I agree, no wonder some of the best players I've met bid 11 or so (limit 1 per territory). I'm not even sure that's enough for 9 VC games. It seems the Allies have to screw up pretty badly not to eventually win. Granted I'm not an Allied expert so I can't say I can do this yet, and a quick dice roll can shift things in a jiffy, but it's almost a no brainer to see that the Axis really cannot get the economic advantage they need to win given normal dice.

This has slowly dawned on me after having gotten into this situation myself, seeing others get into it, reading about it, and now having looked at it closer as well.

At some point if the Axis wishes to win the long term 20 round + war, they need to achieve economic parity with the Allies. The assumption is this is barring unusually favorable dice and mistakes on the Allied party.

It should be obvious, but over many many many rounds, the side that is collecting more than the other should eventually win the game., even if it is a tiny wedge. While the situation may not be changing much from turn to turn given equal flux of dice, eventually the economic wedge will manifest itself and one side will give in. The way the Axis tends to win as I've seen so far is due more to Allied mistakes or favorable dice than it is true long term strategy.

Let me now look at the problem - to sum it up, it is KGF, and I don't think Japan can achieve the IPCs it needs to topple the Allies on its lonesome self.

There are 166 IPCs in territories available on the board. Let's take a look at these territories in a general but reasonable sense to see if the Axis can reasonably get equal or more IPCs to topple the Allies. I'm scaling my estimates towards the late game where both captals have fallen, and the Japanese have drawn the lines at Karelia/Belo/Ukraine but cannot advance any further.

As for the obvious, let us add up territories that the Allies have almost beyond doubt. The US should have W. US (10), C. US (6), Mexico (2), E. US (12), W. Indies (1), Panama (1), and Brazil (3), and Alaska (2). Alaska is somewhat questionable, but I do not think most Axis players can find the time to tilt there with bb/fighters/inf every turn when they have to expand out to the other islands; their effort is better spent elsewhere, and even if they wanted to work hard, they should go to Africa where the real big cash is. Fight hardest where you win the most, after all.

That is $37 US dollars.

For the UK, they have E. Canada (3), W. Canada (1), London (, E. Europe(3), Balkans (3), S. Europe (6), Berlin (10), W. Europe (6) and Norway(3) for certain. That's 43 IPCs.

Now as the game usually progresses, the Allies should have all of Africa if they want it, minus madagascar. This is usually due to chasing the Germans out with a significant force early on, some people even continue to use Africa as a staging grounds (North African Dominance) for the Americans, making it even more impossible than normal to get Africa. There are 11 IPCs in the continental Africa not counting Madagascar or Persia, and I'm assuming the UK has all of it due to them leading with a force in Algeria early in the game, then taking Libya and liberating the whole of Africa from any German influence.

So $43 in unquestionable territores, and 11 is very reasonable for Africa,  making the UK income $54.

The combined UK + US is $37 + 54 = 91 IPCs in income. Maybe you can argue that US took W. Europe instead of UK, but it doesn't make a difference in the sense that the total Allied IPCs in 91. They are outproducing Japan, and eventually they should win. I  am even assuming the favorable circumstance in which Japan takes Ukraine/Belo for their own income; not where liberate it and it becomes dead to both sides until the Allies take it.

The problem is that I don't think Japan can expect to reasonably expand anywhere else. There's not an inch more that they can hold permanently. I'm assuming they have TJ + Madagascar, Karelia/Belo/Ukraine and everything east of it.

By this reasoning you can see where the Allies seem to have an advantage and where they should focus their attention. As wild as the Japanese can get, they can only really get up to the 70'ish IPC range. Never the $83 benchmark, and certainly not past that. It's a matter of getting the Allies to the point where they get Berlin/W./S. Europe and can hold the line at E. Europe, and also hold Africa. That isn't very difficult.

I think if the Japanese want to have any shot at winning the late game, they need to get most of Africa at some point. Using the $91 to $75 number, you need to get 8 IPCs of Africa to bring the economy to an even point.

But this is extremely difficult, if not impossible. There is usually between 8-16Allied units in Africa (not even assuming N. Africa dominance with US) due to the leftovers from the first African flush. In order for Japan to clean them up quickly requires a huge landing. That simply cannot be afforded in the early-mid stages for lack of pressure on Moscow. You can of course try to land a couple units on the coast and hope to bait them into BB range, but they may not take the bait, and that still does not get you the majority of Africa.

You can try it after you get Moscow, but that relieves pressure in Europe.

I have tried and done it successfully where I have created a massive support system for Africa. I've shucked 6 units per round from India (3 build from complex, 3 walk in from F. Indo's complex from last turn), to Anglo. I have also then built a complex in Anglo for 8 units, and also still then build a complex in S. Africa for 10 units total after the chain is in place. 10 defensive inf per round is usually enough to deter the Americans and their 4 inf 4 arm per round. I've even got it to the point where I completely discouraged the Allies from Africa with a force of 20'ish inf off of Algeria, so they don't even consider landing anymore.

But even considering if the Americans don't want to try to dislodge me, that takes a lot of effort. Built 2 extra complexes and have 3 transports dedicated to shucking to Anglo (+ the 4 to take stuff off from Japan). This usually drains me so hard on units that Europe is floating backwards or I can't crack Moscow.

I don't see a reasonable way for the Japanese to achieve economic parity with the Allies who have Berlin. In order to expand IPCs in Africa, which is the only route, I have to spend a LOT to do so (have to kill the units floating around, then deal with the possible 10-16 units per round they can offload and march from Algeria), which the Allies can either match or simply push back in the theater I'm not working on.

So you Japanese players there or just anyone with a good idea, what is the way out of this do you think? Is there something I have assumed that is unreasonable, or is there something I have missed that allows Japan to win the scary late game?

Amusing counter, except you're not getting land troops in Asia until J3 (j2 is building transports, j3 is them landing). The UK also gets 2 builds from its complex which could be annoying as well depending on what it is. That would be a great example of the cheetah locking on to a target even though there's easier ones ;P

From what I hear Vista sucks.

And I am sorry for hijacking your thread Bean...

No worries. 

It's an interesting idea. Most people will not attack the united UK fleet immediately, because I think the average is not 2 fighters but more like 4.

Remember, it's a give or take situation. While you can island hop, you might have to build another piece of fleet or fighter to fill your carrier to make the Japanese actually sweat. Also, the IPCs you might gain island hopping are going to be given to Germany in Africa. If the Japanese consolidate and keep their fleet say off of Kwangtung, they can counter any big money islands you hit; you have to be careful if the Japanese consolidate their fleet together.

I'm sure you could make it work to some degree against anyone, but you have to ask yourself if you're giving Germany too much leeway or if you can handle it. You might have to have the US handle Atlantic operations almost on its own and retake Africa in order to compensate.

I really have no advice, but have you tried calling them and complaining about it? Or maybe it's just time for a new PC? o_O

You would still have to admit that low luck helps you understand when it does not diverge significantly, so that you know what you are doing in the long run works.

Or even given a divergence, then you are still basically using low luck theory to figure out how to respond to it. You're not exactly waiting for the dice to diverge again, you're thinking about how to change your strategy.

Not to mention, there are some divergent battles in LL such as the Baltic attack, Russian Triple, etc.

Aww, Switch! You gotta start stirring up the pot for more karma. Start scandalous threads, or really good strategy threads, or really bad strategy threads to get the counter going >_>

I empathize now. 

I applaud you for your math! 

Yay thanks for good karma!

And seriously what is this like a glass ceiling? Every time I get good karma, it seems like someone out there's like "I hate bean. Me smack with bad karma." I always seem to have 2 more bad karma points than good ones, which is really strange.

I'm being serious, the rolling eyes is to express annoyance at having to manage logistics as the Allies. It's like going  I have to take out the trash again... aww man.

To me I'm looking for gamebreaking changes in LL that would convince me that it doesn't have any validity for analyzing overall strategies in ADS. I don't really get stuck on very small details in very small battles in which we're talking about efficiency in fractions of IPCs - which either side can take advantage of. I'm looking at the forest, not the trees.

I think it's something to have to live with, but it's still better to look at overall strategies than having every other game in ADS screwed over by some important battle going horribly wrong.

It's not like you lose 1 IPC in starting units for every bad karma point you have or something.

That'd be hilarious. You'd have -27 IPCs, what would you remove, like your battleship from SZ13 and an infantry from Midway? That wouldn't have as humongous an impact as say removing 9 Russian inf lol!

England and America have the problem of getting their units into stacks to begin with since they have to transport them.

Yup yup gotta agree, the Allies are stronger but harder to use. It's easier to jilt the Allied game with a gambit than it is to jilt the Axis game because of all the damn transport logistics.