The Q is if Japan should do it directly, and I am not sure that that would be the best way to do it.
Fortunately, I don’t think resolving this will require getting into advanced game theory. I think it can be done by keeping it simple and simply using some clever logic and examples. I think you’re viewpoint is that it doesn’t matter who you go after, that going indirectly after Russia is just as effective as going directly after them? Hitting an enemy is hitting an enemy.
If this were true then all Allied units of a given type would be worth the exact same no matter their nationality and position of the board. Granted all infantry cost 3 IPCs, but that’s not necessarily what they are worth. A unit’s worth goes up or down slightly depending on it’s position and nationality. The positional factor should be easy for a game master to understand. The nationality factor comes into play because units of different nationaliies can’t attack together, which brings their value down. On defense nationality doesn’t matter.
Let’s suppose that any Allied player could place units in any other Allied factory. US could place as many infantry in Russia as they desired. Let’s further suppose the rules allowed any Allied player to give as many IPCs to any other Allied player without penalty. US could give Russia 10 of their IPCs if they desired. How would this change the IPC distribution? I think I can fairly safely say that the Western Allies would give more IPCs to Russia than Russia would otherwise have received under the normal rules.* Russia would then still build many infantry in their home territories. This is because units go up in value (not cost) positionally in and around Russia, and when they are the same nationality. It logically follows that IPCs are worth more value to Russia than to the Allied player/s giving up those IPCs. Units are worth more depending on their position, and the best position, in general, is in and around Russia.
*Why Russia? Simply because at the start of the game there are already more Russian units located around Russia than other Allied units.
Because IPCs and units are worth more in the hands of Russia than in the other Allied players, it is worth more to the Axis to take out those IPCs and units. This is why directly attacking the weakest link, Russia, is a better strategy than indirectly attacking the weakest link.
It depends on what Russia and UK do during the first turn, what purchases aso.
There are etreme circumstances under which the Axis strategy needs to be modified from both attacking Russia as much as possible. After all, as Sean Connery knows all too well, ‘Never say never.’ However, even though there are usually instances where deposits of Western Allied units will form such that they should be dealt with immediately, these extreme circumstances are so rare that the vast majority of the time the Axis strategy should be to both take out Russia.
