A thought experiment

[theROCmonster]

I still think the bid would have to limit Germany to no sea bid. There is too much that he can do with a naval bid that really breaks the game. I also don’t think the bid would need to be as big as you are saying. A combined bid of 76 is insane. Not sure what would work, but anything higher than a total 30 bid just seems like it is too much.

[knp7765]

@ShadowHAwk:

If you are only making 50 and the axis are making 200 and only US is left it does not mather if you have 1000 inf on your capital it will eventualy fall. ( convoy zones and strat bombing will ensure you dont buy anything )

We had a game like that some time ago. The Allies had a pretty bad game – some unlucky dice, some just bad strategies – and it became an Axis win on both boards.
Germany had Russia and England. Italy swarmed over Africa and the Middle East. Japan took everything in the Pacific.
So, just for kicks, we decided to see how long it would take the US to fall. It got down to the point where Germany had a large force up in Canada, Japan had the Western US and Italy had a decent force in SE Mexico.
The US was left with Central US and Eastern US with enough units that the Axis didn’t feel confident in an outright attack. Germany stationed about 12 subs plus 2-3 Italian subs in SZ 101. All three Axis maintained a fleet of bombers while slowly building up their ground forces for the final attack. They kept SBRs up and all the US facilities were pretty much maintained at max damage levels. We sat there like this for 2 or 3 rounds until Germany and Japan could get enough troops in position for the final attack, then the US finally fell for good.
It was just kind of weird seeing the US in a position where they couldn’t get any money or buy any units.

[Jennifer]

ROC,

I don’t think losing Hawaii round 1 is as bad as it seems given the parameters of the thought experiment.  In a normal game sure it would really be bad because Japan would be that much closer to a VC win.

[theROCmonster]

I played it out, and you’re right. It really isn’t horribly bad. My US was only making 57 after T1 and he was at war though… 2 subs off east coast killed cruiser transport and convoyed.

[Final Run]

@theROCmonster:

I played it out, and you’re right. It really isn’t horribly bad. My US was only making 57 after T1 and he was at war though… 2 subs off east coast killed cruiser transport and convoyed.

Still not very good though I think. Japan still gets 1+5 IPCS while the USA loses a total of 6 for not securing its NO. Of course this would likely promt America to start dumping IPC’s to Pacific and eventaully force you out, but your still making some nice gains while making America to halt whatever it’s doing and shift attention to you. If the USA doesn’t answer this the following would probably happen:

-Japan would be in a far better position to defend territory from Hawaii
-Japan now has a much easier time completing another NO for +5 ipcs controlling the Islands behind Hawaii
-Japan can always drop down an entire force on Queensland in one move from hawaii, making ANZAC think twice before moving into position to harass Japan.

Like you said, not horribly bad, but I can really see how this can result in a headache for the Allies if Japan takes advantage of it.

[Jennifer]

It would be far worse in a traditional game, however.  That’s where I was going with it.

[Final Run]

@Cmdr:

It would be far worse in a traditional game, however.  That’s where I was going with it.

For sure.

[theROCmonster]

ya giving Japan 30 means he is almost for sure going to take out Anzac on T3. No real way to defend against it :/. The plus side is that Japan can’t take the 4 money islands if he does that. He still gets Philippines the first turn though.

[JDOW]

@Cmdr:

Now yes, I realize that a perfect allied strategy for this scenario would be 100% infantry builds in the United States and stack the ever loving CRUD out of Washington, but let’s assume we have normal game play for the sake of this mental experiment, okay?

No it’s not. Doing this would allow the Axis to win 100% of the games.
It is a more than viable option for the Axis to play for an economic advantage. In case this happens earlier or later they would conquer the entire world, the same way like Allies would conquer the world if they could establish permanent economic advantage without losing to victory conditions.

In case US does nothing but buying inf the world domination by the Axis would be inevitable and earlier or later Washington falls.

[Jennifer]

maybe I play my brother too often then.  By about the time he looks at a territory with 250 infantry defending it, he generally flips the board over and leaves. :P

[CWO Marc]

@Cmdr:

maybe I play my brother too often then.  By about the time he looks at a territory with 250 infantry defending it, he generally flips the board over and leaves.

Your brother should take inspiration from General (later Marshal) Foch, who at the First Battle of the Marne reputedly said, “My centre has caved in.  My right flank is giving way.  The situation is excellent.  I attack.”  A positive thinker.

[Jennifer]

@CWO:

@Cmdr:

maybe I play my brother too often then.�  By about the time he looks at a territory with 250 infantry defending it, he generally flips the board over and leaves.

Your brother should take inspiration from General (later Marshal) Foch, who at the First Battle of the Marne reputedly said, "My centre has caved in.  My right flank is giving way.  The situation is excellent.  I attack."  A positive thinker.

Wouldn’t President Truman be more appropriate?  Just nuke the stack with some atomic weapons?