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

Great breakdown Spendo02!
Did you take into account all the allied starting units (especially land/air units the USA starts with)? The allies also get 3INF from Brazil. All those units do not have to be paid for, ofc.

I notice we use largely the same allied tactics in the Atlantic except for a few things I’d like to share (as thoughts, not critique ;-)):

• You could have 2CV+4FTR instead of those 9DD. DD’s are only protecting the fleet and nothing else. CV+FTR are good for many other things! You’ll need some DD ofc to be able to combat axis SUBs (if any) but that’s it. The allies should be able to preserve and consolidate a few DD from those they start with but because those are hopelessly out of position first few turns I usually buy 1 or 2 just to be sure. My rationale is that the allies can take a few CV/air losses IF the axis attack the fleet because after the smoke vanishes, all the axis air is gone anyway and the allies should be left with at least 3CV + 6FTR. But… since the axis never attack the fleet under those circumstances… those 4 extra FTR add a lot to the allied attack options.

• I have found out that instead of building up the TRS-rotation, building up a bomber fleet and using the IC’s in Normandy and Southern France for production of land units for a little while also works great.

I must admit I used to set up a TRS rotation with the USA, channeling an extra 10 land units into Europe per turn. But, after our group got more experience playing Japan this seemed to become untenable.
True to the title of the topic, we experienced large problems with the USA once Japan settles their super economy: with Calcutta gone and Japan making ~90IPCs/turn focusing heavily on also wrestling Hawaii/Sydney from allied control, the USA needed to stop investing in the Atlantic completely. A 6VC Japanese Pacific win must be prevented. True wargamers as we are, we hated to see those empty US TRS, rotating only rats and breadcrumbs in the Atlantic.

And that’s where those bombers come in handy: they will still be effective if US Atlantic investments bled dry. They will add tremendous attack power everywhere on the European board due to their long range (stationed in Paris, UK bombers  can attack together with ground troops to kill a huge Japanese stack advancing into the Middle east), and as long as the axis cannot be attacked because they have their defenses in place, their ICs can be raided every turn to reduce German and Italian income by 20IPCs and 6IPCs respectively.

@Gamerman01:

I’ll admit I haven’t read all that, sorry, but

I have had a lot of success with small American presence in Europe, and not just securing Gibraltar/Morocco/Norway but Normandy and Holland.
Apparently you have experience with Axis players who really prepare hard for the Normandy landings, but more often than not (and I play a lot of top players) Germany/Italy has minimal defenses prepared for Allied landings - they are focusing on Egypt/Middle East/Russia.
With the ability of the UK to immediately follow up American landings, not many Americans are needed.  Have a lot of fighters and infantry (4-5 UK transports?) ready to reinforce.  Trading with Germany is great too, you don’t necessarily need a permanent landing in Normandy to be successful.  Shucking more units to London from East Canada can resupply the transports quickly.  USA transports in 110 can be used by UK units too.

My main point is, I have never made anywhere near the massive investments in the Atlantic with USA you are talking about, but have still had great success.  In fact, it is not uncommon that I liberate France before round 10 (and I think most players are too hesitant to liberate Paris, another discussion).  I think the differences in our opinions/experiences is probably largely due to the fact that we are facing different players and strategies.

Interesting strategy Gamerman01…
I’ll certainly give that a try someday. I think this will more often than not come down to a war of attrition between Germany and UK (mainly)?
What would be your minimum/maximum American presence and at what time (turn)?

I must admit I am indeed hesitant to liberate Paris if this would mean trading that City over and over again with the Germans/Italians because that would just give the axis an extra +18IPCs income every turn.

The only thing I am a little scared of, is Germany postponing the final assault on Russia a few turns to build up defenses that are  more dangerous with a minimal American presence. Or can you say from experience that the UK is capable enough to handle that and start the attrition war anyway?

Good point Cyanight. A very good reason to consider waiting one or two turns.
While we’re at it, be sure to have enough american troops on the beaches to take Denmark (and Norway if not already in permanent posession) when Paris is liberated. And the UK must maintain a full load of INF+ART for all its transports. Otherwise the threat on Berlin is removed the moment the allies move everything into Paris.

To answer Cyanight’s question:
I will always retreat the indians once Japan has a very good chance of destroying that army with a lot of survivors. Now if the Indians could destroy 10+ Japanese aircraft I wouldn’t be so sure to retreat, but I have never faced that particular situation before.

Moving past the opening 4 turns of the game into the late game (turn 8+). Why I think the Japanese super economy isn’t the end of the world, as long as the allies keep their military alive and aim for economic equality at least:

Basically with the allies being strong in Europe (but still able to defend Sydney and Hawaii), Japan will get to that high income. What can happen? Out of my personal experience, assuming Germany will defend adequately against the western allies every turn (i.e. stop focussing on Russia):

• Japan gan go 100% into trying to take Hawaii/Sydney. The USA must thwart this by most likely invest 100% in the Pacific from now on. Is this the end of the world for the allies? I daresay no, as this is the moment that Paris can be liberated so France can take over the role from the USA in Western Europe of producing defending units. Meanwhile, Russia is at liberty to choose who and where to start attacking and the UK can put some spare resources into the Middle East and start pushing eastwards, ultimately taking back Calcutta.

• Japan can defensively deal with the Russian/UK threat on its western perimeter by investing ~30% of their income per turn for this theatre. This will also free up 30% of the USA’s income to either:

  • outproduce Japan on the Pacific itself and start taking back crucial islands (DEI, NG, DNG)

  • keep producing in Europe to tip the balance into allied favor faster.

• Japan can very offensively deal with the UK in the ME and defend its western perimeter against Russia. This will free up even more resources for the USA to invest offensively into either Europe or the Pacific itself.

• Japan can build many TRS and place them so that multiple targets are threatened at once to keep the allies guessing where they will invade. This I think is the most dangerous option and it will initiate a deadly tango between the IJN and the USN where the USN must be prepared to retake what the IJN conquered, or, if it can’t, take another VC or resource-rich area (like the Philippines if Japan takes Sydney) and it must be able to keep doing that: take out a Japanese VC/resource every time the IJN takes an allied one. Since Japan invested quite some resources into transports (not to mention that taking Sydney should deliver a crippling blow to the IJN), the USN should have the upper hand in warships and air, and after a while the UK should be able to retake Calcutta as well. Like I said before, I think this is the most dangerous option for both sides, as 1 little mistake in maneuvering the IJN or USN can be fatal for the axis as well as for the allies!

• ? (I may have missed an option).

The alternative, as Cow stated, is Germany keep focussing on Russia.
Moscow may or may not fall, depending on the amount of UK forces in Moscow. The UK must aid Moscow to at least make a German victory here a pyrrhic one (loosing at least 75% of the Luftwaffe).
In my own (humble) experience, this is bad for the Axis. Berlin will be at very high risk all the time and West Germany will fall into allied hands very quickly (US3 if japan DOWed early, US4/5 depending on how long Japan postponed) followed by Northern Italy and ultimately Rome, 2/3 turns after West Germany fell… Even with Moscow in German hands Germany will not have more than 35 IPCs to spend and Japan can have as much as 98IPCs/turn, totalling 133max. The allies however, will have 45IPCs (UK) + 16IPCs (France) + 95IPCs (USA) + 8IPCs (ANZAC) = 164IPCs.
This alone means doom for the Axis already but it gets worse: Germany, desperately defending Berlin, will also very soon loose the Balkans + Leningrad and all area’s around this City. With Germany isolated or even destroyed, the allies can gang up against Japan, even liberating Moscow again.

Even with 98IPCs/turn (at its very maximum expansion), defending these thousands of miles of territory, is too much for Japan if the allies are still at equal or higher income as the axis…

@Cow:

It is extremely hard to fail a G6 or G7 all in Germany VS Russia. you need about 10 fighters from outside at least.

It is worth the risk. G6 is when I build defenses since I am attacking Russia. USA 1-5 is pretty weak and easy to defend against with just Italy.

G7 is when I am bringing the finland/norway units over and buying mech/armor for an additional round.  This is done very rarely for me… like when I use germany to do middle east / africa business.

Well, thank you!
I mean, I don’t find it too hard to make Germany fail this German all-in against Moscow, so I guess I can take this as a compliment  ;-).

Seriously, you are right about those outside FTR/TAC, but why would that be extremely hard? Especially considering the UK/France start the game with what, 11 or 12 aircraft already…
I know people rarely do it but I can tell it’s a must indeed and not at all so difficult for the UK to do. It sure requires planning ahead and a little practice. And I am not saying Germans won’t take Moscow if they persist. But the price will be too high for them if they do. They can have it with 1 land unit and 4 aircraft left. Or, if you wish, 5 land units and no aircraft left… Whatever. The UK must be aware of the German focus and needs to focus on that same spot too.

US1-5 is indeed not at its peak, but from Gibraltar/London the allies can seriously attack Rome, Berlin (leapfrog trick) and/or everything in between. Apart from the escort fleet (CV + air) + air, combined allies are threatening with fully loaded 6TRS(US3), 8TRS(US4), 12TRS(US5), 16TRS(US6). Italy can never defend all crucial areas against this.

The best thing Germany can do is reinforce the west and try to postpone the assault on Moscow for a later time. But… (see my larger previous post for that option)…

@knp7765:
Interceptors indeed often scare off potential bombers. There can be between 12 - 17 FTR in Moscow so any raiders usually think twice before coming in.
In case they come anyway, Japanese/Italian bombers I intercept if their anticipated damage would be worse than loosing a FTR (i.e. costing the Russian production 3 INF, so 10 or more damage on the IC). With both Japanese and Italians able to raid I auto-intercept one of them but with an overkill of air in Moscow you could forget about what is the best way to do it and just intercept all of them.
German air will be a bit different, since air they loose during raids will also not participate during the actual assault on Moscow. So usually it is better to intercept because Germans will loose more air to combined interception + AAA-fire. If they loose 4-5 bombers/escorts versus 1-2 allied FTR I think that’s worth it.
I wholeheartedly agree with Cow about how raiding can sting both sides beyond belief. Doing it once or twice, especially in Moscow is a gamble, doing it consistently turn after turn (like Berlin, West Germany, Northern Italy and Rome) is more of a calculation about damage dealt versus the average expected shot down bombers/escorts/interceptors.

My favorite flight paths for UK FTR into Moscow are:

• London->Scotland/Norway->Nenetsia->Moscow.

• London->Algeria/French West Africa->Egypt (after attacking something in Med/Africa)->(NW)Persia->Moscow.

• SA->Egypt (possibly after attacking Italians south of Egypt)->(NW)Persia (possibly after attacking Italians in Med/Africa)->Moscow.

• Calcutta->(NW)Persia->Moscow.

The UK/France start the game with 10 FTR/TAC. They can all reach Moscow in time. UK1 builds 1 FTR which can also be there in time. UK2 can build 2 or even 3 FTR if need be, which will be there in time. UKP can build 1, 2 or even 3 FTR, depending on the Japanese pressure on its economy. Given a J1 DOW, this will be only 1 FTR but this will also give the USA 3 more fully loaded TRS in Europe (thus starting with 9@Gibraltar in US3, see my previous post).

So a total of 17 FTR/TAC maximum can fly into Moscow for help. As this is surely an overkill, I usually stick with just a 12 maximum. Less if I see Germany backing off (building troops for Western Europe instead of only the GE4&GE5 air).
Heck, even the 3 ANZAC FTR can get there in time so the total can even be as much as 20 FTR maximum…

I guess the only dilemma for the allies would be what do they want to protect ‘at all costs’. Would they rather protect Calcutta or Moscow?
Personally I prefer to protect Moscow because Russia (with spread communism in Africa) can retain an income of about 18IPCs while UKP retains nothing if Japan convoys it. Moscow needs protection anyway because Germany can NOT be allowed to take it with like 30 surving units. That would seriously be game over IMHO. Therefore I defend Calcutta for as long as I can win the battle there and then retreat everything into the ME. If/when Japan marches into Persia/Iraq I have a nasty surprise for it: SAfrican/ME/Indian veterans counterattacking with the help of a LOT of air. Even Bombers stationed in Paris (should be about 5 or 6) can reach…

On a sidenote,
a friend of mine defends Moscow differently. With the UK he builds 2 ICs in Iraq + Persia ans starts pouring land units into Russia. I don’t think I ever built more than 1 IC in the region (Egypt) but that’s a different story!

Agree to that.
I have seen Italy getting things going in Africa and/or ME and that is very ugly for the allies. Italy having an income of ~30+ IPCs for a prolonged time breaks the allies. If this lasts only a small number of turns however, the damage can be controlled.

Preventing this from happening is another high priority for the allies.
It is a high risk gambit for Italy as well, as this means Italy needs to invest in getting more troops in Africa. Italy’s chances of failure in Africa/ME are quite high and everything the Italians send there cannot help defending Western Europe. Furthermore, Italy is going to need extra TRS and other ships as well so that’s another strike through the Italian build plans for defending Europe!