Best response to J1 DoW?

If I recall correctly.

Any war against the USA will get nowhere fast without the Money Islands. Therefore, attacking UK/ANZAC is an absolute must, so that you can rake in that badly needed +20 IPCs.

As Japan, I normally J2 DOW but take FIC J1. This generally is good enough to take down Calcutta and normally keep it down. I also mostly ignore China until I have India, except Anwhe, Kweichow, Hunan and Yunnan.

I totally agree about the mutual annihilation attack being bad for Japan. Then the ANZAC can keep a fleet alive.

@SubmersedElk:

To clarify, I was discussing the merits of buying a stack of 4 bombers and sending them to the Pacific.

Sure one bomber might get some targets to snipe at - but a full round buy doesn’t add much to what you already got with the starting bomber. Anything can be effective against an opponent making serious mistakes like leaving a transport stack naked and open to attack, and in a case like that, one bomber is as effective as four.

The issue is with the mechanics of movement over the oceans. A Japanese transport at a harbor can be in range to attack a bomber while the bomber is not in range to attack the transport, despite the vast difference in base movement - an airfield for the bomber makes no difference. Land units can effectively move 5 spaces to attack when using a transport at a harbor (one load, three move, one drop). The bomber would need 8 move total to attack that transport and return to base, and of course it only gets 7 with the airport and 6 without.

It’s totally counterintuitive when you look at base move 2 for ships and base move 6 for bombers, but in practice, that transport can attack from one space further away than the bomber can.

In order for this to work you obviously cannot takeoff and land at the same territory. The Pacific allows for many landing areas so this is not necessarily a problem. Some good bomber moves in the north are to bring bombers from Hawaii to attack SZ 6 and land in Midway, and to take bombers in Midway and attack Japan and land in Amur. That extra move is what really makes the difference.

Your point is good. The US are not properly represented. But maybe just giving the US the War Bond, Improved Shipyard and Increase Factory Production tech (All 3 when at war) could help to make the US more historical without breaking too much the game. I’ll try it in my next games.

Quoting the rule book:

If Japan attacks any Soviet-controlled territory that is adjacent to any Mongolian territory, all Mongolian
territories that are still strict neutral or pro-Allies, or have joined the Allies as a result of a failed Japanese attack, are placed under the control of the Soviet Union at the end of Japan’s Conduct Combat phase.

So technically speaking, they first become pro-allied as Japan attacks them, and then become Russian.

On a side note, I suppose that the Mongolians would remain neutral when Japan attacks a bordering territory that was originally Russian but is now no longer held by the Russians. For example: Germany takes Moscow, and a German tank drives all the way to Amur, capturing it. Next, the US captures Amur from the Germans. And then, Japan attacks the Americans in Amur. I think the Mongolians would remain neutral in that (unlikely) sceanrio.

The strategic bombers can reach SZ37, but not Malaysia.

The odds of capturing Malaysia on J1 is just 3%.

It’s also good to have some ANZAC fighters closeby or in your US pacific fleet (they can land on a US air craft carrier).

When US troops get ashore somewhere, they can land and give a strong extra defence (in Alpha3),
and on islands where there are airbases already, they can scramble as well.

An accompanying ANZAC destroyer (and/or sub) or 2 can also be of value, in case some risky US attack doesn’t go as planned, the ANZAC units can still fix certain problems (taking out something with a sub/DD + fighters, or blocking enemy fleet if needed).

Anyway, teaming up pays off.