I disagree with DarthMaximus. Jen too.
1. This “small” attack force of eight fighters came from - where? How is it that Japan allowed the US to take the Solomons for free? You can’t threaten Japan’s navy unless you have long range aircraft or carriers for your fighters. That means that from the Solomons, you can’t do much with those fighters. If you build a minimal navy, you’re vulnerable to Japanese suicide attack with mass air and a couple of fodder transports; the fighters fly back to land on carriers that are protected by battleships and even more transports.
You CAN run a fighter / island hop strategy, but it is slow.
2. Eight fighters, a battleship, and a loaded transport are no threat at all to Japan. They are not even a threat to anything else. You can use the US forces to attack Borneo or East Indies, then get cut off from reinforcements and slaughtered. Why would you do that?
That is, yes, you can run inland, but without supporting carriers (which take time and resources to build), the fighters are not going to do much more than protect that island, that island’s sea zone, and threaten the surrounding sea zones. If you want to take an adjacent island, the fighters are useless for that fight unless you have carriers. And if you commit transports to take an adjacent island, those transports will be killed unless you have a supporting navy. It is not easy to prosecute a minimal navy-max fighter island hop strategy against Japan; Japan has to pretty much LET you do it.
3. U.S. takes Japan if Japan is stupid. Assuming Japan has a surplus of infantry (which it should), you should easily have 10 inf 2 fighters on Japan even if you don’t see America coming AT ALL. Even a moderately good Japan player will be prepared to defend Japan with 10 inf 5 fighters. If you want to trade your U.S. fighters for Japanese infantry, please go ahead.
That is, I assume that Japan for some weird reason doesn’t see the U.S. buildup until the last moment. But even at the last moment, there should be at least 2 inf on Japan to start with (because Japan just can’t empty Japan that fast; it needs to build up transports, and even then, it should immediately start shuttling infantry off the isolated islands). So assuming just 2 inf in Japan to start with, Japan should at LEAST be able to afford 8 inf, and be able to have 2 fighters in range of Japan. I actually can’t really imagine that Japan would be in that poor of a position, though, not that early.
4. Even ONE IC should not be “standard” for Japan. Even if Japan has a bid amount allowing 2 transports 1 IC on J1, a Japan IC is by no means a standard move. (I believe that Japan can afford to place one IC at India, or possibly an IC at French Indochina if UK places an IC at India . . . but that last ONLY if Japan has a bid.)
TWO IC’s is definitely not what I would consider “standard”, unless by “standard”, you meant it’s my standard NOT to do it.
If you blow IPCs on ICs, that’s fewer early IPCs that are running in towards Moscow. That’s true even if you’re running a highly offensive Japan. With the IPCs that you spend on one IC, you can change 7 infantry into tanks. If you run TWO ICs, you’re pretty much forced to just run infantry and/or artillery, which aren’t fast or flexible. India’s a good place for an IC because it’s so impractical for Japan to support Germany’s push on the Caucasus. But an IC at any of the other three locations is something that should be thought twice about.
5. If you see U.S. building a fat Pacific fleet, and you’re Japan, you should build until you hit only 4-6 transports, and pump the rest into fighters and infantry. By the time the US fleet closes, you should have a big air force and fleet. If you just ignore the US to push mass tanks into Asia, of course you get squished.
Running a Japan game against KGF and KJF are very different from J2 on. KGF, you can see the Allies are focused on Germany, so you build massed tanks and switch attacks around to break the Allied defense at key points. KJF, you can see the Allies are focused on you, so you use transports, fighters, and infantry instead (a couple artillery and/or tanks too). So by the time the Allies roll up with their fleet and air force, you still have naval and air superiority.
–
"This can do wonders in deadzoning Egy, Trj, Iea, otherwise Germany walks right into a trap on G2 getting hit by 4 inf and planes on UK2.
The Germans do not “walk into a trap” in Anglo-Egypt. If the Germans have no African bid and attack, or even if they DO have an African bid and attack, the main objective is to kill the forces in Anglo-Egypt. (Closing the Suez canal off is a bonus, but not STRICTLY necessary). If the forces in Anglo-Egypt are left alive, UK can make a serious play for power at India OR Africa, with an extra fighter for the Indian fleet, and an extra infantry and tank. That is why the UK forces must die. Germany doesn’t walk into a trap, so much as pay the butcher’s bill.
–
"No matter how well Japan is doing in Asia once they start conceding Pacific Islands to a superior US force, they are in big big big trouble down the rd. Don’t ask me how I know about this. "
I am going to ask how you know this, because it sounds like you just ignored the US to run around Asia. Which is okay if Moscow is about to collapse. But if you saw the US coming, and it didn’t look like Moscow was on the verge of collapsing, why did you allow the US to keep beating on you in the Pacific? You should have switched to fighters and infantry instead of building those two industrial complexes!
–
“Result on the Western Front? Almost no difference. A lot of Americans go the N. Africa route and that would take 5 rounds anyway before infantry can come to bear on Germany through Caucasus. So the loss of American forces in the first 5 rounds really won’t be felt.”
10 inf makes a big difference on any front. Those infantry fuel the Russian counterpush on R2-R4. If you keep 10 infantry back, the Germans should punish you.
US1, forces can land in Algeria, which makes an immediate difference to Africa, because Germany either counterattacks or runs away. If Germany runs, the US pushes through into German-held Libya, then Anglo-Egypt. Even faster progress is made from US2-3 because of tank pushes supported by air. So Africa is easily reclaimed by the 5th round, and that’s even if Germany tried to take all of Africa in the first place, considering the early pressure the US subjected Africa to. The question is not whether or not US does anything to reclaim territories by US5 or not. Africa is always reclaimed. The question is whether or not US will be in time to contain Japanese aggression towards Caucasus by uniting with UK and USSR forces at Persia.
If the Allies do not choose the African route, there is always the E.Canada/London/Norway/Karelia/Archangel/Eastern Europe route. This also requires U.S. funds to build a fleet that can defend against German attack. This is also something that the US can get well established by US5.