe not.
In real life we talk about the “threat of force” acting as a deterrent without actual engagement. Does “threat of force” and “potential reach” work the same way in Axis and Allies?
I guess it does to an extent, especially when it comes to the pacific fleet maneuvering and posturing that can often occurs between the USA and Japan in various A&A games.
The reason I question “threat of force” vs actual use of force is that in A&A, everyone is basically in an open state of war, both sides have no doubt that the other side is going to do their absolute worst…its a game, and both sides want to win (the stake aren’t super high for the players other than “sunk time” (wasting time playing a long board game and losing.)
But again, flexing your potential force (threat of force) can act as a deterrent within the game.

[Imperious Leader]

@greyleaf3 OK the threat of force can alter opponents attacks, and sort of stymie his plans. This is the art of using your dynamic projection of power without even using it. Then you can force the opponent to attack you where you decide. You dictate the game to your terms. Force Projection is a military term. The ability to attack most anywhere at any time.

[Imperious Leader]

To further elaborate in practical terms: Position units so they have the greatest utility from equidistant points and have an arsenal of units that can “reach” positions that your opponent might attack, but declines too. This achievement results in him doing only what you want. If you didn’t have the units that could threaten him, the reverse would be true and you would be playing his game.

 Read Clausewitz Principles of War. Think of AA in his terms and you cant go wrong

[barnee]

@imperious-leader Throw a little John Boyd in and attack everything or almost lol

[Jesse144]

@imperious-leader

Sounds similar to the spread, read option, etc. in offensive football strategy. Also obviously Chess (time/space/force). Of course, they are all great wargames too. Just not as “pretty” to the historian’s eye as A&A :)

[Imperious Leader]

@jesse144 I don’t know about Football or whomever “John Boyd” is. Clausewitz is the real genius and to read his book is to profit from real military wisdom. You can believe that.