Kill Japan First (KJF)

[newpaintbrush]

“Problem is, in a KJF, Japan’s fighting so desperately not to loose their fleet they won’t recover Borneo and New Guinea.”

Disagree.  J1, Japan either wipes out the UK fleet or Pearl Harbor (agreed?)  Regardless of which Japan chooses, it will take time for the Allies to build a serious naval threat to Japan.  Japan doesn’t have much to do with its battleships except escort transports and use amphibious assault shots (which go together nicely).

Against a KGF with no US in the Pacific, I’d grab Borneo back on J3 at latest.  (J1 build transports and tank(s), J2 build more transports and infantry/tanks.  If UK built an IC on UK2, the J1 transports retake Borneo on J2.  If there’s no IC on UK2, J2 transports retake Borneo.

Against a KJF with heavy US fleet, I’d move the Japanese fleet closer together on J2 and start using double support shots plus heavy fighter escorts, with a couple fighters and a bomber assisting in Asia, along with transports in the sea zone west of Japan / at French Indochina.  It’s very difficult for the Allies to take out an early combined KJF fleet, and with the additional forces in the area, Borneo can easily be retaken.

I believe that a UK attack on Borneo is possibly disastrous, and at best offers a passing distraction to Japan at the cost of the UK Pacific/Indian forces.  The carrier, transport, and Indian fighter are all locked into place near Borneo.  Also, sending 1 destroyer against 1 transport offers a decent chance of failure for a very important battle.

–

“Now, it should be noted that if Japan is smart and only hits Pearl with 1 SS, 1 DD coupled with fighters and bombers so there’s no loss of capital ships, I recommend going to Europe with America.”

Well, there is a UK counter to prevent that.  If you use the Australian sub and Indian fighter to attack the Japanese sub at Solomons, and land the fighter on the US carrier at Pearl, that means less fodder for the Japs, and a harder hit for the Allies.  You can also run the UK transport to New Guinea, which forces Japan either to use a fighter vs transport (which is risky for Japan, and ties up a valuable fighter that first turn which means even less hitting Pearl, or means less hitting Asia, either of which will help a KJF).  Or Japan uses two fighters, which is even worse for Japan.

Or Japan uses the East Indies battleship to attack the UK transport, leaving the Japanese carriers alone with their fighter escorts alone at the Solomons (Japan will probably be forced to move at least one carrier to the Solomons to take on fighters from the Pearl battle).  Now, with no battleship at the Solomons, the US can possibly attack with Hawaiian island fighter, battleship, transport and either press on or retreat, if forced to retreat, the Japanese may be sucked into the US1 naval build in hopes of killing that US battleship (if the Japs don’t pursue, the US keeps the battleship).

Of course, that’s moot if the Japs can just use the battleship at east of Japan to reinforce the Solomons, which is why a UK bomber is so handy.  If you’re stuck on reclaiming Anglo-Egypt, you could run the Indian fighter to Anglo-Egypt after all, and use the UK London bomber at Egypt as well, then land both fighter and bomber in Italian East Africa, where the bomber would still threaten the sea zones off Japan with a strong USSR presence in Burytia giving the UK bomber a place to land.  OR, if you want to stick with the naval KJF plan, just fly the UK bomber east to China, where it can attack then land in Yakut (it’s hard for Japan to crack Yakut early), or possibly to Novosibirsk if you wanted to try to hit the German Baltic fleet.

(edit) To be clear, if you have the UK bomber as a threat, then any Japanese transport builds on J1 have a hard time surviving.  If Japan leaves a group of transports completely unescorted, they’re bomber bait.  If Japan keeps a battleship to escort, it runs into the problems outlined above.  (no battleship at Solomons, or fewer fighters at Pearl).  (Of course, I assume both Japanese carriers must go to Solomons).  If Japan builds only two transports and an IC, and puts one transport west of Japan and another east, bomber vs single transport is likely good for the Allies.  If Japan builds three transports and puts them together without any escort, that’s a potential disaster for the Axis.

On the other hand, if Japan tries to take Pearl with capital ships, avoiding most of the pitfalls above, the US can counter more heavily.

[Jennifer]

I agree that England can easily counter a threat of hitting Pearl light with Japan with the Fighter/Sub to SZ 45 option.

However, then you are NOT using that fighter in India or to retake Egypt.  Makes a LARGE difference.

However, I disagree that it’ll take too long for the Allies to build a fleet to counter you.

USA 1: 
2 Aircraft Carriers, 1 Fighter
SZ 55 Now has:  1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Fighters, 1 Transport, 1 Destroyer

USA 2:
4 Submarines, 1 Transport
SZ 55 Now has: 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Submarines, 4 Transports, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers

USA 3:
Move Fleet out if Japan didn’t build one, if they did, hold back
Build 4 or 5 Submarines (depends if you owned Sink or not last round.)

Now you can effectively neutralize the Japanese by forcing them back to a port (IC near the water) or sink them before they can get reinforcements.  Meanwhile, you can put out transports, carriers and fighters to supplement or replace losses as you see fit.

*Note:  If you decide to send 2 transports, 1 Destroyer from E. USA to England then subtract them from above.

[newpaintbrush]

“However, then you are NOT using that fighter in India or to retake Egypt.  Makes a LARGE difference.”

“If you’re stuck on reclaiming Anglo-Egypt, you could run the Indian fighter to Anglo-Egypt after all, and use the UK London bomber at Egypt as well, then land both fighter and bomber in Italian East Africa”

–

See, I do think of these things!

–

“However, I disagree that it’ll take too long for the Allies to build a fleet to counter you.”

“USA 2:
4 Submarines, 1 Transport
SZ 55 Now has: 1 Battleship, 2 Aircraft Carriers, 4 Submarines, 4 Transports, 4 Fighters, 2 Destroyers”

Japan has 2 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 5 fighters, and a bomber.  Assuming Japan was unlucky enough to lose a fighter, and that Japan didn’t purchase any units.  It is far more likely that Japan will have 6-8 fighters and 3-5 transports by J2 (if high on fighters, low on transports and vice versa).  Japan can usually hold off on building fighters, but a US Pacific build is pretty obvious.

So assume the US holds back for another turn until USA4.

"Now you can effectively neutralize the Japanese by forcing them back to a port (IC near the water) or sink them before they can get reinforcements. "

Basically, the US is running into the teeth of the Japanese navy and air force.  The Japanese are not really FORCED back, they can just sit in the South Pacific until the US gets close.  Then, if the US commits units to attack the high IPC islands, the Japs wipe them out or pull a hit and run; either is massively expensive for the US fleet.  Of course, the US can use 100% of its funds to rebuild, while the Japs are busy in Asia as well, but it takes time, while Germany is running around making trouble.

–

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t say KJF doesn’t work.  But I find it far more certain to smash Germany.  By USA4, I am usually using US and UK forces to trade off territories with Germany to conserve Russian forces; at worst, I can set up a secure reinforcement through Archangel and bolster Moscow with Allied fighters.  With the Allies in firm control of the Atlantic, and Moscow secure, it is just a matter of time before the Axis lose.

In contrast, if I allow Japan the time to run in Asia, and allow Germany to do its thing in the Atlantic, the fate of Moscow is much less certain.

[Jennifer]

If the Japanese are sitting off the islands in the S. Pacific, why wouldn’t America move into SZ 60 and start making landings from Alaska into Buryatia, cutting off the Industrial Complexes and land in SE Asia that way?

If Japan goes to SZ 60, then why not just take her islands, put up an IC in East Indies and Borneo and start dumping 8 units a round into FIC until you win and hold or Japan screams at you and throws the board across the room in frustration?

[Guest]

If KJF were so easy, more people would use it  :mrgreen:

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

If the Japanese are sitting off the islands in the S. Pacific, why wouldn’t America move into SZ 60 and start making landings from Alaska into Buryatia, cutting off the Industrial Complexes and land in SE Asia that way?

If Japan goes to SZ 60, then why not just take her islands, put up an IC in East Indies and Borneo and start dumping 8 units a round into FIC until you win and hold or Japan screams at you and throws the board across the room in frustration?

1.  If Japan sees the KJF coming (and it should), it shouldn’t be building an IC in Asia, let alone two.

2.  Burytia is in range of the Japanese navy and air.  Japan attacks, loses some excess transports or fodder subs, then retreats after severely damaging the US navy.

3.  The South Pacific is in range of Japan.

4.  I find it unlikely that Japan will “scream and throw the board across the room in frustration”.  I find it more likely that with a KJF strategy, particularly with with no US or UK IC in Asia, that Japan will end up successfully protecting Tokyo with infantry and fighters while Moscow falls.

–

To sum up, you’re asking how it is that Japan successfully protects Sea Zone 60 (east of Japan) and the South Pacific.  The answer is that until the US moves from Los Angeles, the Japanese fleet can do whatever it wants.  Immediately after the US moves from Los Angeles, the Japanese start to consolidate at Japan and/or the South Pacific.  If the US rushes to the South Pacific, Japan can cut off any US reinforcements from Los Angeles, then hunt down the U.S. fleet.  If the US tries to stay near Tokyo, Japan whittles them down.  It’s a question of the US protecting its supply lines (i.e. being able to prevent the newly built units from Los Angeles from being destroyed before they can reach the Pacific fleet).

The real question is SPEED.  The US can definitely make a stronger navy and air force than Japan, and the US can definitely play a defensive/offensive game between Japan and the South Pacific, or run shuttles between Alaska and Asia.  But it all takes time.  First, the US must build a fleet that can threaten as well as defend.  Second, the US has to build transports.  Third, the US needs to build mass fighters.  Fourth, the US has to produce infantry to march up the line from W. US to W. Can to Alaska.  If the US decides to take its focus off to do something else, that’s just more time Japan has.  If the US focuses solely on Japan, that leaves Germany much more room to play around.

So why is it that I think that a KGF does not suffer from similarities?  Because with a KGF, London, Moscow, and Washington can all focus on Europe.  London is much better placed to push immediate infantry reinforcements to Europe and Asia, and the presence of London also means that the Allies have a secure base from which to launch fighter attacks into the Baltic.  Meanwhile, Japan runs loose, but it has to solve the logistical problem of moving infantry from Tokyo to Moscow.  With Allied infantry reinforcing Moscow, the Allies can hardly lose, so it should just be a matter of time before they win.

In contrast, a KJF has US trying to solve the logistical problem of either supplying the Pacific fleet, or pushing infantry into the islands or Asia, or both.  It’s true that the US has to build two transports for every transport load in a KGF with a shuttle route from E. Canada to London, and London to Europe or Asia, but in a KGF, the US can use UK for immediate naval reinforcement, and has two subs, a transport, and a destroyer to face down.  Even if the Germans build a carrier, the German Baltic fleet is not an attack fleet; it is not comparable to two battleships, mass fighters, fodder transports and possibly subs, and defensive carriers.  (The Germans can’t afford to muck around with lots of fighters, but the Japanese can, for various reasons that I will not go into at this moment).

[Jennifer]

Okay, Japan sees it comming.  They have to produce an equivalent level of units to stop the Americans from crushing them, and America’s got a full turn head start.  (Japan isn’t suspecting America to go Pacific on their first turn.)

End of Round 1:

America:  1 BB, 2 DD, 3 TRN, 2 AC, 4 FIG
Japan: 2 BB, 2 AC, 4 FIG, 3 TRN/4 TRN

Already the American fleet has the advantage on defense.  After the next round (5 Submarines) they’ll have a significant advantage on offense while Japan’ll be limited to, at maximum, 4 naval units and that’s if they buy the cheapest and forgo any new land units for Asia.

Round 3 America has 5 more Submarines, maybe 4 Submarines depending on the game situation at the time, Japan is now hopelessly out-classed in the naval game, they’re reduced to trying to get teh Americans to attack them because they cannot hope to sink the Americans.

Now American can focus on a new carrier and transports and start taking islands.  Can Japan cut off reinforcements?  Technically yes, literally no.  Why?  Because reinforcements are not a one way street.  LA can get to SZ 63, SZ 57, SZ 51 and SZ 45.  That’s 4 routes out and the bulk of the fleet can move in the other direction, so a total of 4 spaces can be covered, that’s the entire distance between LA and Tokyo, to put that in perspective for you.

Is it easy?  No.  But if you’ve got some ingenuity and you can convince Russia and England to be conservative in the Eastern Front against Japan and continually pound on Germany to keep them from stacking, you can seriously cripple japan before they even get through Yakut and Sinkiang. (Figure it’ll take 3 or 4 rounds to get a stack large enough to punch through 6 infantry in both territories.)

[Feds10]

after reading these posts, i think that you can’t go all out on a KJF…firstly, you have to keep pressure on Germany…because letting them go fight w/o american influence is huge…like…friggin huge.

i like the American idea of building a fleet…but japan also has the advantage of space. they have 2 turns to move troops into asia and secure their landings. also…if Britain makes an IC in india that stops japan from getting landlocked. all they need now is infantry…india will make the rest. Japan makes 4 subs…plus they have defense… plus they get the choice as to where and when the battle will take place. i find that to be a crucial decision because they can put their fleet in an area that will either A put the american fleet out of place…giving more time for Japan to shuttle troops to the mainland B set up a counterattack w/ air C best defense for the battle… yes Japan is outdone my american money…but they still run the table in the pacific

it’s japan’s to lose.

Feds 10

[JLord]

Does anyone have an example of a well played KJF game that was succesful for the allies?

[DarthMaximus]

Yes.

Bare with me here:

R1 - Buy 3 inf, 3 arm.  Attack Wrus and Ukr.  NCM all Eastern units back one space (towards mos).

UK1 - Buy air (or ships) pending G1.  Land in Afr (if bought air).
Keep Indian fleet together or unify with Aus Ships and loaded trn.  Retreat all inf on mainland back 1 sq (towards the Middle East).  Usually to Per.

US 1 - Buy 2 AC, 1 ftr (or AC, BB).  Go to Afr to back up UK.  Retreat towards Mos.  Place ships/ftrs in Pac.

R2 - trade Ukr/Belo/Kar (whatever is available).  Continue retreat in east now towards the Cauc/Kaz area.

UK2 - buy air or ships.  More trops to Afr from UK. Attack with your Indain Ocean fleet the territory of your choosing.

NOTE:  If J attacked your fleet on J1 then you can’t attack, but this in turn speeds up the ability of the US in the Pac.

US2 - buy AC, 2 ftrs.  Move troops to Afr.  Place in the Pac.

R3 - continue to trade with Germany while falling back in the East.

UK3 - Buy ships.  Land in Nor.  Continue to pester in the ME and Indian ocean (if available)

US 3 - Buy 1 AC, 2 ftrs.  Back up UK ships in Atl.

Now it gets a bit hard to plan out, but the gist of it is to continue to buy 1 AC and 2 ftrs with the US and place in the Wus sz.  Usually by US 4 there is nothing Japan can do to prevent you from going to the Sol Is if they didn’t buy or make the right moves.  From this point the US can easily force the enitre Japanese navy back to sz 60 (or more likely 61 - the inner space).  The reason Japan must retreat is the US ftrs have an incredible reach and newly placed ftrs can directly attack from the Wus sz.

Now once you force Japan back to sz 60/61 it is just a matter of time.  You move your fleet to pick off the expensive islands whils sending you new purchases to Sol and place in Wus.

Hopefully, you can see what I’m getting at, kind of hard to explain, but it has been used on me a few times and I’ve used it on others with a pretty good success ratio.

Germany can be an issue, but they can never really take Moscow alone once the US has 2-3 of the big J islands.

[squirecam]

@ncscswitch:

If KJF were so easy, more people would use it  :mrgreen:

Not so fast. People would just rather dismiss it instead of thinking about it.

Once you play it correctly, you see the advantages of it.

Squirecam

[newpaintbrush]

@squirecam:

@ncscswitch:

If KJF were so easy, more people would use it  :mrgreen:

Not so fast. People would just rather dismiss it instead of thinking about it.

Once you play it correctly, you see the advantages of it.

Squirecam

1.  Do you go US IC in China and UK IC in India?  (curious)

2.  What advantages?

I do see that once a KJF Pacific plan starts in earnest, Japan can’t stop it, and I see that attacking Japan’s isolated islands is far easier than trying to take W/S/E Europe and the Balkans.  It is definitely far easier to contain or take Japan than it is to contain or take Germany.

But a KGF contests IPC-rich territories in Europe rather than Asia, and allows the Allies to contest Africa early, and it is easier to neutralize the German fleet than the Japan fleet, thanks to the proximity of London’s industrial complex to key Atlantic sea zones.

–

That is - do you mean advantages, in that there are particular advantages to playing KJF as opposed to KGF?  That is to say, that KJF is not necessarily superior to KGF, but has its own particular benefits?

Or do you mean that KJF has advantages, in that KJF is superior to KGF?

–

And how do you execute a KJF?  (Particulars)

[Guest]

Japan does not HAVE to stop it, only OUTLAST it.

And the key to that is in Central Europe where a well played Germany can breach the Russian lines, as well as have boosted income from early (though temporary) gains in Africa since UK did not counter Egypt in UK1 (using Darth’s post above as an example).

If Germany breaks 50 IPC’s before the US is “mobilized” in the Pacific with the means to start grabbing Japan income rapid-fire, it is OVER for Russia, especially of Japan got much of anything to Asia in J1 and J2.

[DarthMaximus]

Germany can’t really go hog wild in Afr though, here’s why:

Assume Germany attacks Egy on G1, UK still has 8 inf in the area that can be used to attack on UK 2-3.  3 Ind (moved to Per), 1 Per, 1 Trj, 1 Safr, and 2 from Aus.  They also have a second trn.

This can do wonders in deadzoning Egy, Trj, Iea, otherwise Germany walks right into a trap on G2 getting hit by 4 inf and planes on UK2.  Couple that with the UK/US landing in rd 1 and Germany can never gain too much in Afr to get near 50.  UK/US troops for German troops is a good trade for the Allies.

Germany will not beable to hold Ukr for the first few rds, they are still going to have to trade it.  Also you have to be weary of a UK reatreat from the Mid East to Cauc with an inf or two, here you can use UK air and 1 inf to pick off a German inf so Russia can conserve hers.

@ncscswitch:

Japan does not HAVE to stop it, only OUTLAST it.

I’ve learned this is a very bad idea.

No matter how well Japan is doing in Asia once they start conceding Pacific Islands to a superior US force, they are in big big big trouble down the rd.  Don’t ask me how I know about this.   :cry:   :-P
Hint:  Remember Japan can only place 8 units on Japan.
Hint 2:  Think about a small US attack force of 1 inf, 1 arm, 8 ftrs, 1 bb (at sol) with an addition ac, 2 ftrs in Wus sz.

Conclusion:  Even a minor US threat forces a Defense of the home island and will lead to Japan either not maximizing her mainland IC’s or leaving an extra 2-3 units behind each turn to beef up defense of Japan.

Now throw in just one more US trn and it is 2 inf, 2 arm, 8 ftrs, 1 bb vs. 8 units only???

Another thing to think about is Japan + 2 IC’s = 14 units.

Which is pretty standard and normally pretty good, but in order to fill all (even with just inf) you need to earn 42.  Usually you can get away with earning less and place the main pieces in Asia with the excess in Japan, BUT with a US Pac threat you are forced to place 8 everyturn on Japan thus minimizing your Asia placement, thus making your second IC purchase a waste of money.
It is stuff like this that can really burn you as Japan.  Again don’t ask me how I know.   :-P

[Jennifer]

DM is correct.

However, I’d amend his retreat on the Eastern Front strategy.  You don’t want to give the Japs a walk in across China, Sink, India, Kaz, Novo, Evenki, Yak, SFE and Bury.  That’s 15 IPC you don’t have to give him, for 30ish IPCs in units to use against Germany.

If you’re going to go into all out retreat on the Eastern front, then send America into Europe for the coups de ta on Germany.

Rather, 4 Infantry, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter with 1 Infantry on the way in India for England
6 Infantry in Yakut SSR for Russia
4 Russian Infantry, 2 American Infantry in Sinkiang for America will slow Japan down at least 2 rounds, more likely 3 or 4 rounds.  That’s 160 IPCs of naval build units for America with an initial sacrific to land some units in Africa as a possibility, plus the starting units (assuming Japan went heavy Hawaii, if htey went light you might not have your starting BB/TRN anymore, but then Japan might be out soome significant units as well.)

Japan: 34 IPC vs America 40 IPC.  That’s an extra submarine per turn for America, at minimum.  Not to mention, you are forcing an axis power to play defense instead of offense, which means Russia could send 1 armor a round to the eastern front until they have 10 infantry, 2-3 armor and can start walking into Asia - as Japan is now forced to go 100% naval builds.

Result?  Russia +9 IPC, Japan -9 IPC with America poised to gobble up islands.

Result on the Western Front?  Almost no difference.  A lot of Americans go the N. Africa route and that would take 5 rounds anyway before infantry can come to bear on Germany through Caucasus.  So the loss of American forces in the first 5 rounds really won’t be felt.

Meanwhile, if Russia and England either go total ballistic or total conservation they can hold Germany at bay until America makes her move.  After which, America only needs minimal investments to maintain momentum.

[Guest]

You keep peeling Russian forces off of Germany in your KJF Jen, while also having the US spend all their money in the Pacific.  You are NOT going to containe Germany in that scenario.  Simply won;t happen.  $40+ IPC against HALF that amount means Russia is fracked if they split their forces AT ALL in a KJF.

[Jennifer]

i’ve never peeled a single russian unit off the units I origainlly said had to be on the Eastern Front, Switch.

Russia has 10 infantry on the Russian front (not including the two in Evenki which I peel off Japan for teh German front.)

I do peel them off what OTHER people suggest, but not off my own suggestions.

[Guest]

Yet you post about 1-3 ARM backign up those eastern INF.  And THOSE forces are indeed being peeled off Germany.  Not to mention that 6 INF that are often used for Russian defense/German attack are heading further east instead of west toward the German front…

[Jennifer]

I posted that for AFTER you’ve established a holding line against the Germans trading German land.  Not for the first round!  The idea was to add them in starting 1 a round (unless you’re doing exceptionally well) starting the same round America moves into the Islands.

It doesn’t seem like a lot, but think about it.  In Round 1 Japan is faced with:

10 Russian Infantry
5 British Infantry, 1 British Fighter, 1 British Submarine, 1 British Carrier, 1 British Destroyer, 2 British Transports
4 American Infantry, 1 American Fighter, the Pearl Fleet and the LA Fleet

Yes, some of that’ll be killed off, to what expense is to be seen by the dice, but it’s safe to assume the fighter and 2 American infantry at least.  Leaving the two sides pretty balanced at the end of round 1 on the mainland.

[newpaintbrush]

I disagree with DarthMaximus.  Jen too.

1.  This “small” attack force of eight fighters came from - where?  How is it that Japan allowed the US to take the Solomons for free?  You can’t threaten Japan’s navy unless you have long range aircraft or carriers for your fighters.  That means that from the Solomons, you can’t do much with those fighters.  If you build a minimal navy, you’re vulnerable to Japanese suicide attack with mass air and a couple of fodder transports; the fighters fly back to land on carriers that are protected by battleships and even more transports.

You CAN run a fighter / island hop strategy, but it is slow.

2.  Eight fighters, a battleship, and a loaded transport are no threat at all to Japan.  They are not even a threat to anything else.  You can use the US forces to attack Borneo or East Indies, then get cut off from reinforcements and slaughtered.  Why would you do that?

That is, yes, you can run inland, but without supporting carriers (which take time and resources to build), the fighters are not going to do much more than protect that island, that island’s sea zone, and threaten the surrounding sea zones.  If you want to take an adjacent island, the fighters are useless for that fight unless you have carriers.  And if you commit transports to take an adjacent island, those transports will be killed unless you have a supporting navy.  It is not easy to prosecute a minimal navy-max fighter island hop strategy against Japan; Japan has to pretty much LET you do it.

3.  U.S. takes Japan if Japan is stupid.  Assuming Japan has a surplus of infantry (which it should), you should easily have 10 inf 2 fighters on Japan even if you don’t see America coming AT ALL.  Even a moderately good Japan player will be prepared to defend Japan with 10 inf 5 fighters.  If you want to trade your U.S. fighters for Japanese infantry, please go ahead.

That is, I assume that Japan for some weird reason doesn’t see the U.S. buildup until the last moment.  But even at the last moment, there should be at least 2 inf on Japan to start with (because Japan just can’t empty Japan that fast; it needs to build up transports, and even then, it should immediately start shuttling infantry off the isolated islands).  So assuming just 2 inf in Japan to start with, Japan should at LEAST be able to afford 8 inf, and be able to have 2 fighters in range of Japan.  I actually can’t really imagine that Japan would be in that poor of a position, though, not that early.

4.  Even ONE IC should not be “standard” for Japan.  Even if Japan has a bid amount allowing 2 transports 1 IC on J1, a Japan IC is by no means a standard move.  (I believe that Japan can afford to place one IC at India, or possibly an IC at French Indochina if UK places an IC at India . . . but that last ONLY if Japan has a bid.)

TWO IC’s is definitely not what I would consider “standard”, unless by “standard”, you meant it’s my standard NOT to do it.

If you blow IPCs on ICs, that’s fewer early IPCs that are running in towards Moscow.  That’s true even if you’re running a highly offensive Japan.  With the IPCs that you spend on one IC, you can change 7 infantry into tanks.  If you run TWO ICs, you’re pretty much forced to just run infantry and/or artillery, which aren’t fast or flexible.  India’s a good place for an IC because it’s so impractical for Japan to support Germany’s push on the Caucasus.  But an IC at any of the other three locations is something that should be thought twice about.

5.  If you see U.S. building a fat Pacific fleet, and you’re Japan, you should build until you hit only 4-6 transports, and pump the rest into fighters and infantry.  By the time the US fleet closes, you should have a big air force and fleet.  If you just ignore the US to push mass tanks into Asia, of course you get squished.

Running a Japan game against KGF and KJF are very different from J2 on.  KGF, you can see the Allies are focused on Germany, so you build massed tanks and switch attacks around to break the Allied defense at key points.  KJF, you can see the Allies are focused on you, so you use transports, fighters, and infantry instead (a couple artillery and/or tanks too).  So by the time the Allies roll up with their fleet and air force, you still have naval and air superiority.

–

"This can do wonders in deadzoning Egy, Trj, Iea, otherwise Germany walks right into a trap on G2 getting hit by 4 inf and planes on UK2.

The Germans do not “walk into a trap” in Anglo-Egypt.  If the Germans have no African bid and attack, or even if they DO have an African bid and attack, the main objective is to kill the forces in Anglo-Egypt.  (Closing the Suez canal off is a bonus, but not STRICTLY necessary).  If the forces in Anglo-Egypt are left alive, UK can make a serious play for power at India OR Africa, with an extra fighter for the Indian fleet, and an extra infantry and tank.  That is why the UK forces must die.  Germany doesn’t walk into a trap, so much as pay the butcher’s bill.

–

"No matter how well Japan is doing in Asia once they start conceding Pacific Islands to a superior US force, they are in big big big trouble down the rd.  Don’t ask me how I know about this. "

I am going to ask how you know this, because it sounds like you just ignored the US to run around Asia.  Which is okay if Moscow is about to collapse.  But if you saw the US coming, and it didn’t look like Moscow was on the verge of collapsing, why did you allow the US to keep beating on you in the Pacific?  You should have switched to fighters and infantry instead of building those two industrial complexes!

–

“Result on the Western Front?  Almost no difference.  A lot of Americans go the N. Africa route and that would take 5 rounds anyway before infantry can come to bear on Germany through Caucasus.  So the loss of American forces in the first 5 rounds really won’t be felt.”

10 inf makes a big difference on any front.  Those infantry fuel the Russian counterpush on R2-R4.  If you keep 10 infantry back, the Germans should punish you.

US1, forces can land in Algeria, which makes an immediate difference to Africa, because Germany either counterattacks or runs away.  If Germany runs, the US pushes through into German-held Libya, then Anglo-Egypt.  Even faster progress is made from US2-3 because of tank pushes supported by air.  So Africa is easily reclaimed by the 5th round, and that’s even if Germany tried to take all of Africa in the first place, considering the early pressure the US subjected Africa to.  The question is not whether or not US does anything to reclaim territories by US5 or not.  Africa is always reclaimed.  The question is whether or not US will be in time to contain Japanese aggression towards Caucasus by uniting with UK and USSR forces at Persia.

If the Allies do not choose the African route, there is always the E.Canada/London/Norway/Karelia/Archangel/Eastern Europe route.  This also requires U.S. funds to build a fleet that can defend against German attack.  This is also something that the US can get well established by US5.