Of course, a bid changes everything. But then the question becomes, with a 15 ipc bid to Germany, which is the strongest? What about a 10 ipc bid to Germany, 10ipc bid to Japan?… Bidding does radically change the game in ways that can be difficult (at least for me) to assess.
Not really though DF makes a good argument you can’t analyze strength b/c the game as such is not balanced. Assume if you will that rather than playing with a bid one of the Allies was assumed to be neutral. The Allies would be at their strongest if they were to play with the Uk and Russia, and at their weakest if it was the Uk and USA. This indicates that they are weaker than Russia. The same methodology can be reasonably applied to the Axis as well. If Japan had to face off against Russia one on one Russia would still possess a great advantage. Were Japan to go one on one versus America Japan would probably win. So by this reasoning it can be determined that the US is the weakest power, followed by Japan and Britain, then Germany and Russia.
We disagree here. Either would only be set back about 2-3 turns as they would simply build a navy as required. Still, a 2 turn setback would hurt.
And yet as either you cannot afford to rebuild your navy can you as it takes guys off the board. What if you could continuously kill naval units ie HBombers. This is a predictable outcome of HBs and in fact Allied HBs IMO should always be used to kill the Jap navy. Once Japan has no navy and cannot build one they must build ICS. Since the brits can build more bombers they can then SBR both Japan and Russia to nothing, and it becomes cake for the Allies to win. The same methods can be used with Jap HBs however in that case the Axis can and should quickly gain M84 b/c of the limits of US production at that point.
We agree. But with only these territories, Germany has about 25 ipcs of income with no opportunity for growth. Thats not enough to be considered the most powerful IMO as other nations will have more income and therefore will (eventually have more forces and be able to do what they want). The same is true, I believe for Russia as there is almost no potential for economic growth unless either Germany or Japan gives way (which shouldn’t happen without Allied help), but Russia can sustain economic shrinkage from both.
No Germany with 25-28ipcs is still quite a threat b/c they don’t have to worry about anything at that point. They push up new troops and keep their fronts secure. Then for the Allies to win they must be able to defeat Japan, and the Japs should’ve been able to secure Novo at this point unless the game is a blowout which is irrelevent to this discussion. At this point with the Japs in Novo, and the Allies ‘boxed’ in to Karelia/Russia the Allies becomes very vulnreable to M84 if timed right. However, to actually kill the German stack is very hard as their supply lines are very short.
However, the real power in the game is the teamwork that is played between players. Thats why the US should never go after Japan alone but should instead focus its resources on Germany first.
No it shouldn’t go after Japan alone b/c the game as such is imbalanced. The US versus Japan forces 2 Allies which are weaker than Germany individually. Again in my scenario above if the game started in 1940 and the US and Japan were not included, or if the game was Germany versus the UK and US the Germans would win every time. If the game was Germany versus Russia the Germans would win. This means Germany is strongest followed by Russia and America and Japan are the weakest. Since America is weaker than Japan how would this ever help the Allies win.