Firstly, that game was of high debate for quite a long time, doubly so since it unseated the reigning king of Axis and Allies on this board, but also because he lost to a girl after countlessly stating that any attempt to focus on out building Japan was a lost cause. Although, there was some luck involved, all my battles of 80% odds or better, on Russia 1, succeeded without totally crippling the attacking force.
Anyway, my humble opinion in Revised is that America, and England to a lesser extent, need to focus on countering Japan’s moves while Russia, and England to a lesser extent, work on eastern Europe. Why is England to a lesser extent twice? Well, for once, it is a lesser extent twice, and for another, it is their job to, to a lesser extent!, reclaim Africa. In this, the allies (combined) earn more than either Germany or Japan (and combined) giving them options, and I am all about the options.
Over all, I would say that most games could be won with an aggressive Russia in Europe, England both reinforcing Russia and reclaiming Africa and an American fleet build in the Pacific. Generally speaking, Japan will build in opposition to America and thus, you sap Japan’s strength in going ashore. Meanwhile, with England fighting in Africa, Germany has to sap her strength or give up Africa, and I do not know a lot of players who will give up Africa without an extended fight. Thus, you are left with 35 IPC from the Allies vs 30 IPC for the Axis (assuming you have taken most of Eastern Europe, of course.)
It seems to work. An industrial in India is just the icing on the cake. Building that is what caused Switch to concede and eventually leave the boards entirely.