I know it's a shocking piece of buck-passing, but Ulver and I were serious when we recommended that you choose your own victory conditions.
The game isn't 'balanced' like most scenarios, but attempts to put the players in the same positions as the Axis and Allies at the start of WWII, with the same type and number of troops and other resources, and the same strategic options and opportunities. It isn't intended to be fair, although if Germany can simply romp all over the map in a few years it isn't accurate.
Ignoring it's many failings in this attempt, what is 'victory' in a monster scenario like this? Historically, Germany surrendered in early May 1945 after the fall of Berlin, so you could well argue that hanging on until June 1945 represents a moral victory of sorts for the Axis player. This is how 'Third Reich' views it.
Equally well you could argue that only the defeat and occupation of the United Kingdom and the USSR would have been an Axis victory in reality.
Or, a middle course, the Axis estabishment of a permanent defensible perimeter on Continental Europe, perhaps excluding the United Kingdom and with the USSR or a successor state still fighting on in the East, but with sufficient sources of manpower and other resources to prolong the war indefinitely (US atomic weapons excluded unless a hasty German reseach programme...).
Including the points balancing track was a way of measuring how both players are doing in relative terms, but I wouldn't like to say that the player who ends up with 476 points to the other's 474 has won a resounding victory.
This isn't much help: what do other players look for?
