Picture the board in your mind for a moment. Basically, you have Japan’s starting 30 IPC, plus USSR’s 24 IPC. The Allies will have UK’s 30, US’s 42, and Germany’s 40. That’s 54 vs 112.
Japan will be up China/Ssinkiang for 4. They will also be up, say, India, Persia, Transjordan, Australia, New Guinea, and Madagascar, for 10 more (I think). That’s still 68 vs 98. I anticipate that the Allies should control the Mediterranean very quickly. Even if the Axis control most of the rest of Africa, it is very difficult for Japan/Russia to maintain that control, considering that the Allies can ship in a gigantic load of infantry every turn. (The Allies should have at LEAST 8 transports, capable of shipping in 16 units a turn. Although I think those 8 transports would be far more likely to be used long term to continue transporting units to the European front).
The start should see the Allies with a transport-heavy Atlantic fleet, and considerable forces in Germany/Southern Europe, while the Axis will have a considerable Pacific fleet with considerable forces in Moscow. I agree entirely with your point about multinationality, but I think that it is the Allies that still have the advantage of fighting the defensive battle, with a very difficult to crack Germany, London, and Washington (or Los Angeles).
IF the Japan player has a gigantic load of tanks and air that can be sent west very rapidly, to seriously contest control of Eastern Europe/Ukraine, I can see that the Axis would have good chances of winning. However, I think that if the Japan player cannot secure that quick advantage, that the Allies can fight off the Axis quite easily.
The fact of the matter is that Japan will have Russia and Caucasus for 12 units producable, with extended supply lines (3 more from India), while UK and US will have Germany and Southern Europe, which are capable of 16 units per turn. But UK/US will ALSO have a transport chain that should let the Allies drop 24 units a turn into Europe. Japan’s transport chains will be much longer, and Japan cannot successfully prosecute a fight in which there are short transport chains (even attacking Western US is probably impractical due to the ability of the Allied player to drop 10 infantry plus fighters there given only a single turn of notice).
Short version: All IMHO: The Allies can’t be beat down quickly. They have shorter supply chains. They can sit back and get more IPCs than the Axis. The key IPC-producing Allied territories are not easily vulnerable to attack. On the other hand, the Axis have no key territories that they can attack, they have very long supply chains, and they cannot outproduce the Allies on the European front without blowing a big fat wad on industrial complexes.
UK/US/Germany beats USSR/Japan.Â There’s just no place for Japan to attack, and the Allies can advance without too much trouble in the Pacific.
You’re dead wrong mister.Â
USSR/Japan beats UK/US/Germany in most cases. Here’s why:
Multinationality. UK/US will largely share the ipcs, that is a drawback when it comes to advancing. An attacking force of 30 inf, 30 arm is better than a 2-punch with 15 inf, 15 arm. It’s favorable in terms of trading territory, but the important factor is taking and holding territory.
Logistics. Japan has direct access by land to Africa, that means the allies will either have to surrender Africa or engage in a massive campaign in Africa at the expense of the eastern front. Doing so also means Japan at any point can shift their front from Europe to Africa taking out any troops left behind in Africa. An allied extraction will take time unless they have a million transports available.
Fleet. Japan is better suited for naval warfare. The ipc islands are closer to Japan than they are to the US and with a larger income controlling the pacific should not prove difficult. In any battle for the med Japan is also favored, they build directly at caucasus bordering ukraine/balkans. Quite handy for adding support shots when trading. They also threaten s.eur and w.eur and any allied african troops.