Who is more difficult to contain?

[teslas]

“Contain” and “Prevent from winning” are pretty rough words. Full disclosure: I +1’d ColonelCarter’s post.

Japan I feel is a matter of dumping 75-100% of America’s income into controlling. You must do this. The problem with that is what happens with Germany as you do it. Japan getting that last VC for the win is pretty rough before fairly late-game. Hawaii can be turtled up, and ANZAC’s capital can be defended very well. While you do that, Japan tends to begin to seep into the Atlantic theater.

The problem with this question is that its simplicity begins to fall apart by the 6th-7th turn of the game. For the first few turns, no doubt, the axis lead the way and the allies must react. By the midgame, however (turn 4-7), both sides must react to what the other is doing. By the 6th-8th turn, nearly every game is quite different. In that instance, which side do I find most difficult to handle? Well, Germany: as I voted.

Whether this is an artifact of the way I, personally, experience the game, or whether this is a catch-all response, is entirely unclear to me.

I hope my vague words help >_>

[Karl7]

Japan.  Not debatable.

From Australia or the Carolines, the allies can keep Japan on the defensive, picking away at its assets, unless Japan sacrifices their home waters, which is doom for Japan.

Germany has a good defensive position since US/UK must come by sea.  The USSR is too weak to really threaten Germany offensively.  So, often Germany can sit on its butt, so to speak, hold off the allies and then kill Russia at will.

[taamvan]

It really does depend on the game, as our last night’s game 92 had Italy take Paris, with nearly 50 income, holding all the oil states, Germany never either Sea Lioned or attacked Russia and was mostly proactive/defensive with around 55 income, and Japan was DoW3 and took about 60 including China.  The Axis choose where to go and are the “white player” with first mover advantage.  So the one that is the hardest to contain is the one that happens to go completely haywire in that particular game

Italy took all the oil states, softened India by putting a factory in East Persia and attacking India from the west, with any two attackers, it eventually fell no matter how turtled.  This despite losing most of its guys at Taranto–it made up for that temporary loss by attacking all the landed planes and retaking Cairo en masse with German help.

If all 3 of the Axis have threshold income (~50) that’s a pretty obvious win, even though Russia was free to go wild and had 50 income as well…

[WILD BILL]

@taamvan:

Italy took all the oil states, softened India by putting a factory in East Persia and attacking India from the west……

Just to note East Persia has no IPC value so you can’t build an IC there

[innocentbystander]

I said Japan is harder only because they have more…. options than Germany (IMHO.)

[Vanerost]

I say Japan. As they really are a case of containing. If they are left unchecked they can spread quite quick due to their navy and Air Force. It requires the USA to spend quite a bunch of its income I the pacific. But a steady constant attack from the USA even if they are loosing ships every match will dwindle Japan’s offence and force them into defence. Russia and the U.K. Can work together to weeken Germany and if the USA has two turns to spend all of its income in the Atlantic nary turn one and two most games, then Germany has a hard time geting momentum. Unless the the Italian fleet survives then I would change my vote to Germany as the Italians will be a force to allow the Germans to focus on one enemy since the Italians will be covering their back so to speak. Or that is my opinion after a couple of games anyway. What does everyone think?

[Private-Panic]

Germany - because of the weakness of R and It’s ability to help in the Med and in R with can openers.

By contrast J is on the receiving end of can openers from the US for UK or either for ANZAC. Thus far I have found those a real problem when playing J.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

To me it would be Japan.
But I also let everyone know it is my personal opinion.
Japan has no canopener, is facing four enemys at the same time and need to be played aggressivley. Risks cannot be easyally taken, because if you mess up, you messed up.
The VC’s are spread and cannot be taken without landing close.
Japan depend on her Navy.
If you take out Japans TT’s, then Japan is not able to get all the VC’s.

Germany needs to pile up a stack and getting momentum.
Germany has a canopener and is only facing three enemys.
French don’t count in this equation.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

This is quite a tough question… Allies must first contain Japan because if it ever gets more income than the combined Pacific Allies, then it will inevitably win.  Hence the US must focus for the first few turns in the Pacific theater.  Success is guaranteed if they keep spending enough against Japan, but doom is also guaranteed if they don’t turn focus to Germany early enough.  One turn makes the difference between winning and losing in most games.

Containing either Germany or Japan by themselves is a piece of cake; getting the perfect timing and strategy to first contain Japan and then switch to Germany is the struggle.  My question:  at what turn do most players shift a majority of spending to the Atlantic side?

[teslas]

@Arthur:

Containing either Germany or Japan by themselves is a piece of cake; getting the perfect timing and strategy to first contain Japan and then switch to Germany is the struggle.  My question:  at what turn do most players shift a majority of spending to the Atlantic side?

That really depends on what all Germany/Italy are up to, and on what turn Japan pulls the US into the war. If you gave some scenarios, I might be able to have some kind of feedback for your question. It varies wildly–for me at least.

I made this thread a while ago, but sadly nobody had any great ideas to share:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36220.0
Well, except for Pherman1215 on the third page.