Victory Conditions

@Chrisx A valid position. I’ve had some cheesy games where one Axis power is obliterated but the other grabs that last victory city just before the allies switch their focus. The reasoning I think is that it’s necessary to prevent the Allies from simply destroying the Axis one at a time. If the goal was let’s say 14 victory cities on both maps together the Allies would have a strong advantage because they could lock down one side of the map .

@Chrisx Perhaps, but the Axis must fend for themselves against multiple opponents, most notably the US which, is essentially the dual to all Axis powers once it’s actovated.

@Chrisx Well the USA isn’t just sitting there I hope, because by round 8 they’ve been in the fight for at least 4 turns so they should be pressuring both sides of the map and also increasing their enormous economy.

Focus 100% of attention on one theatre is a mistake in my experience. Always split your purchases and prepare to attack by turn 2 in case Japan brings you into the fight early.

If this still isn’t working then you are always free to make house rules regarding victory cities.

What exactly is happening in your games? It’s not abnormal for the Axis to win 6 or even 7 or of 10 games, as most everyone on the forum will tell you the game is tilted in their favor. It would help if you posted some of your overall strategies and where specifically you’re having trouble so that we could cover counter strategies.

But if you split your economy with america, you will not be able to out produce neither. Japan can earn 40 ipcs on a j1, and Germany can come close to that on the same turn. So turn one both Germany and japan match what america will be able to put down. Germany will also start getting nos around turn 3 or 4. Japan can get the money islands but turn 2 if there is no resistances, or by 3 or 4. By then, the axis are outmatching the amount of money you are spending. Now you might say that if you were to combine the total amount of allied money being spent on each theater, that would surpass the economic disparity, but that not how the game works. The allies cannot attack the same territories together. They can reinforce the territory, they can attack the same territory on different turns, but they cannot attack at the same time, which means in order to take or attack a fleet of ships, you must do so on each allied turn alone. That means the economic disparity is non-existent. In order to win on one side of the board, one power MUST outproduce the other, and the other powers must help as much as they could. If America splits his purchases you are giving a gift to the axis.

@DessertFox599 Now are you speaking theoretically or from personal experience? I have NEVER won as the allies when the USA dumps everything into one theatre. I’m not saying split 50/50 because he who attacks everything attacks nothing, I’m saying do a 60/40 or 70/30 split. You must crate a credible threat in one theatre while mounting a serious offensive in the other. USA has the income to achieve this with prudent purchasing. If you divert German attention for one round away from Russia that can be a deciding factor.

Axis players laugh at credible threats cause you cannot be a credible threat in global. You have to be a complete threat or you will get stomped. This isn’t any other version of axis and allies, where because of the year, 1942, the allies have certain advantages over the axis. You as the allied player in 1940 are on the verge of defeat. You will lose the British navy turn 1, France will fall, Japan can strike and earn more money individual than any other single power excluding america of course. The allies goal for the first 6 or 7 turns is to win the battle of the Atlantic, save Moscow, save Cairo, defend London, keep Hawaii and Sydney, and save Calcutta if you can. After that you need to make landings. Philippians islands, money islands, Normandy, Norway, Denmark, etc… With the axis not taking Moscow, not taking Cairo, or anything else, with landings in Europe and,or Asia, with continual bombings, convoys, and attrition, the players will give up. That is how the Allies win. Im speaking from a tabletop perspective, where the games have a fewer number of rounds and victory is decided by looks rather then a solid oob victory.

@DessertFox599 bit of a defeatist perspective I think. Your saying that the US landing 10 units on Gibraltar or in North Africa turn 3 isn’t going to do squat? What about when they invade Normandy and the Brit’s reinforce it? Now Paris will fall and you lose a victory city just before nabbing Russia. Catastrophic in my experience.

And how exactly are the allies on the verge of defeat when the wars just started? There is more hope than you realize my friend. They may be unprepared but with far larger economies they can rapidly close the gap. The Axis rely on speed and greater starting forces to achieve victory, so the faster the Allies can start attacking even if only in limited strikes the better.

Oh i love playing the allies. Im not being defeatist. Im being realistic. Realistically, in the game we are playing, in order to win as the allies, you have to focus on one theater at a time. 90% of American money has to go towards taking down germany. Germany is the biggest threat on the board. If Germany is ignored, it will win every time, in my experence. It has access to 2 capital, a wealth of nos, an ally in the south, and an amazing army with lots of heavy hitters and lots of hit soakers. Japan by contrast, has a lot of heavy hitters but doesnt start with hit soakers, often having to lose planes in some engagements, all of the ones needed for victory ( calcutta, sydney, and hawaii) are either out of position, too close to persian factories if bulited, or near the coast of america who can bulid fighters and stack hawaii with infantry and fighters. Im a gf guy. Its wayyyyy easier, takes less time, and can see results fairly quickly if you know what you are buying. Japan is the opposite. In order to beat japan you have to destory their navy. That is extremely expensive. For one thing japan has 22 aircraft ready to land on flattops if need be, second you have to match their other units, and third the entire pacific becomes a cat and mouse game and is just a waste of time. And again, THE ALLIES CANNOT ATTACK TOGETHER. This isnt soo much of a problem early game, but late game when western germany is stacked and the american and the British dont have to forces to take it individually, but collectively they could. That simple rule takes away a lot of the economic disparity the axis have.

People imagine playing the allies like what the allies actually did. When the allies did operation torch, they fought Guadalcanal. When we where landing in France, we were also island hoping the last of the japanese islands. That what players think the allies can do in axis and allies. And tbf in other versions, you can do some like that and see results. The problem is, is that there is more money on the board, the units are cheaper, axis gets some really good nos, and they, with the exception of italy, get the initiative.

@DessertFox599 I’m a Germany first guy myself, but 90% 😱 It just seems excessive. I believe you are correct in Germany being the primary threat but USA has to put some effort into the pacific because UK and ANZAC are usually steamrolled by Japan in 5 or six turns. You gotta save Sydney at least. Even if you put just 20 IPCs into the Pacific , Japan can’t be storming India, Australia, and protect its Islands all at the same time. Germany is already battling Russia with only a 10 to 20 IPC advantage, so USA coming with an additional 50 can’t be stopped without diverting valuable troops from the eastern front.

Oh i’m not saying no money should be put there. I’m saying the bare minimum. Enough to keep Hawaii, and Sydney for american.

Most of the money being spent in europe is to make sure Germany could not even think of destorying that main fleet that is going between 110 and 112. You will also need a secondary fleet in 92 to maintain the shuck. And you need transports.

Okay now you’re making sense. If Germany is sending the Luftwaffe to attack fleets though they are 1. Losing valuable planes and 2. Not sending those planes to the Eastern front.

My focus has always been getting as many ground troops into Europe as fast as possible, and damn the casualties. Any attention drawn from Germany is a positive.

yeah but it would be worth it for germany cause it buys them alot of time. Id rather go overboard and be safe than not spend enough and have to wait 2 or three more turns.

Ground units are not the key, look at japan army composition. They do soo well in china and India because their army is 75% air, 25% ground. You dont need tanks or artillery to take Normandy or Denmark. What you need is 4 or 5 flattops fully loaded, more us fighters in uk, 3 or 4 transports, and a shuck. bounse if UK has fighter to reinforce ground taking. I think the plan is every turn, you make a landing. Germany or Italy counter attacks and takes it. The you land again. Rinse and repeat. Eventually, Germany is going to realize that he is wasting infantry, tanks and planes to take a territory he is going to lose. That is how you get a foothold in Europe. You break their will to defend and you advance. They cant hold everything. Their gonna leave opening and you take those openings. Thats how the allies win.

@DessertFox599 Yes that’s certainly effective. I personally like to take and hold a territory if possible though, because it gives that added level of threat to Germany and especially Italy.