Japan's super economy -the end of the world?

Japan’s income will ramp up faster than America’s if the European Axis choose to stalemate with Russia to fight off the Western Allies as long as they can.

There are some serious risks:

1. Japan could continually trade units with ANZAC by making small landings in Western and Northern Australia, sapping Allied strength until Japan has enough advantage to safely land a larger army. Japan can shuck men between SZ37 and Western Australia very efficiently.

2. Japan could try to achieve enough naval dominance to convoy raid the West Coast.

3. Japan could just build up transports and keep you guessing where they might go. The Middle East and Africa have lots of IPCs if Pacific VCs are too well guarded.

I rarely see this style Allied play from my opponents, so it’s hard to evaluate whether or not Euro-domination is better or worse. A mostly unchecked Japan’s race to take Sydney might take longer than a mostly unchecked Germany’s race to take Moscow, but the Allies will probably be able to cope the loss of Moscow in a KJF game better than the they would the loss of Sydney in a KGF game.

What do you guys think?

This inevitably means Japan will get to an income of ~95IPCs/turn sooner or later.

Uhhh…how?

Did China just fold?  Did UkP just focus on the middle east?  Did Anzac just stack Sydney?  Did Russia just sit and wait for the onslaught?  There are FIVE countries that can play on that side of the world…how is Japan getting 95 IPCs?  oh, they’re sitting on money - gotcha.

Taking Sydney is easy. Japan-> Caroline-> Australia.  It is not hard, plus you threaten Hawaii at all stages of your movement.

If left alone Japan can win in the pacific as early as round 7.

Never go Atlantic if Japan DOW round 1

It looks like India will fall on J3 or J4 but what if India decides to back out and hide in Persia or some close-by territory? Do you continue to pursue the Indians with Japan or do you just fortify India and then move back to Japan or Australia? What happens if UK forms an offensive on Turn 6 with the fleeing Indians to recapture India after Japan’s fleet has moved back to the Pacific?

That brings up another question how are you getting the fleet back to Japan to then move to Caroline?  Japans fleet will be in SZ 39 on J3 or J4 depending on when you decided to attack India.  Anzac can block you at SZ(37, 42 and 57) to delay another round.  Do you build another fleet in SZ6?  If so will it be strong enough to sit at Caroline if USA has a fleet at Hawaii?

Every round you delay Japan you give the Euro-Allies more time.

USA focus on Europe from the beginning is probably a bad idea.
However, I am in the minority that doesn’t believe in “KJF”.  I like the balanced approach with USA.  
A good Japan player can stonewall USA for a long time even if going 100% at Japan.  
Obviously the #1 priority of the Allies is to not allow the Axis to win on either map.
A certain minimal level of USA presence in Europe greatly improves the UK’s effectiveness and threat.  Always have a bomb threat on West Germany’s airbase with USA.  And always have a can opener with USA on Axis fleets in Europe, for UK.  Also, always threaten to take Norway and/or Normandy with USA.  No Axis player wants the USA building units directly in Europe.
Furthermore, USA ground units are needed to take a territory that the UK can then reinforce, including aircraft.

But the Japan victory conditions, as Wheat and Cow have basically said, are easy.  Just get India and one more.  This is why USA largely ignoring Pacific early is a recipe for losing.

I disagree that the Allies can easily defend Hawaii and Sydney both for a long time, given minimal USA presence in the Pacific.  As Wheat said, Japan can build up a lot of transports.  As Cow said, go to Carolines.  Allies won’t be able to defend both Sydney and Hawaii when Japan has tons of transports and ground units on the Carolines.

Right - that’s what I would call a balanced approach - seems most players I’ve run into concentrate on Japan, maybe a bit too much

Good discussion.  The OPs query typically depends on what Axis is doing and when Japan declares war.  For the most part, Allies react to what Axis does…even the USA.

One problem with KGF is how hard it is to be offensive with Russia vrs an elite Axis.  Tanks being 6$ makes them hard to justify.  If Japan conquers China and India relatively early, then Japan plays a role in the Europe theater by containing Russia and threatening Africa.

There is some rationale to USA spending a bit more in the Atlantic early on if it’s likely to lead to Italy not getting NOs and/or USA getting Norway/Finland relatively early (or even France, if Germany is incautious).  Or one might want to deploy USA early to destroy an Axis fleet.  On the other hand, investing in the Atlantic likely means the USA must spend more in the Pacific to defeat Japan, when Japan might have been contained at less cost with a larger initial commitment from the USA.

Plus if you do ever want to take Italy or Germany you have to invest in transports… a unit that has no attack or defense value.

This is the problem with USA, it does not start with enough infantry or transports so it takes so long to ramp up a d-day that is worth looking at.

Even when the allies go atlantic, rounds 1-4 as Germany I buy nothing for them, Italy can defend on its own, because Germany needs max power to take Russia round 6 or 7. It is really easy.

Unless you have a force that can conquer germany, west germany, or italy… you pose no threat, maybe you get Norway? Okay, I take Moscow. How is that? Meanwhile Japan is kickin butt in the pacific.

If Larry Harris wanted America to matter he would put Honolulu on the right island and America would start with at least 5 more infantry.

America sucks. Been sucking since the new transport rules. The most sucking America has experienced was the WW1 1914 map, the country is not a part of the game until round 10. Larry Harris is trying to say America was in not WW1, because he “communicates through the board games” he makes - it says so in the rulebook.

There are even sea mines to stop you from not building transports and go convoying, sea mines roll every round, so you are forced into some transport bs.

America used to make +30 NO… that got nerfed even though the axis were the favorite in OOB, but that is cool. Take away the Gibraltar airbase too while you are at it, go Larry Harris.

Freaking ridiculous, America sucks in the atlantic, not enough infantry or money to make it happen, garbage ass country. Rather play the axis, because even if I lose the Pacific with Japan, HELLO AFRICA. OH WHAT IS THAT GERMANY HAS RUSSIA, VC WIN!

@ItIsILeClerc:

For me personally, A&A has deviated too much from history already to also swallow a forced KJF. Luckily (for me), it still doesn’t look impossible to pull off a semi-KGIF as a ‘standard’ allied strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

“Official U.S. statistics indicate that the United States devoted more resources in the early part of the war to stopping the advance of Japan, and not until 1944 was a clear preponderance of U.S. resources allocated toward the defeat of Germany.”

Similar to how it often goes down in Global.  Not to say Global is historical–Axis are meant to have a 50/50 shot at winning which was definitely not the case in the actual war.

I’m a history buff–for me Global is the best A&A yet.

America sucks. Been sucking since the new transport rules…

An interesting debate.  Some people are always going to prefer the more powerful 0/1 transport for 8$.  Maybe the new(er) ruleset hasn’t been fully tweaked.

I think Global’s introduction of naval bases went a long way towards improving navy’s chances relative to aa50.  The Battle of the Atlantic improved with aa50 and got better still with Global.  The added difficulty for Allies is not a game quality issue because that can be fixed with bids.  The powerless transports make for more naval drama.

Air power remains superior to naval power…awhich is the way it was in the war too.  The new ruleset gets better use out of subs and destroyers as well as carriers, while in the Revised ruleset, transports were the typical naval fodder unit, which is more or less ahistorical.  Hopefully in the future there will be further improvements leading to more dynamic submarine wars.

Because I hate investing into naval so heavily, I find it is easier to dump truck 16 guys a round into spain.  UK can simply build units in the middle east / africa all day.

Excellent posts, Zhukov

And Cow makes a good point - USA was overpowered, and is now underpowered.  Most games are really decided by round 3-8, somewhere in there, and USA doesn’t really get humming until round 8 or so.

Also, the 30 the USA used to have was untouchable.  Now 10 of the 20 can actually be disrupted from time to time.  Allies are needing a small bid.  Could have been fixed with a bit stronger USA.  But oh well

I need a heavy bid to compete as the allies. Like if I lose africa/middle east early like before round 6…. it is almost always a lost game.

That is why I suggest infantry units for usa. I still do not understand why Russia does not start with a bomber, Germany air is still crazier and he has way more firepower.