I have been playing with this strategy and I have come to a few conclusions:

If Germany moves its AA gun in SE Europe to the Balkans and if Japan takes India quickly-securing its AA gun, the Axis can have 4 rocket attacks and two bomber attacks on USSR with only the purchase of one AA gun and Industrial Center by Japan in French Indo China plus the cost of development by both Japan and Germany.  If the Axis were able to get in this position they will bring an average of 3.5 IPC losses to the USSR from each rocket (even on the Caucuses because any roll over 4 still takes four IPC’s and 4 is greater than the average roll of 3.5) for a 14 IPC loss from rockets alone.  The two bombers will contribute an additional 7 IPC loss 70% of the time (the odds of both bombers getting through) and 3.5 IPC loss 97% of the time (the odds of no bomber getting through is 16.66% * 16.66%=2.77%).  Thus the Axis should be able to bring a 17 to 21 IPC loss the vast majority of the time resulting in a near incapacity for the USSR to build new units by the third turn.  This does not take into account the losses of IPC’s by England from the Western Europe rockets or any losses by the USA if Japan moves its homeland AA gun to Wake, or the permanent losses in IPC’s from capturing USSR territory.

Obviously, if the Allies can threaten Germany by the third round the money would be wasted and potentially a crippling loss to the Axis.  I doubt such a serious challenge can be mounted against Germany that quickly however.

I believe the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of this strategy succeeding.  Of course it is relying on a dice roll, but so is every action in this game.

Without changing the economic dynamic of the game, I believe the Allies are the definite favorite to win.  My own empirical experience is that the allies win 4 in 5.  The reason why this strategy is compelling is the fact that so many of the pieces necessary for its success are already in place by the start of the game and the necessary investment to complete the strategy is relatively minor compared to its potential payoff: Domination over USSR very quickly!

The Allies have far fewer pieces in place at the beginning of the game if you don’t allow USSR to develop rockets (Their resources are just too meager to try), and Germany starts from a position of vastly superior economic strength.  Thus, the Allies must spend much more money and effort to produce a result with less impact.  Besides the Allies already have an economic advantage which they need to leverage in to winning battles.

In conclusion (sorry for the long post), I am not suggesting that rocket development and SBR are the only paths to victory for the Axis—just a high probability play.  But overall, I think that for the Axis ECONOMIC CONCERNS must dictate their strategy and for the Allies TACTICAL CONCERNS must dictate their strategy.

What do you think?

Not sure I agree with you here.  I think you’ve got it reversed.  The allies start the game with such a huge over all economic advantage that I feel Germany and Japan must alter that basic dynamic.  This is very difficult to do on a “Game-Wide” basis. However, Germany and Japan definitely can quickly put USSR on the economic disadvantage with two moves:

1. Strategic Bombing coupled with rocket development.  Germany maintains a bomber in Eastern Europe and conducts Strategic Bombing Run (SBR) against Russia proper from round one on.  They also commit 15 IPC’s to develop rockets until successful and move the Southern Europe AA gun to the Balkans.This should give you 3 turns of denying Russia and average of ~9 IPC’s/round (I rounded down to be conservative and the bomber has less than a 50/50 chance of lasting beyond 3 rounds) for a net gain of 8 IPCs in the Eastern Front (also a gain of 10 IPCs on the Western front with no net loss because I allocated the entire value of development to the East.) providing you get the rockets in turn one (about a 40/60chance).

2. Japan opens with an Industrial Center to be built in French Indo-China and a bomber.  They use their existing bomber in the attack on China and land it in French Indo-China.  Japan also moves its AA gun from Japan to Manchuria, and pushes north to capture Buryatia and West to Capture China.  By the second round Japan is launching its own industrial bombing run on Russia proper out of FIC.  They now develop rockets on their own and if successful buy another AA gun and two tanks for FIC.  The AA gun is moved from Manchuria to China and now can attack Russia proper.  Japan continues to press the northern route out of Japan pushing USSR out of Sov Far East and Yakut and threatening both Novosibirsk and Evenki in round 3.  Thus By round three Japan is also hitting Russia with a loss of ~9 IPC’s plus denying the earning of 3 IPC from Siberia (Bury, SFE, and Yak) for a potential loss of 12+ IPC’s

Since the USSR only starts with 24 IPC and really only gain 6 IPC’s back by pushing on the dead zones of West Russia and Belorussia or Ukraine, they are looking at a situation of only earning a net 8-10 IPC’s a turn. I haven’t actually tried this, but have been toying around with the idea in playing myself.  I just don’t see how they can resist Japan with only being able to add 3 INF or so to the board a turn.

What do you think?

Do you believe that the way to win is through battle? and therefore the strategy is to position your troops such that the outcome of a battle favors your side.

OR

Do you believe that this is basically a game of economic advantage?  and therefore the strategy should be to place your units to derive maximum economic value from each turn (or to deny your opponent the ability to derive maximum economic value from his turn).

I am not a noobie to the game, but this is my first post.  I really welcome any comments even if you think I am a total ignorant bastard (lol).