Despite the fact that the odds in the "real" war were heavily skewed in favor of Allies, the game is almost balanced. That is, if it is played with the "No Russian first turn attack rule," bidding shows that the Axis players will expect to win abaout half the time if they were given 12 more Industrial Production Certificates (IPCs) more than they get in the actual game.

Axis and Allies - Is there a best country?

Some British players like to build a factory in India (or perhaps South Africa), and some US players like to build a factory in Sinkiang, even though these factories are at risk of being captured by th Axis and therefore "turned." But a factory represents 15 IPCs (30 if you count the "swing" from being pro Allied to pro Axis), which is to say more than the 12 IPCs alluded to above that would "balance" the game?

Does this mean that if say, Japan captures an Allied factory in India or Sinkiang that the Axis would then have the advantage? Or is it more true, that as game theorist Donald Rae suggests, this would happen too late in the game to make a difference?

And would such considerations cause the U.K. to build their factory in Australia, rather than India or South Africa?

In Axis and Allies, should the UK Build a factory in Australia?

Or the U.S. to build a factory in Brazil, instead of Sinkiang?

In Axis and Allies, Should the U.S. Build a "Factory" in Brazil?

(These factories are "out of the way" and NOT likely to captured.)

2 Answers 2


Speaking from general principles, as one who as never played the game but as played a multitude of board games over the past 45 years:

Barring extreme good fortune allowing a very early capture of said factory, I believe the concentration of effort required to achieve such a capture would provide compensating benefit to the Allies that would essentially neutralize the capture.

In any WWII game one of the disadvantages that the Allies face early on is where to defend, as they cannot defend everything. Even just seeing the Axis concentrate forces to take said factory might help the Allies by relieving other strategic areas from stress. I see building such a factory as a gambit by the Allies:

"Sure, you can take this factory, but is it worth while to do so?"


A factory in sinkiang..

Is certainly going to fall if the Japanese player decides so. Just grab the map (whichever version you are playing) and check the sequence of R1 and R2, what units japan can place there and what can the allies place.

Even with russian ground units (which are all needed against germany) the chance is slim against all Japanese airplanes.

Grabbing that factory is a major victory for Axis because:

  • Russia Alone will have to fend it off while holding germany
  • It's close to moscow (2 to 3 tiles away depending on the map) so Japan WILL be threatening to take it..

Not to mention of course the loss of IPC (and turns because it takes 2 turns to produce there)

A factory in India depends on the turn..

India has more access through sea and threatens only Stalingrad. Taking this factory means:

  • Axis have Jap transports and a factory to place ground units in Asia each turn
  • Allies would rely on draining gound units from Russia and transporting US or UK units from far .. far lands.

This means that the Allies cannot match the ground forces in Asia, thus Asia is generally lost to the Axis.

This move is a major thing if it's done in early rounds. If it's in late rounds well.. maybe the Allies are about to take Berlin or subduing Tokyo. In such cases this extra victory city and ground units are neglectable

P.S. I see you talk about restricted russia R1. That means you are playing the Classic edition. If you are concerned about balance and if you have played enough I recommend you try A&A spring 1942 or A&A 1941

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .