Often, a game between experienced players goes like this:

Germany buys at least some ships in its first turn. GB has to buy units in London to make a Sea Lion too costly. Some buy only inf, some buy 6 inf 1 fighter. Then Germany goes all in on Russia, the US invades Norway, Southern France or even Rome, but that does not make a difference and Germany takes Moscow (although Allied fighters are making it harder). Then, the game is over.

If, however, Germany is tempted and does a (successful) Sea Lion, often a game takes the following course: the US has a very good place to drop (London) which cannot be taken back by a stack of mechs from Western Germany. Russia makes some extra money from the Balkans and Finland, temporarily, and is able to hold long enough until London is liberated.

So, sometimes you wish Germany tries a Sea Lion, right? What if… what if you bought some units with GB that are useful in the first some rounds (inf in London is not), say three tanks in South Africa and a fighter in London (or two fighters and only two mech in SA). Then Germany has a tough choice: Turn on Russia and let the GB buy go unpunished - or try a Sea Lion (second turn, GB buys all in London of course if Germany bought transport ships) which is often considered not to be the best option to win the game.

What do you think? Provoke a Sea Lion to win the game?

I just wonder: Has it ever happened in one of your games that Germany took Moscow and still lost the game afterwards?

And I don’t mean that the German player miscalculated something and lost Berlin in the very same turn. I am more interested: is it possible for UK and US to beat Germany after Moscow is lost? Maybe if they already took out Italy and liberated France?

Personally, I don’t think so. But I am interested in your experiences!

Unfortunately, the topic has slightly changed. For those still interested: We tried a game last weekend, giving the US player an extra National Objective worth 15 IPCs that only triggered after declaring war on the Axis. The US player went very heavy on Japan (as did UK) and more or less crushed him by the time Germany took Moscow with heavy casualties. The Axis then surrendered, which rarely happened. I have to admit it was late at night, though. So: win for the Allies that usually tend to lose our games. Might have been look, of course. We plan to try again, maybe only ten IPC.

Oh, we play world domination, no victory cities.

We - as many other players - have made the experience that the Axis tend to win most of the games if they play it straight. Thus, we would like to improve the Allied side.

But we do not believe in bids and units positioned at the beginning. As mentioned in other threads, that changes the game completely, if, for example, the UK fleet or even France survive. That’s not what we intend.

So we thought about giving the US player more money. It would create once again the feeling for the Axis that they have to hurry, because if they do not, they will be crushed by the American player. On the other hand, it does not change the initial setting. Has anyone any experience with that?

We thought about ten IPCs per turn from the beginning (by increasing the value of Eastern United States, for example), or twenty IPCs per turn through achievements (by adding the achievement "be alive and earn 20 extra when at war). What do you think?

I would like to share some thoughts about that strategy. I encountered it just this weekend, and I lost playing the Allies. Nevertheless, I do not think it is overpowered. Why?

Let’s start with what the strategy is good in:
-Germany is obviously flexible
-Germany can deny any small naval force to approach Europe
-Germany can defeat even a huge drop force when you have like ten mech inf stationed in Western Germany
Therefore, I do think it is a rather defensive strategy. It has obvious weaknesses when attacking Russia:

As pointed out by LeClerc (who is, as always, a good analyzer), you cannot attack Russia without ground forces, and German ground forces cannot approach Russia if you have not bought additional units. Russia buys mostly inf and art and waits for the German to come one step too close. You can of course sit and wait until your economic gains from the Russian territory and the bombing raids on Moscow allow for a save approach, but: I do think there are other strategies to allow Germany to defeat Russia late in the game – that is not overpowered.

Moreover, Anit aircraft comes in handy: assume you have Bombers/3 AA units. They fire three times at 1, thus, are better than inf, and they hit a plane, not a mech inf. They only shoot once, but all inf I could buy instead would be killed in the first round and, thus, also only shoot once.

So, Russia can hold out for some time. In our game, we tried to invade Europe and had a huge force assembled to counter the German bombers. That force could participate in the attack, so we were able to easily take Rome. The problem I see is that if you cannot achieve more than taking out Italy before Moscow falls, the German player has enough to counter US and GB if he focusses completely on them. But you could either be more successful with your D-Day, or you just send everything to Japan. So: not overpowered.

I should add that we do not play with victory cities or bids.

@Young:

@creeping-deth87:

Russia can declare against Japan whenever they want.

Correct… and I find that there are many diverse opinions as to when and why Russia should DOW on Japan.

Why should they not do so in the first round? Is there any downside?
Of course only declare the war. Not attack.

Good point! Thanks! 

A short question about US movement: I know it is not meant that way (or is it), but the rules say:

“While not at war with Germany or Italy, the United States may end the movement of its sea units on the
Europe map only in sea zones that are adjacent to U.S. territories…”

What if I move to, let’s say, SZ 86 in my nomcombat move, than walk into Brasil… and miraculously my move ended in a SZ that is “adjacent to U.S. territories”?

A gambling Russian player might try the following:

You have your vast stack in Ukraine or Western Ukraine and your Finn guys moving from Novgorod to Belarus. The Russian stack of course is in Bryansk.

Now the Russian player is forced to retreat, you think. However, he attacks Belarus with a large stack from Bryansk and one Marine from Smolensk. After killing almost all of your Finn guys, he retreats to Smolensk and is now in a good position. He guardes Bryansk with one Marine against a German Blitz, of course.

Unless you have Italian troops to destroy that Inf, of course…

But if you are comfortable waiting one or two more rounds anyway, you can of course easily take Novgorod and Ukraine, collect all you units and then start the final attack…

@ItIsILeClerc:

As for the second point, why should the Finns be out of order?
This would only be the case if Russia puts up a strong enough defense in Leningrad. I have seen this happen a couple of times now and I can tell you this will cause Germany taking Moscow in force with Russia in control of Leningrad  :-o. All Germany needs to do is ignore the Leningrad defenders and mop them up after Moscow has fallen. Game over.

I dont meant that they were stuck in Novgorod. But where do you move the guys from Finnland? They can attack Moscow from Smolensk or maybe Vologda. Your major stack, however, attacks Moscow from Bryansk. A vast Russian stack in Smolensk could now attack your armies seperately. If you just have some men north, he might not kill your big stack in the south, but the smaller in any case. If you split your army in two halfs, the Russian can decide which one to crush, leaving you with not enough troops to attack Moscow.

This is what I meant…