@Grumphrey:
Bonus: Why do each of the axis only get one Industrial Complex at the beginning compared to 2-3 for each ally?
Some belated thoughts on the above.
The UK could not possibly defend its global territories from London. So additional ICs are essential if the axis are to be resisted.
The US has to project its power across the Atlantic and/or the Pacific. This strategic choice is left open by having an IC on each coast, rather then the US’s focus being predetermined by IC placement. One of the interesting conundrums of the game is the balance of US deployment between its two spheres of activity, so hooray for both ICs!
Japan would benefit considerably from an Asian IC (in expanded versions of the game Japan is able to build such an IC). The lack of one forces Japan to maintain a fleet able to protect its transports and when possible capture India or Stalingrad. This also makes the US Pacific naval role more critical.
The Australia IC has never played a significant role for the UK or Japan in any of my games. A naval build there in the teeth of J’s superior fleet in unlikely, an air build will rarely be affordable and a land build will probably be stranded.
Russia’s Stalingrad IC is, however, more of an opportunity for Germany or Japan than a help for Russia. Stalingrad becomes a strategic focus for all sides as an axis build capability there ratchets up the threat to Moscow.
So - except for the Australia IC - I would say the allocation of ICs drives the game, creating threats and opportunities that make the game so multi-faceted. Well done to the designers! 8-)
