Most has been made of the so-called infantry push mechanism. Specifically, infantry are awfully useful for shielding heavier pieces (tanks, planes) from losses. But could they be too much of a good thing, at least in the early going? Some examples:
Russia: Buys 8 infantry from at least 4-5 turns. With the possible exception of conquering Norway-Finland, and "strafing" the Ukraine, plays a strict defensive during that time.
Germany: Spends IPCs matching Russia's infantry build up in Europe. Except for sending 2 infantry each turn across the Med to Africa (which basically represents Germany's excess IPCs over Russia).
UK Build factory in South Africa in turn 1, 5 infantry in UK withe remaining IPCs. Turn 2, two tanks in SA, two transports. Turn 3, more tanks in SA, one transport in UK, remainder infantry, bound for Africa.
Japan: Build 8 infantry turns 1-2. Ferry 4 to China each turn using two transports, hold the rest for defense of homeland. Maybe on turn 3, build a third transport, ferry two more units to China (plus basic four).
U.S.: Move battleship and transport from Pacific to Caribbean first turn. Build factory in Sinkiang, 7 infantry. Turn 2, build tanks in Sinkiang, another transport off East Coast. remainder infantry. Caribbean transport picks up two infantry from east coast, back to Caribbean. Turn 3, Caribbean transport takes infantry to protect Brazil, second transport takes infantry to West Indies and Panama, rest of infantry "dribbles" (from California) into Mexico and British Columbia.
Is this a static, defensive construct? Or are there dynamics that I'm missing?