Japan Conolial Garrison?

@MarineIguana:

First of all, I want to say that USA committing any purchases to the pacific is a mistake. For the same amount of resources, the USA can always pressure Germany more than Japan. This is from my experience playing hundreds of revised games, many at a high level.

That said, assuming the US commits to the Pacific…

1. Japan should always sink the US fleet at pearl harbor. If this is done, Japan generally starts with a 1 battleship, 2 carrier, 3 fighter advantage compared to the USA that will take 5+ turns of buildup for the US to overcome.
2. The US can’t make significant advances unless the Japan fleet is destroyed. The best way to stall the USA is to place your fleet in the sea zone off the phillipines or china and deadzone all sea zone within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. Have the carriers filled with fighters AND try to have an equal number of fighters in a land territory that can reach all the sz within 2 spaces of Japan’s fleet. For example, 2 carriers can support 8 fighters attacking a sea zone.
3. Japan can continue pushing land units into asia, even with all US purchases going to the pacific. My typical purchases are like 6 inf and 2 fighters. With the Japan fleet off of China

From what I have seen when the allies does a KJF is that, PH really isn’t that easy. If UK commits and is lucky, PH can be very difficult. Complete UK commitment would be  UK india ftr attacking the J sub in 45 with the australia sub, and then landing on PH. The Australia TT taking 2 infs to papua, the indian TT taking 2 infs to borneo, The UK CR attacking the japanese TT in 59 and the India CW either standing in 36 or 49.  At this point, taking PH might be difficult for japan. If they do it with air only (5 ftrs + bomber) they will lose about 3 ftrs for 2 ftrs, 1 cw, and 1 sub. The good news is that they will not lose boats to a counterattack, and can use their boats to deal with the british fleet, the bad news is that they are spread out, will be in trouble on land and will take 3 ftrs in losses for only 36 US ipcs (+ 10 UK).  If they try to do a heavy PH, alot of the uk fleet survives and UK will keep borneo until J3.

I still feel it is a bad move, since you are handing africa to the axis, but japan will be in trouble.

Honestly, I like unification of the British Fleet in SZ 30 with 1 Infantry from India.  This makes it financially worse for Japan to attack than for England to be wiped out, strategically worse for Japan to attack (since they’ll lose their air force and have to leave Pearl unattacked maybe even not take China’s fighter out) than for England to be wiped out (all those ships are generally dead by UK 2 anyway, so what have you lost?)  BUT

it really tempts Japan to try!  Furthermore, form here, you can hit E. Indies with 4 Infantry, Fighter if Japan leaves you alone, or you can hit Egypt or you can just dump the infantry in S. Africa to bolster the defenses there.

Furthermore, if you build an IC in S. Africa (which negates the risk of losing Africa and thus your paycheck and allows you to stay in the upper twenties, lower 30s) you can be a relatively annoying pain in the butt. (Once Africa is secure, you can always dump a submarine or two in S. Africa making SZ 34 a threatened zone if you want too.  Or at least pose the risk of doing so if you don’t want too.)

That said:

if I had to attack the japanese iwth England, I’d go Destroyer/Carrier to SZ 59; Fighter, Submarine to SZ 45 and land the fighter in SZ 52.  I’ve seen quite a number of Japanese attacks on SZ 52 go south because of that extra fighter.

You know, I have to admit.  I’ve been cooling it a lot with Japan lately.  Racing out to take over the world looks great on paper, but you have no security on your lines of supply.

I’m also growing to like the Sinkiang or even Novosibirsk Industrial Complex with Japan.  Especially if Germany is getting hammered. (Since it helps you rebuild after an assault on Moscow.)

The idea being, Moscow falls to Japan, Berlin falls to America on the same round.  If Germany owns Caucasus, the allies would be silly to liberate it.  That means Japan could really use the extra 2 units right there in the red zone, and when they DO get Caucasus (if ever) it only helps them more.

Remember, you can always shut down your factories in the rear if they are no longer needed.  No rule that says you MUST use all your factories to their full output capacity, eh?

Because a destroyer is cheaper.

You cannot buy 2 transports and a carrier on Japan 1.  That means trading in a transport to get a carrier, not a trade I want, or getting two transports (3 or 4 total available on Japan 2) and a destroyer thus not tying up your fleet on such non-sense as transport protection duty.

Not to mention, when I go after the American fleet with Japan, I always wish I had another destroyer.  I never wish I had another transport.  (Talking rounds 12+ when Japan goes after the Allied fleet to protect S. Germany)

I find it is not cost effective to go island hopping unless I am in full KJF mode or the Japanese were foolish and put their fleet in the Med and then let me close the Suez trapping them between the allied fleets and a close canal.

Bah, I’ve seen 1 inf destroy 9 inf and a tank.  (Guy kept saying “he’ll eventually die!”)

It was… and he lost :-D

Are you sure you meant Western Canada, justus, and not Eastern? It seems to me like it would be taken either way. With those teams, I’d probably put it in India, because even if the Japs take it, chances are excellent that the Russo-German war machine would roll in and take it back for you. (as Britain) And by the way, justus, I went out and bought D-day. Good stuff… 8)