@Cmdr:
As far as units go, I would be much more inclined to believe Japan needs +2 Submarines, +1 Transport down in the South Pacific than 7 Infanty and an Artillery scattered around China and Japan. Just IMHO.
Ground units Japan has more than enough capacity to build, naval units is where Japan got seriously short-changed! For instance, a transport off the Carolines (SZ 33), a submarine off Formosa (SZ 20) and a Submarine off Palau (SZ 34) would be a much better situation than a few extra infantry.
The transport would give Japan the option to hit Pearl hard - without tilting the balance of power. (This would allow Japan to repair their ships and use the Naval Base on Round 2, should they go with the Round 1 sneak attack. It also denies America the ability to land on Hawaii after counter-attacking the Japanese fleet.)
The submarine in SZ 20 would add a little extra punch should Japan go for the British Battleboat off Malaya, again, not a drastic change. Meanwhile, if Japan does not go for the Battleboat off Malaya, it’s too far away to do anything else of note this round - and is not adjacent to a naval base. Essentially, it can get to SZ 6 or spend a round or two getting into position elsewhere.
The submarine in SZ 34 is out of position to hit anything, but can move to Queensland and conduct convoy raids if it wants. Probably what would happen is it would move to the Carolines, but would be out of position to be used on round 1 - which was the point.
Essentially, other than the transport that was removed and now to be replaced, the new units are not in a position to significantly alter the balance of power, but they do add a little backbone to the Japanese navy, and give Japan more options - which, I believe, is the point.
As for the transport, I think that was, perhaps, the most significant nerf that Mr. Larry did, and that de-railed their attempts to balance the Pacific. I would not say that alone would recover Japan’s ability to hold it’s own, as many of the aircraft were also removed from the game, but it would go a long way to establishing Japan’s ability to defend itself.
Now, Questioneer says 25 IPC to balance things…50 IPC would be better, but 19 IPC placed in very strategic locations may do the trick. No idea. Honestly, I’d take 25 IPC because I can abuse it. (Transport in Carolines, 2 Transports in Japan, Artillery in KWA). I’d hit Hawaii, Philippines, Hong Kong, the BB by Malaya, Alaska and some other prime targets (primarily to deny America the NO for Alaska.) But, as I said, that would be an abuse of the resources and is primarily intended to demonstrate why it is not the COST of the resources, but rather the LOCATION of the resources and TYPE of resources added. Hence, my references to higher values than Questioneers. (I believe he will agree that a 25 IPC bid would effectively alter the game significantly, given how I just outlayed where things could go. America without 15 IPC from NOs, removal of most of the fleet, inability to effectively counter attack (no LZ) and Japan ability to now hit Australia from Philippines and Hawaii would be a huge shift - equally as bad as “American Exceptionalism” making America way too powerful, in comparison to other nations.)
Wouldn’t that just bring back the “India Crush”???- Japan would certainly get 6IPCs for sure, not even giving America a chance. I’m not really buying it. Your 2SS, 1TT idea I think swings a huge breaker momentum the other way. Like the Europe side, this side is real touchy to balance.
Adding/changing NOs or adding ships or NBs, or aircraft as too “fast” of units to add. I think the best way is to add slow ground troops away from the action- like I’ve proposed. Those land units will come in handy late in the game (like Russia’s from the East), giving a long term balance (which is what is needed for Japan) versus messing up opening balance right now.
