Victory conditions…...

It takes time, but eventually if you hit normandy, belgium, and denmark consistatly, you will. And once you do, you will be able to land us planes there and it becomes a fortress.

@Navymule:

If there are 241 IPC’s worth of territories (before NO’s), that would mean the Allies would be earning well over 200 IPC’s a turn.  No way the Axis could recover from that deficit.  That would mean another 50-70 IPC’s worth of NO’s as well.

I wouldn’t think the Axis could recover, either, but I also wouldn’t say it’s impossible. The Allies begin the game with a 175-66 IPC advantage, but seem to lose more than half the time. Why does this happen?

The short answer is that the Axis victory conditions are easier to achieve, in part because Axis income is concentrated in Germany and Japan. This allows the two main aggressors to develop strategy, purchase units needed to implement that strategy and get them to the front rapidly. Put another way, in the hands of an experienced player, the Axis have a very efficient military-industrial complex.

On the other hand, the Allied IPC advantage, at least for the first 5-6 turns, is negated by the dispersal of those IPCs to every corner of the globe…and the Allies’ powerhouse must cross two oceans to join the fight. Until the US is fully engaged in battle, the Allied IPC advantage is virtually nonexistent.

I could talk/write at length on the economics of G40, but I’ll jump to the key question: If the goal is to improve game balance by creating a new victory condition, wherein the Allies win if the number of Axis-controlled Victory Cities falls below X and the combined IPC value of Axis-controlled territories falls below Y, what are X and Y? In other words, what is the Axis’ “point of no return?”

So all the votes are currently for Egypt. Given recent topics posted and posts made in this thread attacking Eygpt after securing the Middle Easr and moscow just makes sense. It’s where your units are and building a sea lion fleet late game is off the table. Landing in London against a skilled opponent at any point in the game seems to actively harm efforts in the East and makes your units more vulnerable to US counterattack.

Therefore I would say that sea lion is a purely opportunistic move.

The main allied strategies still hold up. The one that becomes more dominant would be shuffling 20 units a round into Spain from USA… But even this has its flaws.

Right, that’s what I meant.

@knp7765:

By the way, has anyone else noticed that Allied victories usually take much longer than Axis victories? Most of our Allied victories are roughly 13-15 rounds while Axis victories tend to be around 7-8 rounds.

I’ve had numerous Allied victories after 3-4 rounds (when they realize that USA and USSR entering the war is going to be too much to handle), and you can have them in the first round especially if an attack on 95 or 97 goes almost perfectly.
Again, since the Allies win if the Axis can’t, whenever it becomes apparent that the Axis can’t, it’s over.  So Allied wins happen at all different stages of the game.  Have you ever had Germany fail to take Paris in the first round?  Or have their sea battles G1 go badly?  There are many ways for the Axis to lose, and lose early  :-)

You made very good insights and overall summaries of common situations in the game, by the way.  Haven’t heard much from you for awhile, unfortunately!

@Daedelus:

It means you can win the Game without having to capture any Russian Cities.

Well, yeah, theoretically.  Just seems like, particularly with new rules bringing in the U.S. if Axis is in Canadia, that’s not a very realistic proposition.  South Africa seems like it would make for more viable strategery options.

I mean, I haven’t ever put a lot of thought into an Ottawa strategy, mostly because, just looking at it, it seems pretty well doomed to fail.  Might as well try to grab New York.

@special:

People are playing to slow ;)

Agreed.

BUMP