Posts made by Argothair

Argothair

I’m a fan of reducing ship costs! What about:

Subs 5 ipc
Transports 6 ipc
Destroyers 7 ipc
Cruisers 10 ipc
Carriers 12 ipc
Battleships 16 ipc?

Argothair

Moving the factories east one step is a very interesting idea. The problem with a factory in Vologda is that it’s useless for fighting Germany – it doesn’t border any territories to the west that aren’t bordered by Moscow itself.

Also, I’m not convinced that putting a Russian factory in Kazakh will make things harder for the Japanese – it could wind up just moving the Japanese’s first captured factory that much closer to the Japanese home islands. As Japan, if I had the chance to capture a factory in Kazakh, I would largely ignore India (holding a loaded transport nearby to keep it honest) and just charge straight for Kazakh. On J1, stack all available units (including units from Tokyo and Philippines via ferry) in Anhwei and Yunnan on J1 and build three tanks and a transport in Tokyo. On J2, converge inf/art in Szechuan on J2 while landing tanks in Yunnan, and build 2 bombers. On J3, attack Kazakh with something like 9 inf, 4 art, 3 tnk, 4 ftr, 3 bmbr. Even if Russia builds 2 inf in Kazakh on R1, R2, R3 and leaves them there, and reinforces with the 4 inf in Evenki, Yakut, and Novosibirsk, and leaves the starting 1 inf in Kazakh, and sends in an AA gun and 2 fighters for extra defense, Russia still only has 11 inf, 2 ftr, 1 AAA – not nearly enough to stand up to the invasion force. Japan takes the territory with 2 inf, 4 art, 3 tnk remaining. Russia could theoretically retake it with all available troop reserves, but then Germany walks into Moscow on turn 5. Basically, Russia has to send massive reinforcements from the western front on turns 1, 2, and 3 to stabilize Kazakh, or it becomes a Japanese factory on turn 3.

If i were redoing the setup, I would say put the factories in Archangel, Moscow, and the Caucasus, with the Turkish Straits permanently closed to sea traffic, and give Russia a starting cruiser, destroyer, and transport in the White Sea instead of a submarine. This sets up a fun ferrying competition, where the Germans can hold the Baltic and ferry to Karelia, while the Russians hold the White Sea and ferry with bombardment from Archangel right back into Karelia.

A factory in Archangel helps the Russians reinforce China/Evenki as needed and is more likely to stay under Russian control. A factory in the Caucasus, with the Turkish straits closed, can now be protected affordably, and maintains a credible southern option against Germany.

I do agree with you about both the history and the excitement, though – better to move factories than to break the Med or SZ 37, and much of Russian production was behind the Urals by 1942. I’m really not even sure what the SZ 37 battle is supposed to symbolize – I’m not aware of the Japanese leaving their capital ships unescorted anywhere near that place or time in history, and if I recall correctly, the main reason why the Japanese couldn’t project naval influence further west toward India and Madagascar was problems of fuel, logistics, and resupply: they just couldn’t get enough oii to steam that far west! I never heard that the Australian and British Indian Ocean navies were in danger of linking up for a joint attack.

Argothair

Thanks for the explanation! That makes a lot of sense. I guess it’s much more important to deny Germany the ability to produce in the Caucasus than it is to keep Russia’s ability to produce in the Caucuses. Russia’s not strapped for build slots – even if you make it up to 30 or 32 IPCs, you can place them all in Russia very comfortably by building, e.g., 1 fighter per turn. Russia wants to produce in Karelia if possible because it’s significantly closer to the front, but the only territory adjacent to Caucasus that isn’t adjacent to Moscow is Ukraine, and Ukraine is adjacent to West Russia – so there’s only one, very narrow situation when you’d have any real need to produce in Caucasus: if you’re short on infantry in West Russia and need to urgently attack the Ukraine. That doesn’t come up much at any time, and I can’t see it ever coming up on R2.

Now you’ve got me wondering what happens if you attack West Russia with one tank and all available infantry, artillery, and fighters, ignore the Ukraine, and evacuate both Karelia and the Caucasus. I’m thinking that if you’re willing to trade both Karelia and the Caucasus, you could probably spare 2, maybe even 3 tanks to send to Szechuan on R1. You might be able to force Germany to make an inappropriately strong attack on the Caucasus to force you to bring the tanks back west, because otherwise the tanks can hang out in east Asia and slow down Japan by at least a full turn.

Argothair

I think US fighters buy could work if Germany tries to hold France and/or NW Europe without recognizing that Allies can attack for a profit. If Germany recognizes the situation and withdraws, allies would take an unreasonably large loss trying to land in the early (<10 rounds).

Sure, that’s a fair point – if Germany withdraws from France and NW Europe and stacks in Germany in response to your threat, then obviously you don’t just unload 4 fighters into France for Germany to feast on. Better to stockpile the planes in London, and unload infantry only into France and NW Europe. Using the extra build spots in London that you save by not needing to replace your artillery, you can build an extra British transport or two, and quickly ramp up to the ability to drop 5-6 loaded transports per turn.

If you want to pressure Germany ASAP, purchasing all bombers R1 and 2 is viable. Bombers strategic bombing trade at a slight profit.

Yes, that’s true, and very much in line with the main idea of my argument that American ferries are too slow / expensive given the size of the Atlantic. Better to send American bombers than loaded American transports, at least in the opening. My big worry about bombers is that they run into a maximum damage problem. Let’s say you max out damage on both Germany and Italy, inflicting 26 points of industrial damage against a German income of 43 IPCs (starting territories plus Karelia and Egypt, minus Northwest Europe). Germany can repair, e.g., 17 points of damage in Germany, and then have 7 build slots to spend 26 IPCs on something like 4 inf, 2 art, 1 tnk in Germany. On the next round, you can max out Germany’s damage again, but it still only costs them 17 IPCs. If Britain has to hold India and build a carrier fleet and build a transport fleet and build ground troops to get onto the mainland all by itself because America is focusing on bombers, then the earliest Britain can hope to arrive in force is turn 6, at which point the Russians have to turn around to defend Moscow from the Japanese – and then the Germans have a good chance of holding Berlin indefinitely against Britain’s marines.

Argothair

MarineIguana, I’m aware of the three-step orthodox strategy of trading, stacking, and dead zoning, and it’s easy to see that planes do not trade at a profit against infantry. I’m not sure from your comment if you realize that I’m only recommending an all-planes buy for one Allied nation: the Americans. This strategy also calls for the British to buy mostly ground troops and transports, and for the Russians to buy mostly ground troops. The overall mix of Allied forces is still mostly ground troops, with a modest air force – it’s just that almost all of the air force is controlled by the Americans. True, this means that the Americans won’t be trading at a profit, but that’s OK, for two reasons. First, as long as the Allies as a whole trade at a profit, then they are on the road to victory. Second, the point of this particular turn 4 D-Day is to rapidly overwhelm the Germans by delivering more force earlier than they can handle, even if that force is exchanged at a loss. It’s OK to trade 100 Allied IPCs a turn against 60 German IPCs a turn, because Germany doesn’t have 60 IPCs a turn to keep on losing, and if you start the attack early enough, then Japan will have difficulty reinforcing Germany effectively.

What do you think of this analysis? I realize it is not the orthodox strategy, and that you generally prefer the orthodox strategy. That said, does this alternate strategy have a chance of winning? Why or why not?

DarthMaximus, thanks for your feedback. The idea of mixing in a couple of loaded American transports to make the Germans nervous about Italy is interesting, especially if the starting American transports survive G1 sub attacks. I do want to point out that the sz 11/13/8 route is actually a 3x3x3x3 shuck, because you need to keep two stacks of transports in the center sea zone – one to head back to eastern us, and one to head on to the coast of paris. Try it out on a board so you can see for yourself; it’s counter-intuitive.

The problem with waiting until turn 5 or 6 to seriously threaten France and NW Eur is that it gives the Germans time to crack Russia and make some territorial gains – Karelia, West Russia, maybe even the Caucasus. If the Germans are up 8 IPCs in Eastern Europe, then the loss of 8 IPCs in Western Europe won’t break them, especially since the Russians will be busy defending Moscow against the Japanese. By contrast, if you land a major threat on turn 4, the Russians will usually still have enough troops and enough territory to join in the attack, and a little bit of breathing room for Moscow against the Japanese, which means they can force Germany to fight a two-front war. I totally agree with you that the usual KGF strategies take three turns just to set up the shuck-shuck and then two more to get serious about attacking – this strategy is my proposal for how to go a little faster than normal.

Argothair

Fascinating! How many LL battles per nation do you usually allow? What kinds of battles do people tend to use them for?

Argothair

Fair enough, Washington and Paris are 5 spaces apart. I wouldn’t recommend building an extra carrier in the EUS just to speed up the planes for this strategy; the US doesn’t have the IPC to spare. Instead, I would say fly the planes from Washington to the English Channel, which is only 4 spaces.

Argothair

Some of my recent posts have explored off-beat strategies, like (as the Allies) trying to win by controlling mainland east Asia, or (as the Axis) trying to win by killing Britain first. Today I�m going to shift gears and look at a much more classic opening – Kill Germany First – but with two twists. First, no American ground troops will cross the Atlantic. Second, the Allies will invade western Europe as quickly as possible: I think the earliest turn that makes sense for D-Day is turn 4, but if you have an idea for how to land on turn 3 or even turn 2, I�d love to hear about it in the comments.

Don’t Bother with an American Shuck-Shuck
So, why the ban on American ground troops crossing the Atlantic? As I�ve argued elsewhere in these forums, ships (all ships!) are too expensive relative to infantry and planes. Even though ship prices have come down compared to previous versions of Axis & Allies, the size of the Atlantic ocean has roughly doubled, meaning that you need twice as many transports and twice as much time to send troops from Washington to Paris. It used to be that every transport you built increased the effective size of your transport fleet almost immediately. Now, though, if you build a transport off the coast of Washington on turn 1, then it reaches Casablanca on turn 2, Paris on turn 3, Casablanca (again) on turn 4, and comes back to Washington and saves you the price of a new transport for the very first time on turn 5. This allows you to spend the savings on more ground troops, which will reach Paris on turn 7. It�s just too slow and too expensive.

As a quick reality check, imagine building 4 fighters per turn for the first 5 turns, followed by 1 carrier and 2 fighters on turn 6, at a cost of 234 IPCs, and sending all the fighters to Paris. (The carrier on turn 6 sits in the western Atlantic and is just there to make sure the last turn’s worth of fighters can reach in time). By turn 7, all 22 fighters would reach Paris, rolling 66 offensive pips on 22 HP. If instead you spent that money on marines, you would need to build 2 transports per turn on turns 1-4 at a cost of 64 IPCs, plus a defensive escort of (say) two battleships, two cruisers, and four destroyers at a cost of 96 IPCs, plus 2 infantry, 1 artillery, and 1 tank per turn on turns 1-3 and 3 infantry, 1 artillery on turns 4-5, at a cost of 72 IPCs. That would get you a total invasion force of 12 inf, 5 art, 3 tnk, supported by 2 BB and 2 CA, which lets you roll 7 + 10 + 10 + 9 + 8 + 6 = 50 offensive pips on 20 HPs on turn 7. So the same 234 IPCs go much further in air units than they do in land/sea units if you have to cross the Atlantic. Eventually, somewhere around turn 12, the values will shift back the other way, as your initial investment in defensive ships and transports starts to get recycled and pay dividends. But let’s be serious – if you have to wait until turn 12 for your investment to pay off, you’re conceding Moscow to the Axis, if not conceding the whole game.

Thanks to calvinhobbesliker for pointing out that fighters can’t reach directly from Washington to Paris – I’ve corrected this post in response to his comment.

Suggested Builds

Because the price of planes has also come down compared to previous editions, and because fighters can still fly from (carriers off the coast of) Washington to London or Paris in one turn, it makes more sense for the USA to give up on the idea of a transport ferry altogether, and just deliver warships and warplanes to the front lines. On A1, the USA can build 3 carriers (42 IPC) in the Atlantic Ocean, 1 of which can be filled with already existing fighters on the US mainland. On A2, the USA can build 4 fighters (40 IPC) in the Eastern US, and move the carriers to the coast of Canada. On A3, the USA can unite the carriers and fighters in the English Channel. The USA will probably have to devote some production to warding off Japanese attacks in the Pacific, but the USA can still build 2 fighters (20 IPC) in the Eastern US.

Meanwhile, the British can build something like this:
B1: 3 inf in India + 3 inf, 1 art in London + save 10 IPC
B2: 3 inf in India + save about 18 IPC
B3: spend savings on 4 transports and 2 destroyers in English Channel + any remaining income to India
B4 and afterward: 6 inf, 2 art in London

The British evacuate their surviving fighters from Egypt and India and send them to London via Russia.

The Attack

This sets the Allies up for a turn 4 British attack on either France or Northwestern Europe with a minimum of 4 inf, 3 art, 1 tnk, 3 ftr, 1 bmbr. Germany simply doesn�t have the manpower to simultaneously garrison both Northwestern Europe and France with enough infantry to absorb that attack if they�re going to try to attack Russia at all, and after Britain takes the territory, the US can land all 6 fighters from the carriers on mainland Europe (2 of those fighters can be immediately replaced from the fresh production in the EUS). Germany can probably re-take the territory, but only by using the last of its garrison troops, and then on turn 5 the British attack again with 6 inf, 2 art, 3 ftr, 1 bmbr and walk into France virtually unopposed. Conveniently, turn 4 is the turn when both the American Pacific Fleet and the British Australian fleet will arrive in the Channel to shore up the (now partly empty) carriers. Even with only 2 planes to guard it, the combined fleet will have something like 2 Sub, 2 DD, 2 CA, 3 CV, 1 BB, 2 Ftr, which is impossible for Germany to sink unless they�re going to commit their entire air force, leaving the eastern front unguarded against Russian attacks. If you see that Germany is positioning the air force to the west, just leave a few planes on the carriers, reinforcing France with, e.g., 4 fighters instead of 6. France will still be very expensive for Germany to re-claim, and Russia will make progress toward Berlin that much faster.

Note that this whole opening assumes no surviving ships in the Atlantic after German sub attacks. If (as is quite likely) the British Canadian destroyer and transport survive, that�s 15 IPC in direct savings to Britain, which you can use to purchase an additional cruiser or bomber. Alternatively, you can buy an extra transport, infantry, and artillery, letting you hit with 5 transports� worth of troops on turn 4. If instead the American Atlantic destroyer and transports survive, you can send them first to French West Africa to help preserve British income in Africa, and eventually to the Channel to reinforce France. Alternatively, you can send the ships empty to the Channel, saving the troops in Washington to defend the US west coast against Japan. Extra British infantry can load onto the American transports, and then unload onto France a turn later – there�s no special rush.

Moving into the Middlegame from this Opening

One of the benefits of this opening is that it puts Germany under extremely serious pressure before Russia even begins to collapse. Yes, Japan will be in India by turn 4 at the latest, and has a good chance to start trading the Caucusus – but Russia has excellent opportunities to preserve both a defensive perimeter and a solid income base. If Germany tries to make a serious defense of France and NW Europe, then the USSR should be able to hold or trade Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Archangel, West Russia, Vologda, and Kazakh through turn 6, earning income of at least 21 IPC. Meanwhile, by the end of turn 6, the Allies should be in Italy and the Baltics, cutting off the flow of further German troops heading east. If Germany abandons western europe in favor of an all-out Russian blitz, then Berlin should fall by turn 6. Even if Moscow falls to Japan on turn 6 or 7, the Allies will have plenty of transports and ground troops to drop into, e.g., Leningrad and Stalingrad via sea, and should be able to handily hold the line against Japan.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on how to spice up the traditional KGF. Would love to hear your feedback! Let me know how you do KGF, when you think it makes sense to go for D-Day, whether you favor American marines or American planes, etc. etc.

Please do NOT comment here about whether Kill Germany First is better or worse than Kill Japan First – please start a new thread if you want to talk about KGF v. KJF.

Argothair

Looks like I’m the only low luck user so far. I also enjoy the game with dice, especially when playing fast strategies / opponents, but IMHO rolling a zillion dice makes the game drag on longer, both because of the time you need to roll everything, and because of the time you need to try to estimate probabilities. When you can just add up the math and say “OK, I have 3 automatic hits and a 4th hit on a roll of 5 or less,” then you’re good to go, and you can stop thinking about that battle.

I agree that it’s not realistic, but you do still get some variability in the combat results – I’ve gone into battles with equal hit points where I was scoring 3 automatic hits with a 4th on a roll of 5 or less, and where my opponent was scoring 2 automatic hits with a 3rd on a roll of 2 or less, and my opponent wound up winning. There are still some upsets, is my point. Plus you have all the little battles, like in Africa and Siberia, where nobody even has 6 pips of offense to convert into an automatic hit, so the battles are resolved exactly the same way they would be in full luck.

I like that low luck saves you from spending an hour setting up the game and then seeing your chances of victory drop to 10% in the first 15 minutes of play because of bad dice. Most people are too quick to blame the dice for their failures, but it can be frustrating even for the winner when extreme dice results deliver a victory to a player almost irrespective of the odds going in. If I set up a battle in full dice where I have a 60% chance of winning, and I win the battle, and the battle wins me the war, did I beat you? Or did I just get lucky? It’s hard to figure that out. Winning with low luck feels more like a meaningful accomplishment. Of course, it is still all just a game. We should all play however we each enjoy it most!

Argothair

I used blue Risk pieces for the French neutrals, white Risk pieces for the true neutrals, and yellow meeples for the Dutch neutral infantry.

Argothair

A couple more photos.

Argothair

Hi Black_Elk,

Thanks for the feedback! Unfortunately, I’m not willing to use TripleA or the TripleA xml code – I’m a recovering videogame addict, and TripleA was one of the games I was hooked on last time I fell off the wagon. You, or anyone else who reads this, is more than welcome to transfer my notes into TripleA and/or to play the scenario online. I’m just not going to be able to join you.

However, I’m giving you the next best thing: photos.

Argothair

I’m having trouble seeing why defending Caucasus and preventing a German Karelia stack without attacking Ukraine would even be hard, if that’s what you really want to do.

Caucasus starts with 3 inf, 1 art, 1 tnk, 1 AAA. Of those units, you really want to bring the artillery north for the attack on West Russia, but you can leave the rest in place, and then reinforce them with the Kazakh infantry, 2 Russian infantry, the Russian AAA, two fighters, and a build of 4 infantry, leaving you with 10 inf, 1 tnk, 2 ftr, 2 AAA in Caucasus. At most, Germany can hit that with 4 inf, 1 art, 3 tnk, 4 ftr, 1 bmbr, 1 BB. My battle calculator shows that as a solid win for Russia.

Meanwhile, you still have 7 inf, 3 art, 3 tnk, 2 ftr that can attack West Russia on R1. You should expect to lose about 2 inf on that attack, but you can bring 2 infantry to Archangel as reinforcements from Evenki, and build 2 tanks in Russia, leaving you with a force of at least 7 inf, 3 art, 5 tnk, 2 ftr to re-take Karelia on R2. Isn’t that enough?

Argothair

Part of the weirdness of UK accounting in Global 1940 is that the historical flexibility of the UK economy was halfway between “London is the capital, if it falls you’re screwed” and “whatever; we can fight equally well using any of our colonies as a base of operations.”

Like, if the Axis had sacked Capetown, Sydney, Singapore, and Cairo, then the UK’s colonial empire would have ceased to generate any income at all for London, even if Calcutta and wide swaths of the African interior and Western Australia were still under British control. On the other hand, if the Axis had sacked Calcutta alone, with no other conquests, then the UK would have found some other regional capital, and everything would have hummed along with minimal disruption. Basically, the British Empire was in a position to absorb some shock, but too much shock would have brought it down.

I’m really not sure how to model this in terms of A&A gameplay. Losing an IC seems like too light of a penalty for losing a regional capital, but losing your income for an entire half of the board seems too heavy. One option would be to say that each time an Axis power captures Ottawa, Capetown, Cairo, Sydney, Singapore, or Calcutta, then it gets to loot 15 IPCs from the British treasury, or 25 IPCs for capturing London, but British income/production are otherwise unaffected. I like the UK Europe / UK Pacific divide as as way of speeding up the game, and with the new, more generous capital-sack rules, you don’t run into problems where London is Axis-occupied and so West India is somehow incapable of being administered at all even though Calcutta and Cairo are holding just fine.

The NOs as written already incentivize Britain to try to maintain the territorial integrity of regions like Australia, and you could tweak the NOs even further in that direction if you wanted to. Similarly, the 3 unit/turn cap on minor ICs help incentivize Britain to spread its purchases out across the globe, although with naval units, that cap is less important.

Argothair

Frederick II, we all enjoy being imaginative, but I think you’re trying to do two things at once with the UK: wear down the Japanese navy, and conquer southeast Asia. The UK honestly just doesn’t have enough income to do both of those in the same game. I wrote a whole post (“KAF”) about how the UK can conquer Southeast Asia, and like you say, if that’s your main goal, then it’s helpful to build an IC in Egypt, and maybe even an American IC in Sinkiang. You want to spend any Allied bid on putting land units in Egypt and China. In KAF, you build a submarine-heavy, zero-transport navy with the US and use it to sink the Japanese navy, and you don’t worry about taking Tokyo.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35859.0

This thread here is a KJF thread, though, so you’ve got to try to take Tokyo. To do that, you’ve got to try to protect American transports as they cross the Pacific. To do that, you’re going to have to focus every available resource on that goal, or you won’t cross the Pacific until well after Moscow falls. If you’ve got a bid, most of it has to get spent on an extra sub to help sink Japan’s battleship and fully loaded carrier in SZ 37.

It’s not that a British IC in Egypt wouldn’t be of some use to protecting American transports – it’s just that it’s not the most efficient use. Without any new ICs, Britain can build 2 infantry and 1 artillery in India, and 2 fighters in London each turn, and then fly the fighters to India via Archangel or central Africa. 2 inf, 1 art, 2 ftr will cost you 30 IPCs a turn, which is usually all the income Britain can hope to have in a KJF. I’m not a huge fan of air power normally, but since you will eventually need the extra fighters to help protect American carriers, and since your mission in India is primarily defense, there’s nothing wrong with having 30-40% of your units be airplanes.

Another way to look at it is to imagine that you do make some progress in southeast Asia by building, e.g., tanks in Egypt along with your ground forces in India. What are you going to take? Burma? Yunnan? Maybe you can trade Indochina. You’re looking at a total swing of 2-4 IPCs – but if the Americans make it to Borneo even one turn faster, that’s 4 IPCs for the Allies right there, and the Americans are the ones who need the IPCs the most in a KJF. What are the British going to do with the extra IPCs – build one more tank that won’t ever threaten the Japanese capitol?

Innohub, I like your suggestions. The only thing I disagree with is your suggestion to make killing transports a priority. Usually I completely agree that Japanese transports are priority target number one, but if you’re focused on breaking the IJN, then it’s more important to kill the Japanese carrier and battleship, and in any event the more Japan spends on building ground units (and maybe even extra transports) to drop into east Asia, the less Japan has available to maintain its navy. If you can hold Kazakhstan and India, then there’s nothing much in central / northeast Asia for Japan to conquer that will pay off the investment in ground troops before American can break Japan’s navy. All the Allied territories are 1 IPC each.

Black Elk, I mostly agree that you’ve got the optimal strategy laid out there, but I do find it frustrating as a matter of theme that so many Allied strategies involve flooding the center with aircraft. It’s so ahistorical that it breaks my suspension of disbelief. I wonder if there’s an easy house rule that would allow for a reasonable lend-lease program to help make the ‘air wall’ less attractive/mandatory.

The only point I’d quibble with you about is needing to bring Japan below 10-12 IPC / turn. By the time that’s a possibility, the USA probably has an IC on Borneo and/or the Philippines, which means that the US can afford to supplement its fleet with the occasional destroyer or whatever to account for the fact that Japan is building, e.g., one bomber per turn. I’d much rather a weakened Japan build 1 bomber / turn than 4 infantry / turn – 4 infantry require that I build and transport 5-6 ground troops to Tokyo, but 1 bomber just requires that I build a pair of destroyers. The destroyers are cheaper both as a matter of IPCs and in terms of your unit/turn production capacity in the western Pacific. That said, if you can bomb Tokyo to smithereens, obviously you should.

Argothair

Thanks, Black_Elk! I really appreciate the positive feedback. :-)

MarineIguana, any board game with only 2 factions and no rules involving subjective opinions or thespian drama ought to be analyzable in terms of formal game theory. We could also say that 2-player Monopoly is probability and statistics wrapped in a pretty real estate wrapper, and that 2-player Scrabble is probability and statistics wrapped in a pretty English-language wrapper. Solving games is interesting, if you like that sort of thing. I have at least a causal interest in it, myself. One interesting step along the way to solving Axis & Allies would be to figure out the ‘point value’ of the pieces. In other words, in Chess, a pawn is 1 point, a knight is 3 points, a rook is 5 points, etc. I don’t think you could just use the IPC costs of the pieces, because some units are virtually always overpriced – it may cost 12 IPC to build a cruiser, but I’d almost always cheerfully agree to scuttle my cruiser if you pay me 10 IPC for it. There’s also the question of how far out of position a piece can be and still have value – a carrier in the English Channel might be worth 20 IPC, but a carrier off the coast of Argentina might be worth only 10 IPC.

DarthMaximus, I haven’t seen a consensus about the one or two best methods of transport shucking. As America, no matter how you arrange the shuck, you’re going to have to buy a lot of transports. In the older versions of the game, you could get away with what I would call a 2 x 3 shuck – 2 groups of 3 transports each. One group would run from London to Washington and back to London each turn, and the other group would run from Paris or Warsaw to London and back to Paris or Warsaw each turn.

In 1942.2, though, there are no there-and-back-again routes across the Atlantic unless you want to ferry from Brazil to French West Africa (not advisable). Anywhere else you try to cross the Atlantic, you’ll need to travel two sea zones to reach your destination. That means to keep up the same reliability as you might be used to from previous versions – delivering fresh troops to the front lines every single turn – you will typically need four groups of transports. For example, with a 4 x 2 shuck – 4 groups of 2 transports each, you can have one group run from Washington to Casablanca, one group run from Casablanca to Washington, one group run from Casablanca to Paris or Rome, and one group run from Paris or Rome to Casablanca.

You can still run a ferry from East Canada to London if you want to, but it’s not much use the Germans have a large Mediterranean navy that you want to avoid, or you are aiming to ultimately drop your troops off in Leningrad or Archangel. London is usually pretty safe by the time you have a ferry running, and you can reach all the other plausible destinations by staging in Morocco just as well as you can by staging in London – and Morocco can be reached in two moves from EUS, whereas London is three moves away from EUS, so you have to set up the shuck from Canada, which is usually one turn slower. Another advantage of staging in Morocco is that you can skim off a couple of IPCs from Morocco and Algeria by taking them away from the Germans.

The only other option that occurs to me at the moment is that you can ferry directly from East Canada to Paris – it’s two sea zones away. That way you only need one defensive fleet, and you only need two groups of transports. The downside is that your attacks become very predictable; every round you are going to Paris, and that’s the end of the story – that makes it easier for the Germans to defend. If you coordinate with the UK, then the UK can try to build a small fleet and attack whatever the Germans leave open as they try to guard Paris.

As far as other nations, the best Japanese ferry is probably from Japan to Yunnan – for a move of only one sea zone, you can get infantry 3 moves away from Moscow and 2 moves away from India. That’s Black Elk’s idea; I didn’t see it until he pointed it out. The other cool Japanese ferry is Japan to Alaska, which is actually more powerful in this game than in some previous versions – Alaska’s 2 sea zones away, so you can build something like a 2 x 3 shuck – two groups of three transports. You won’t hold it for ever, but it can force the USA to devote half or more of their purchasing power away from Germany.

Britain and Germany will occasionally ferry some troops over, but they don’t really need to do any complicated shucking. Russia probably shouldn’t be building transports unless you’re in some kind of bizarre endgame.

Does that answer your question?

Argothair

One mistake I see amateur players make is that they purchase units based on what seems like it will be immediately convenient, rather than based on any kind of long-term strategy. Yes, there are times when dropping a pair of tanks in Leningrad or a pair of fighters in India will help you capture or protect a key territory, but if you let short-term tactics dominate your purchasing decisions, you will eventually be left with an uncoordinated mess of troops that cannot launch any effective large-scale attacks, and you will lose in the endgame as a result.

There are five main long-term strategies, and unless you know exactly what you are doing, you should try to choose one or maybe two of those strategies for each nation you control, and then let that strategy (or that pair of strategies) dictate 80-90% of your purchases.

STRATEGY 1: THE INFANTRY PUSH

How Does it Work?
The infantry push takes advantage of the fact that infantry offer the best defensive value per IPC in the game, and that infantry are also quite good on offense when supported by even a small force of any other type of unit. The idea is to gather an enormous stack of infantry – starting with at least 10 units, and building up to at least 20 units over the first few turns – and slowly march it forward toward an enemy capital. If your stack is attacked, you will usually lose fewer IPCs than your opponent, because infantry are so cheap. If your stack is not attacked, you will force your opponent to retreat from valuable territories, again gaining the economic edge.

What Kind of Purchases Does it Need?
The problem with the infantry push is that it typically strains your factories’ maximum production limits. For example, Germany starts the game able to produce 13 units a turn, but if you try to spend, e.g., 45 German IPCs on nothing but infantry, you generate 15 units. Similarly, Britain might want to spend about 20 IPCs per turn in India, but the Indian factory’s 3 units / turn can only support 3 IPCs. The solution is to purchase (or capture) additional industrial complexes, even if those complexes are not ideally placed. For example, a German player using an Infantry Push strategy wants to capture Leningrad or Stalingrad as soon as possible, so that they can use the Russian factories there to help overcome the German production limits. If both factories are heavily defended (e.g., with a bid), then the German player can consider building an Industrial Complex in Bulgaria. Similarly, a British player who is using an Infantry Push strategy should build an Industrial Complex in either Egypt, South Africa, or Norway. When building (or capturing) Industrial Complexes, make sure to choose territories that have a continuous land bridge to your target. For example, Britain should not build an Industrial Complex in the East Indies as part of an infantry push, because any infantry built in the East Indies would be dependent on transports to reach Berlin or Tokyo. You generally can’t afford to build industrial complexes and transports with the same nation – it won’t leave you enough IPCs to actually build troops. Don’t be afraid to build an Industrial Complex in a 2-point territory if two more units per turn will give you the leverage you need. For example, Japan can build Industrial Complexes in Manchuria and Kwangtung for a total of 5 units per turn. This is slightly suboptimal, but if those 5 units per turn can walk right into India, or even just force the British player to buy expensive fighters to defend India while Japan builds cheap infantry and artillery, then your investment is likely to pay off. If you do build an extra Industrial complex or two, make sure you use them to build ground units. There’s no point in building an Industrial Complex in Egypt and then using it to produce fighters – you could just skip the factory, fly the fighters in from London, and have them arrive at the same time. Instead, use your forward factories to produce ground troops, and your rear factories to produce your planes. The planes will catch up with your ground troops soon enough.

What Kind of Player Will Enjoy an Infantry Push?
The infantry push rewards advanced spatial thinking, as well as rapid, accurate counting of units and their combat value. You need to be able to imagine how your units will move over time so that you can evaluate where and when your forces will be able to link up, and whether your opponents will be able to successfully reinforce your target(s). The infantry push also requires a great deal of patience – you will not be making any dramatic attacks for the first few turns, and the value of your strategy may not become apparent to your opponents or your teammates until you are at the gates of your enemy’s capitol. On the bright side, the infantry push is incredibly resilient, and minimizes the role of luck (because you will have many units, each of which will roll its own die). A fleet can be sunk before it reaches its destination; an air force can be caught on the ground or pushed out of range, but the only way to disable an infantry stack is to frontally attack it, and defending against frontal attacks is what infantry do best. An infantry push is a good strategy for thoughtful, patient, risk-averse players.

STRATEGY 2: DARK SKIES

How Does it Work?
The dark skies strategy takes advantage of the incredible mobility of fighters and bombers to focus overwhelming power against a different target each turn. You might sink a fleet one turn, inflict massive industrial damage on a capital on the next turn, and then follow it all up by providing air support for a massive ground battle on the next turn. Nothing but a massive stack of ground units can successfully resist an attack from a large air force, and a massive stack of ground units can’t be everywhere at once. With enough air support, even a small force deep into enemy territory can become a deadly threat. Suppose Russia is defending the Caucasus with 5 infantry and a tank, and the Germans have only 2 infantry and 1 artillery in the Ukraine, with no other ground units capable of reaching the Caucasus. Add in a German air force of 8 fighters and 2 bombers, and the Germans are now rolling 37 pips on offense – enough to average 6 hits in the first round of combat. Meanwhile, the Russians are only averaging about 2 hits. The Germans can lose 2 infantry, and the Russians lose all 5 infantry. In the next round of combat, the Russians will be wiped out, and have a 50-50 chance of killing one German fighter. This attack costs the Russians 21 IPCs of defenders, versus an average German loss of 5 IPCs (9 IPCs of attackers - 4 IPCs looted from the Caucuses), even though, before air support, the Russians had the Germans outnumbered in the region 2:1. To stage an affordable defense against a large air force, your opponents need to outnumber you 3:1 or 4:1 in the region – but there’s no way to generate that kind of overwhelming odds in your favor on every part of the board at once, and wherever you don’t have overwhelming odds, the air force can bite you.

What Kind of Purchases Does it Need?
You need to buy a mix of fighters and bombers – if you have nothing but fighters, then your opponents will be able to sneak in some ferries just out of range of your fighters, but if you have nothing but bombers, then you run the risk of being forced to land the bombers in an indefensible territory. A large mixed air force can admirably defend itself against medium-size raids, but bombers alone are weak on defense. Just as importantly, you need to focus on buying fighters and bombers, along with a small quantity of ground forces so you have some fodder for taking hits and some boots on the ground for conquering territories. Don’t dilute this strategy too much, or it won’t get you anywhere. 10 planes can turn the tide of battle in ways that are difficult to predict or defend against; 5 planes are just so many overpriced tanks. If you try to build industrial complexes or transports as well as planes, you won’t be able to afford a large enough air force. On the other hand, if you try to build 100% planes, you’ll eventually find yourself staring at an empty battlefield, with no enemies in sight, but with no way of conquering your opponent’s delicious IPCs. Don’t let this happen to you – throw your army generals a bone and let them buy at least 2-3 infantry per turn even when you’re playing with dark skies.

What Kind of Player will Enjoy Dark Skies?
The glory of Dark Skies is the same as its limitation: you often make one big attack each turn. This means you need to be able to set priorities and stick to them, and it means that you need to be satisfied with having a shorter, simpler turn than some of your neighbors. This is not a good strategy for people who want to always be the center of attention, but it is a good strategy for people who live for the glorious, climactic battle, and for players who want to occasionally feel invincible, monstrous, or superhuman. When your opponent spends 4 turns building up a fleet of doom, and you send the whole thing down to Davy Jones’ locker in one clattering tumble of dice, it feels very, very sweet.

STRATEGY 3: THE TRANSPORT SHUCK-SHUCK

How Does it Work?
Because each sea zone usually borders multiple land territories, and because land units can load and unload from a transport and attack all in the same turn, a transport can hugely boost the mobility of ground forces. Infantry and artillery normally move one space per turn, but an infantry and artillery carried on a transport can move 4 or even 5 spaces per turn – and they can often skip over enemy-occupied regions to reach a juicier target in the rear. If Britain stacks Burma against Japan’s ground forces, then Japan is stuck slogging it out over a 1-IPC territory. But if Britain tries to stack Burma against Japan’s amphibious forces, then Japan can just skip over Burma and land in India or even in Egypt! The threat of an amphibious invasion forces opponents to either leave big expensive garrisons at all strategic points, or to allow you to seize factories and victory cities at will.

What Kind of Purchases Does it Need?
You need more transports than you think you do, and you need enough fleets to successfully protect those transports at each point where the transports will be exposed to enemy air power. For example, if you are shucking troops from the Eastern US, you usually do not need a defensive fleet off the coast of Boston, because German air simply cannot reach from Paris to Boston Harbor. However, you do need a defensive fleet at your rendezvous point near Casablanca, and you need another defensive fleet if you plan to send transports deeper into Nazi territory, e.g., to the coast of Rome, or the coast of Denmark. It is often very tempting to send a lightly guarded team of transports to seize Hawaii, or Morocco, or Poland – you see an opportunity to steal a territory, to disrupt your opponent’s plans, and maybe even to cheaply destroy some enemy ground units. This is a trap. Do not do this. You will lose your transports, lose the destroyers (or whatever) you send with them, and lose the momentum you need to set up a truly effective transport pipeline. If you try to build fresh transports every turn, you will never be able to afford enough ground troops to make a credible attack against an opponent. For example, if America spends 42 IPC per turn – its whole entire economy – trying to ferry troops to Berlin, that will buy you three fully loaded transports per turn – 21 IPC for the transports, 9 IPC for the infantry, and 12 IPC for the artillery. Meanwhile, Germany can defend Berlin with 6 infantry per turn for 18 IPC, and still send about 20 IPC per turn east against the Russians. The only way to make a transport strategy pay off is to recycle your transports by keeping them alive and sending them back to their port of origin, even as you continue to build new transports. In the America example, you move two transports from Boston to Morocco on turn 1, and then on turn 2, you send those same two transports back to Boston. If you want to move troops from Morocco to Paris, you have to wait until you have enough transports to operate a second ferry loop. That usually means a minimum of 6 transports – 2 to sit by Boston, 2 to sit by Casablanca, and 2 to sit by Paris. Keeping the loop going continuously increases the size of your transport fleet, so that by the time the endgame arrives, you can just build 6 infantry and 4 artillery per turn, neatly filling your 5 recycled transports, instead of having to dilute your income by buying new ships.

What Kind of Player will Enjoy the Transport Shuck-Shuck?
Very few people will actually enjoy the shuck-shuck. It requires a tremendous amount of advance planning and discipline, and it does not pay off until the endgame. You need to be able to figure out how many transports you are going to operate, where they are going to offload troops, how much income you will have to fill the recycled transports, and how many escort ships you will need to protect the transports, all before the game even really gets going. You will have to grit your teeth and pass up juicy targets to avoid disrupting your system. On the bright side, your opponent will also be going nuts trying to figure out when and where your transports will finally pounce, and they may over-correct by trying to stack large garrisons all over the place too early in the game. Besides, if you have what it takes to keep it going, the shuck-shuck is a mighty weapon. A pair of transports can deliver 4 troops per turn, versus only 3 troops per turn at even the best factory sites, and once you get the ferry loop running, the transports are ultimately more flexible and less vulnerable than the factories – you can sink a transport, but you can’t capture it and use it against your opponent. If your opponent does muster a force that would overwhelm your escort fleets, you can usually retreat your boats, whereas a factory is stuck in position. If you enjoy teasing your opponent, making him sweat, and executing detailed plans that guarantee victory far off in the distant future, then the shuck-shuck may be just what you’re looking for.

STRATEGY 4: THE TANK BLITZ

How Does it Work?
The tank blitz relies on the fact that tanks can quickly reach the front lines, are equally powerful on offense and defense, can converge from far-off factories or theaters of war so as to reinforce each other, and are able to rapidly vacuum up the IPCs from what used to be enemy-held territory. Basically, you build a shit-ton of tanks, and attack with them early and often, attempting to overwhelm your opponent before her slower strategy begins to pay dividends. Good regions for a tank blitz include sub-Saharan Africa, central Asia, and eastern Europe.

What Purchases Does it Need?
Tanks. Don’t build anything else unless you have factories very near the front lines (as the Germans, you could build a couple of infantry in Leningrad) or very far from the front lines (as the British, you could build 3 tanks in India and then a bomber in London).

What Kind of Player will Enjoy this?
This strategy is fun and easy to execute, but sub-optimal. You can sometimes use it to punish an opponent who tries something overly complicated, or who builds too many factories and transports and not enough ground units. You can also get away with using a tank blitz as part of a more nuanced coordinated offense, e.g., the Russians build tanks and send them all west while the British send fighters to defend Moscow from Japan and the Americans strategically bomb Berlin into the dirt. Alternatively, the Germans and Japanese can decide to both build tanks (in, e.g., Manchuria and Kwangtung), and send them all directly at Moscow, which can be very tense and exciting. The tank blitz is good for players who care more about bravery and decisive action than about winning the game, for players who do not want to be bothered with complicated calculations, for players who prefer a shorter game, and for players who have excellent teamwork and can coordinate their tank blitz with their teammates.

STRATEGY 5: LIGHT TRADING

How Does it Work?
The trading strategy relies on the fact that with modest air support, you can often capture territories with a collection of troops that are less expensive than the troops your opponents will need to recapture those territories. For example, if Germany is sitting in the Baltic States with 2 infantry, and Russia attacks the Baltic States with 1 infantry, 1 artillery, and 2 fighters, Russia is extremely likely to capture the Baltics and destroy the 2 German infantry, for a gain of 8 IPCs. Meanwhile, the Russians are very unlikely to lose more than the infantry and artillery that were invested, for a loss of 7 IPCs. The attack nets the Russians 1 IPC even if the Germans are perfectly positioned for a counter-attack – and you will catch your opponent off-guard at least some of the time, further increasing your gains. Once you have accumulated enough of an economic advantage through this light trading, you can use it to push forward in earnest, attacking a weakened capitol or building massive reinforcements.

What Purchases Does it Need?
The trading strategy needs a careful ratio of infantry, artillery, and fighters, with few or no tanks, and no boats. You need at least one fighter, and preferably two, for each territory that you wish to trade on a given turn. You also need at least two ground troops for each occupied territory that you wish to trade on a given turn – one to absorb a hit, and one to conquer the territory. If you are trading, ground troops without fighters or vice versa do you little good, so you will need to constantly customize your build to keep the proportions optimized. When in doubt, err on the side of building extra infantry, since you can bring fighters to the front relatively quickly.

What Kind of Player will Enjoy This?
This is a good strategy for relatively cautious players who prefer to conserve their units and respond to their opponent’s moves, waiting until an opponent makes a mistake before launching a serious attack. If you find yourself constantly worrying that you are going to be defeated in an attack or wind up worse off because of an exchange, or if you have trouble thinking ahead more than one or two moves, then focusing on light trades might help you enjoy the game more, because it demonstrably gives you a small and growing advantage, with little advance planning and virtually no risk. However, if you are going to focus on trades, make sure you are actually willing to advance slowly and carefully – even the humble infantry pusher gets to enjoy the drama of moving relentlessly forward into the teeth of danger, but a trader who seeks out drama by trying to attack heavily defended regions will wind up squandering her advantage.

Argothair

It looks interesting and internally balanced – I’m curious whether there’s anything in particular you’re trying to accomplish by having more expensive, more aggressive cruisers and battleships.

For better or worse, each of your ships has a very specific purpose. For example, the battleship would only be useful if you are planning on repeatedly absorbing casualties and repeatedly launching amphibious invasions – if you’re just fighting one big sea battle, you probably want 2 destroyers and 1 submarine for your 23 IPCs, because they’ll give you 3 hit points and 6 pips on offense instead of 2 hit points and 5 pips on offense. Similarly, if you’re just maximizing your bombardments, much better to have 3 cruisers for 45 IPCs (12 points of bombardment) vs. 2 battleships for 46 IPCs (10 points of bombardment).

My biggest grief with the modern A&A pricing scheme is that ships cost too much relative to fighters and bombers, meaning that you should avoid trying to project power by sea unless you have no other realistic options. For example, if I have a land-based air force of 3 fighters and 3 tac bombers, it’s impossible for you to construct any combination of units (for the same price) involving any sea units that will out-perform my air force. It doesn’t matter if you stack fighters on a carrier, or spam destroyers, or mix destroyers and battleships, or what – I will still get better results on a per-IPC basis with my planes than you will. This is true even if you are building 100% warships – when you start trying to mix transports into your fleet, the odds go even more strongly in favor of air power.

I don’t see that your pricing scheme does anything to address that particular pet peeve of mine.

Argothair

Just brainstorming here – I thought I’d throw out a handful of potential national objectives for the 1943 game, and see if anyone likes any of them. If nothing else, maybe they’ll help inspire other people to come up with better ones.

AMERICA
Free French: +3 IPC if there is at least one Allied-controlled factory in Quebec, French Indochina, Normandy, France, or Southern France.
I Shall Return: +3 IPC if America controls the Philippines.
Champions of Democracy: +5 IPC if America controls at least 4 of the following: Norway, Holland, Denmark, Southern Italy, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia.
Chinese Bases: +5 IPC if the Allies control at least 8 territories marked with a Chinese rondel AND America has a strategic bomber in Kwangtung, Kiangsu, Shantung, Jehol, or Manchuria.
Naval Supremacy: +5 IPC if the Japanese have no carriers or battleships on the map.

BRITAIN
Secure Supply Lines: +3 IPC if there are no Axis troops in Africa, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Persia, Northwest Persia, or Eastern Persia.
Colonial Restoration:+5 IPC if Britain controls India, Burma, Malaya, and Kwangtung.
Pacific Commerce: +3 IPC if the Allies control New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, New Zealand, and all of Australia.

RUSSIA
Relieve the Siege of Leningrad: +3 IPC if the Russians control Novgorod, Archangel, and any one of the following territories: Belarus, Baltic States, Vyborg, Karelia.
All Quiet on the Eastern Front: +5 IPC if the Russians control Amur and did not participate in combat with any Japanese units this turn.
Ukrainian Conscripts: +3 IPC if the Russians control Western Ukraine, Ukraine, and Rostov.

GERMANY
Atlantik Wall: +10 IPC if the Allies do not control any of Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, Holland, Normandy, or Spain.
Oil Supplies: +5 IPC for each of the following territories the Germans control: Venezuela, Romania, Caucasus, Iraq, Persia, Saudi Arabia.
Panzer Offensive: +5 IPC if Germany has a total of at least three tanks in the territories marked with Russian rondels.
Finnish Defenders: +3 IPC if the Germans control Finland but not Novgorod.
Baltic Shipping: +3 IPC if there are no Allied ships in Sea Zones 113, 114, and 115.
Not a Step Back: +3 IPC if Germany attacked at least one Allied-controlled territory this turn and did not perform any retreats this turn.

JAPAN
Inner Defense Ring: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Iwo Jima, the Marianas, Guam, Formosa, and Okinawa.
Petroleum Shipments: +10 IPCs if the Japanese control Persia, Borneo, or Celebes and there are a total of at least 3 Japanese transports in Sea Zones 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 79, and/or 80.
Soviet Non-Aggression Pact: +5 IPCs if Japan controls Manchuria and Korea, and Japan has not participated in combat with any Russian units this turn.
Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere:: +3 IPCs for each of the following territories Japan controls: Kwangtung, Malaya, India, French Indo-China, Korea, Shensi, Yakut.
Imperial Glory: +10 IPCs if Japan controls at least two of the following territories: Amur, Hawaii, Alaska, New South Wales, South Africa, New Zealand.

Argothair

OK, here’s a second draft of the territory list, taking into account some of everybody’s feedback:

GERMANY
Western and Central Europe (including France, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Sicily) – 49 IPCs
Tunisia, French West Africa, and French Central Africa – 3 IPCs
Norway, Finland, and Karelia – 6 IPCs
Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Belarus, Smolensk – 4 IPCs
Western Ukraine, Ukraine, Rostov – 6 IPCs
German subtotal – 68 IPCs

JAPAN
Home Islands, Korea, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Formosa – 14 IPCs
Oceania (including Philippines) – 17 IPCs
Eastern China, from Hong Kong to Manchuria – 13 IPCs
Kwangsi, French Indo China, Siam, Malaya, Shan State, Burma – 9 IPCs
Central China (Chahar, Hopei, Anhwe, Kwichow, Hunan, Yunnan) – 6 IPCs
Japanese subtotal – 59 IPCs

Axis Total – 127 IPCs

USSR
Europe (Archangel, Vologda, Russia, Bryansk, Volgograd, Urals, Novosibirsk, Caucuses, Tambov, Samara, Kazakhstan) – 17 IPCs
Asia (Timguska, Evenkiyskiy, Yenisey, Yakut, Buryatia, Sakha, Amur, Siberia, Soviet Far East) – 9 IPCs
Communist China (Kansu, Suiyuan, Shensi) – 3 IPCs
Russian Subtotal – 29 IPCs

USA
North America (including West Indies, Panama, Alaska, Hawaii) – 50 IPCs
Nationalist China (Tsinghai, Sikang, Szechwan) – 3 IPCs
Free France (Morocco, Algeria, French Equatorial Africa, Syria, Madagascar) – 5 IPCs
American Subtotal – 58 IPCs

BRITAIN
UK and Canada – 14 IPCs
British Africa (including Libya, Congo, Ethiopia) – 14 IPCs
Jordan, Iraq, and Persia – 5 IPCs
India – 3 IPCs
Australia – 8 IPCs
New Zealand – 2 IPCs
British Subtotal – 46 IPCs

Allied Total – 133 IPCs

On this draft, the Allies start off with 133 IPCs to the Axis’s 127 IPCs, but the Axis can expect to roughly swap that lead on the first turn (I recommend giving the Germans the first turn), so the economic race still starts off in a dead heat, and the Axis can have more generous national objectives.