Japan is too strong?

I agree that in order for the US to make an impact they need to concentrate on one side or the other and not split their resources evenly between the two theaters each round. In other words they need to spend nearly full income on one side for 2-3 maybe 4 turns.

ItIsILeClerc, although I agree with your above scenario, I just wanted to point out that US spending is split about half each side when you look at the bigger picture of multiple rounds (in the first 6 turns anyway). Pac first 2 turns to stabilize the Pac, get Japans attention and have a good starting point for when you refocus. Then going Europe a 2-3 turns so you can make landing that will stick (probably when the German air force is busy in the east), then back to Pac……keep in mind that I’m seeing a lot of J1 attacks so the US income is rampped up from the get go.

On the Pac side you have to build up a defensive fleet to stand up to the Japanese (force him to buy more ships). You need to protect Hawaii/Sidney so you will need more carriers, planes and destroyers (anz can help with that). You will probably have a couple loaded transports to swap money islands, or take back say the Aleutians (pesky Japanese) etc… As time goes on you will need to add offensive units like subs/bmrs (mid game). In many games you set-up a def fleet where you know the Japanese will need to get at some point to force them to go through you (sacrificial lamb). This is good as long as you have a counter attack set-up to finish him off and take back the VC. If nothing else it may stall him.

On the euro side you again have to build a defensive fleet able to take a hit, but you are way behind on ships (unless you use the Panama canal). UK can help with that some, but they have a lot on their plate keeping Egypt/Mid East supplied. Plus UK is also producing a ton of ftrs for Moscow and reinforcing US landings w/RAF. You also need many transports with both nations to make your landings stick (which again you don’t have). It will take more then just a couple turns to build up to make a statement in Europe IMO.

So really I guess that it is more in what the US buys once we get to the 5-6th turn. Both sides will need heavy investment in surface ships in the beginning that will typically stay on that side because they are slower moving. You need units that can jump from one side to the other quickly in later rounds, so in the mid game you should probably buy more air units? Often times I will buy bmrs (like 4-5 in one turn) for W US to get Japans attention, then fly them to London (or Scotland) on the next turn (seems like a lot of map, but they can make it). From London bmrs can help destroy the German fleet, or wipe out some weaker German defended territories next to territories I’m making landings on (Germans generally count heavily on their air so they will have inf/mech in key places (like Paris) to take the hits for the Luftwaffe. If you want to tip the scales of the Moscow battle bmrs in Scotland can make it to Moscow in one turn. It seems costly, but several bmrs change the odds of a close battle by 5-10% so your bmrs taking those first hits are costing him air units in the long run even if it doesn’t stall him.

Your bmrs in London could do some SBR depending on where the Luftwaffe is to make him pay more for the Atlantic def. If your bmrs make it to Moscow (and delay him) you can bomb the German ICs that are pumping out units on Red territories to make those units more costly, they generally wont’ have ftrs on them (well the first time anyway). SBR may not be that great anymore, but it will tie up some of his ftrs.

Any way it’s safe to say I like bmrs, they are cool have great range and yea in some cases over powered LOL

Agreed that the US has to focus on one side early on.  I feel it’s easier to play catch-up in the Pacific, so I usually go heavy in the Atlantic first.

Trying to evenly split your money from turn 1 on is a recipe for failure.

So I just played my first ever game as Axis - to date everyone has been willing to give a 9-15 bid, but an opponent last night bid 8 so I let him have it. (He added a sub to the Med and pocketed the other 2 IPC).

He spent US IPC in Atlantic (perhaps in response to my standard G1 fleet buy) and pulled Pac ships back to western US and put initial UK focus on Italy.

I DOWed him J2 and the situation for Japan couldn’t have been better. At the end of J2 I had every IPC/objective-relevant island in the Pacific except Celebes already in hand; could hold Yunnan; was two full levels deep into China; was immediately threatening India (forcing ineffective turtle by UK Pac); and there was not a single opposing transport between western US and the horn of Africa. This was later followed up by two factories in Asia each of which pumped out 3 tanks/turn by turn 5 builds; and a full-on strat bombing of India facilities, effectively taking UK-Pac out of the game before UK4. By the time the US switched to all-Pac (turn 4 or so), he was so far behind he couldn’t advance past Hawaii (and only got that far because I was still prioritizing Asia for Japan’s air force). The tank/air force just needed to mass in order to smash the remnant of China and then UK Pac, and I could then spend 40+ IPC/turn on fleet with a pullback of a few fighters to counter the US buildup.

I did lose the game but only because I messed up the tactics on the German side, which was more a result of my inexperience with Axis than anything. But there I was, first time Axis player and let to its own devices I was able to leverage Japan to take them to the house. I made lots of mistakes too, so it’s not like I had to play it perfectly - I was basically imitating all the things that I had seen others do from the Allies’ perspective to see if my opponent had answers that I didn’t.

I know some people automatically assume that having those units from the Far East in Russia proper is the best course, but if Japan does its job right those units make it west of Mongolia just in time to be confronted by a mixed Japanese stack that can overwhelm them. I would argue that those units are compelled to mass in the east in order to give China/UK-Pac a chance to survive. Taking 10 Japanese land units out of the equation in those early rounds makes a huge difference. Also allowing Japan control of the Mongolia situation by allowing it to trigger the intervention at its leisure (when it has had the opportunity to move in 4 extra inf to clean up the new Russian units) and collecting the northern Russian territories by running tanks around empty space instead of having to knock out at least a picket every space for the whole march.

It’s because of this that I believe that a) Russia can’t abandon the east, they need to put those 18 units on Amur at some point to force Japanese units away from China/UK; and b) UK/ANZAC/US need to play an aggressive counter-game to force Japan to spend to defend its Pacific territories while eliminating as many land units on the ground as possible.  If you don’t, there are few good answers to a J2 where J1 is pounding China and staging naval units and transports in complete safety for a mass J2 attack followed by a J3 cleanup. Yes, you bring the USA into the war early, but they’re not really positioned to do much that early anyway. I prefer J2 to J1 because having that first turn to move in safety and stage units is a powerful asset and allows you to see Allied 1st turn buys which tip off your opponent’s strategy before you commit to your own strategy and maintains the option to delay further if there is advantage to be gained by it.