Capital trading

Allies.

Japan with all of Russia, sin, chi, ind, aus, nz = 64
UK&US (minus the above ter) with Ger = 102

It is still 2 on 1 and even trading parts of Afr, the Allies will have the adv.

The Allies can place 16 in Europe plus 8 right on the UK, while Japan can only get 12 on Rus and Cauc.

Now if Japan takes Mos really strong and the Allies barely get Ger, maybe.  But time is still on the Allies side with the economic adv.

My guess would be, Japan would have to be somewhere near 75-80 IPC to have a shot, if they couldn’t immediatley liberate Germany (2 turns) that is.

I’d say it all depends on what is left in Central Europe but from what you are saying than I would say the yes Allies would win.

In all but one game I ahve seen… Allies win.

Time shift is critical in a Capital trade though.
Same turn, Allies
Subsequent Turn, more balanced, slight Allied favor
2 turns later, likely Axis
3 turns later (if Germany falls 3 turns after Moscow, what in the word was Japan doing all that time???)
:mrgreen:

I disagree that the Allies always have the advantage. There are a lot of factors invloved.

First, and most importantly, is who controls the Med. Whoever controls the Med has a greater ability to control Africa and also is in position to threaten many key territories.

Second, the fact that the Allies have a 16 to 12 advantage in frontline production is not a factor because the Japanese already have their reinforcement system in place and are still constantly feeding units to the front from their IC’s and Japan.

Third, the 1-2 punch the Allies can make is as much of a disadvantage as it is an advantage. Japan can push the frontlines in Europe even if they are outnumbered because the Allies have to attack them separately and will likely take more casualties than Japan in doing so.

Fourth, in most situations, Japan owns at least half of Africa and there are also some German European territories that are Russian owned that the Allies will not be able to collect on so the income difference is usually closer than 102/64.

Lastly, it depends on which Ally controls which German IC and how much each Ally is making. Unless UK owns the bulk of Europe and Africa is Axis free, if they have Germany, they will have a hard time building 18 units to fill both Germany and the TP’s unloading from UK. And even if they do have enough income, those units are likely to consist of only infantry and few offensive units. Japan will be contesting Africa so UK is usually going to have about 40-50 or so IPC’s.

It’s situational. But if the quantity of units on the board is roughly equal then Japan isn’t necessarily doomed.

@Jennifer:

If Russia looses her capital to Japan in teh same turn that Germany looses her capital to England, who wins?  (Assuming neither capital can be recaptured and each country had relatively the same IPC value (about 10-13) on hand at the time of capture?

Read the post.

If neither capital can be recaptured, the Allies will win.

The whole thing about the Axis winning in a capital trade is if Japan and Germany still have forces that can be used to recapture Berlin.  Then the outcome is clearly in favor of the Axis - that is, if Tokyo and Berlin and Moscow are securely in Axis hands.

But if the Axis cannot retake Berlin, and can NEVER retake Berlin (for some odd reason), then it’s a simple matter of IPCs.  The US will have around 36 (assume some losses in Asia and possibly Brazil or Alaska or something like that).  UK around 50 (up Germany and two or three 3 IPC countries for up 19, assume Allies have control of Africa, which is reasonable given a KGF plan anyways) and Japan around 52 (up Soviet Far East, Yakut, Novosibrisk, Evenki, Russia, probably Kazakh, India, Ssinkiang, China).

So IF THE AXIS CANNOT RETAKE BERLIN, who is clearly going to win in the end?  UK can pump out 16 infantry a turn, and doesn’t need to build a navy.  Japan needs to pump out infantry while protecting its navy.  US can make trouble.  The result is clear!

U-505 makes some good points, but those points are really more relevant in a situation in which one of the capitals CAN be recaptured in 2-3 turns.

If however Japan has Africa and the allies ahve been on a KGF, then Japan will liekly grab some of central europe pretty quickly for extra income and you can get Japan up around 80 IPC’s in that scenario with little difficulty.

And we have had a player on these boards win under exactly that scenario… with a Jap fleet in the Med when Moscow fell, and UK falling shortly thereafter.

@U-505:

Fourth, in most situations, Japan owns at least half of Africa and there are also some German European territories that are Russian owned that the Allies will not be able to collect on so the income difference is usually closer than 102/64.

altough i agree with you i still have to correct this,
correct me if i am wrong but i think that the rulebook says if the country(in this case Russia)lost its capital its aliies can capture its territories and use its IC until the capital(Moscow)is liberated

and speaking of the odds
i am playing a game against 4th Mac and its just the case you are speaking here,

switch you say it can be done but i need Africa and the IPCs, i dont have troops in Africa and i ve collecte 59 in the last round but i am still holding out(altough my opponent is superior to me under this situation, and he plays very well :-)

but dont give me advices, i dont want to (if i do) win in not a fair play way
:wink:

@Amon-Sul:

altough i agree with you i still have to correct this,
correct me if i am wrong but i think that the rulebook says if the country(in this case Russia)lost its capital its aliies can capture its territories and use its IC until the capital(Moscow)is liberated

To be paid for a fallen Allies territory, you MUST take it form the enemy.  Entering friendly territory is not combat movement.  You can only take territory via combat movement.

Entering territory still held by a fallen Ally is like reinforcing the resistance :-)

So, in the case above, where Russia controls a number of central Europe territories, US and UK can;t just walk in and claim them.  They will either have to take them from Germany or Japan once one or the other has claimed them, otherwise they remain Russian.

@ncscswitch:

@Amon-Sul:

altough i agree with you i still have to correct this,
correct me if i am wrong but i think that the rulebook says if the country(in this case Russia)lost its capital its aliies can capture its territories and use its IC until the capital(Moscow)is liberated

To be paid for a fallen Allies territory, you MUST take it form the enemy.  Entering friendly territory is not combat movement.  You can only take territory via combat movement.

Entering territory still held by a fallen Ally is like reinforcing the resistance :-)

So, in the case above, where Russia controls a number of central Europe territories, US and UK can;t just walk in and claim them.  They will either have to take them from Germany or Japan once one or the other has claimed them, otherwise they remain Russian.

I had no idea you could do this … so if Japan occupies Moscow and UK is taking control over say Karelia from Germany UK will get the IPCs from this territory and control it until Moscow is liberated?!?

Correct.

Wow.

I always thought, for example, that Karellia only could supply IPC’s to Russia or an Axis power that controlled it, but I guess I was wrong.

thanks switch, i thaught that the allies can take any Russian territory no matter do they have to attack Germany or Japan for it, i should read rulebook more carefully :-)

The rules for getting paid for territory that originally belong to a member of your side…
1.  Your ally’s capital must have fallen to the enemy
2.  Territory must be held by your enemy
3.  You take that territory from the enemy.

As soon as your allied capital is liberated, any and all of their original territory that you may have taken control of immediately revert back to your ally’s control.

You also get to use any IC’s or AA guns that would be in those non-capital territories if you take them from the enemy as noted above (but again, only so long as your ally’s capital remains controlled by the enemy).

So let’s paint this picture…

Russia has fallen and Germany controls Karelia
UK takes Karelia from Germany (and gets paid for it).
UK moves the AA gun from Karelia to Norway (also UK controlled)
Moscow is liberated
Therefore Karelia returns to Russian control

-> Who owns the AA gun in Norway???

UK.

Reverse scenario…

UK moves their own AA gun to Norway then to Karelia.  Moscow gets liberated.

The AA gun goes to Moscow (as would an IC, all “grey” units in the territory)

as far as i know, when i looked this up at some point to solve a dispute about when an AA gets to be moved, when an AA is “liberated”, it is returned to the control of the original nation. I think its actually written somewhere.
Mateo

If AA’s belonged to nations instead of territories, there would be yellow, red, dark gray, sea foam green, and dark green AA guns.

They are not, they are light gray, the same as IC’s, so they go with the territory.