Japans Set Up in 41

@Cmdr:

This is Anniversary, you cannot expect to win with the same old, tired, tactic of sending all three nations at Germany and completely ignoring Japan.

I disagree.  :-D

And I agree with Jen  :-D

@DarthMaximus:

@Cmdr:

This is Anniversary, you cannot expect to win with the same old, tired, tactic of sending all three nations at Germany and completely ignoring Japan.

I disagree.   :-D

@Funcioneta:

And I agree with Jen  :-D

I dunno, DM, it seems I’m not alone on this one.

Taking out Germany is great, I just don’t see the allies doing it if Japan is completely ignored resulting in a Japan earning 100 IPC or more a round and owns Moscow, which they almost certainly will before Germany falls - barring strange dice of course.

@Funcioneta:

A units (not money) bid to allies (Yunnan mainly, but maybe also India) is needed. Deleting a couple of starting trannies for Japan would be also good

Yeah, it would be very nice if Japan wasn’t able to go crushcrushcrush all over India and China in the first two turns.  I thought the strangest thing between the two setups is that they give Japan 5 transports in 1941, but only 1 in 1942.  1942 was supposed to be the peak of their power, wasn’t it?  I’d say somewhere around 3 trannies to start in both scenarios would be about right.

@Cmdr:

@DarthMaximus:

@Cmdr:

This is Anniversary, you cannot expect to win with the same old, tired, tactic of sending all three nations at Germany and completely ignoring Japan.

I disagree.   :-D

@Funcioneta:

And I agree with Jen  :-D

I dunno, DM, it seems I’m not alone on this one.

Taking out Germany is great, I just don’t see the allies doing it if Japan is completely ignored resulting in a Japan earning 100 IPC or more a round and owns Moscow, which they almost certainly will before Germany falls - barring strange dice of course.

I know, I just think Allied play is finally starting to pick up.
Don’t get me wrong I think the US can go after Japan (use a Pac strat), I just don’t think it is necessary.

I look at like this, look at the board in Round 1 and who is the biggest threat to Mos?
It’s Germany.  And Germany will remain the primary threat for the first 5, 6 rds.  Likewise the US can’t reasonably threaten or move on Japan for the first 4, 5 turns.  They need to build up, position fleet, etc.  So it won’t do you a darn bit of good to hold Japan in check if Ger/Ita can take Moscow.

My first priority is to limit the Ger threat on Mos, I’ll worry about Japan later b/c again it is a moot point if Ger/Ita take Moscow.

I also don’t think it is wise for the US to go 50/50, at best you can do a 80/20 split for one threatre to the other.  I think it is better to go 90-100% for Ger in the early rds and once you do that you are free to dump all your resources in the Pac if you think that is better b/c you’ve likely sunk the Ita fleet and have UK/US forces marching through Afr and should be in position for the UK to help Russia (by rd 4-5).

“Ignoring Japan” is sort of a misnomer, what you are actually doing is preparing to confront them as they approach Mos.  When you can do so with not only Russian forces but UK and US forces as well.
Kar-Belo-Mos or Arch-Mos (depending on urgency).
There is very little the Allies can do to save China, Bur/Ind, and the Eastern Russian Territories in the first 3, 4 rds.  Allied ICs aren’t possible in China and aren’t safe in Ind, you just can’t get resources out there and fight them.  But what you CAN do in the first three rds is completely overwhelm Afr, and set up multiple threats to Europe, including a threat on Rome.  It’s a minor threat, but a threat nonetheless, esp if the Ita fleet fled or is next to Egy.

Just like the US never has to actually sink the Japanese fleet in a Pac Strat, the Allies never have to actually take Berlin or Rome in a KG(I)F game.  Once the Allies can stack Epl (either Russia alone or all three Allies) or deadzone it, the threat to Moscow is gone.  Germany and Italy are essentially out of the game at this point.  Now it is 3 Allies vs. Japan.  Defense is cheaper and the Allies have the IPC lead, so the they can simply string the game along until they have overwhelming odds or just keep pushing Inf stacks out.

I have to agree with DM - my personal feeling is that a naval race with Japan by just the US is futile in '41.  The reason is that they just can’t gain superiority over the Japan navy, even if they go 100% Pacific.  Let’s look at the starting setup at everything both sides has to bring to bear in the inevitable stack vs. stack showdown (after typical J1 losses).

Japan
–—
3 CV  (42)
8 FIG (80)
1 BB  (20)
1 CA  (12)

Total (154)

USA

1 CV  (14)
4 FIG (40)
1 DD  ( 8)

Total (62)

Note that I did not include the USA bombers.  This is because Japan will be the attacker, not the defender, in the final showdown, since USA is the one that’s forced to advance into the range of Japan’s navy if they want to liberate anything.

So, in order to reach parity with Japan, the US has about 100 IPC of units to build (a little less, since fighters are more efficient in defense than attack, of course).  However, the US will only have two turns to get to equality (actually less than that, since J2’s build can have 2-3 DDs in it while still taking care of other business), which is impossible.  After that, Japan should be at about 53 IPC/turn.  Even assuming Japan doesn’t grow any larger after that, and subtracting 14-16 IPC for 4 land units/turn to keep Asia together (which should be more than enough while Russia is fighting for its life), they still have about 40 IPC to spend on the naval arms race, which is almost as much as the US has to spend.  Add this to the fact that Japan can build some subs since it will get to attack, and it looks pretty bleak for the US indeed.  I think if the Allies want to try to accomplish anything at all against Japan in the Pacific, they need the UK’s help in Australia.  Even then, it’s still hard.

I don’t know DM.  Everytime I see America go full bore after Germany I see Washington DC in Japanese hands before the war is over.

Perhaps more people are not practiced in how to convert Japan from a Russian killing machine to an American killing machine?  Honestly, I am the only person I know of that literally had different strategies on how to take out America with Japan in Revised (yea, that would be MORE THAN ONE STRATEGY) that I practiced and actually got to work in Tournaments and League games.  Therefore, maybe I am more open to strategies to take out North America and able to see how some of them might work than other people do.

One thing that you must know, however, is that without attacking Japan, the allies are going to be really hard pressed to keep their income streams going.

1)  England only has the French NO it can possibly have.

2)  America only has the French NO and maybe the North American NO if they can manage to get both territories.

Otherwise, America and England are without national objective income.  That’s huge. (UK could have +15 IPC and America could have +20 IPC if America goes after Japan.)

So if you don’t go after Japan, you could be talking a -35 IPC ding to the Allied incomes.  Maybe not so bad for one round, but that’s not going to be cuddly and cute after 5 or 6 rounds!

Also, America is going to have to focus on building up troops in North America if Japan switches over.  Even if Japan does not win, that alone effectively takes America out of the game.

First, you don’t have the navy now to secure yourself from invasion.

Second, you have to build units for back home.

Third, you will lose units liberating your home

Fourth, whatever is left can go to Europe, but that’s not going to be a lot with only 38-43 IPC income!

However, if America goes hot and heavy in the Pacific, they can get +1 British NO just for Carolines if they wanted, they can liberate English islands, they can dump units from Alaska into Buryatia to heckle and liberate china, etc, etc, etc.

Remember, Japan’s a wuss when the game opens.  Yes, they start with 9 Fighters and 3 Carriers.  So what?  That gets bled off fast if Japan has to go after India AND hold off the American fleet AND take out China AND worry about rogue Russians.

I agree with Jen on this one.  Although Japan has more fleet than USA, especially after a typical J1, if all 8 of those Japanese fighters are just sitting next to Japan on carriers then they are not going to be very useful once Japan takes most of China since they won’t have the range to help out against the rest of Asia.  Plus, the USA can afford to build almost nothing but fleet the first 3 turns (except for maybe one transport and one tank to give them a total of 2 transports, 2 infantry, 1 art, and 1 tank to go island hopping).  If Japan does the same and builds nothing but fleet then they are going to run out of infantry eventually and will lose their gains in Asia.  If they build a combination of land units and fleet then the USA should gain an attack advantage over Japan around turn 3 or 4.  Plus, perhaps more importantly, Japan can’t start to consolidate their fleet until around turn 3 (and not completely until turn 4), IF they are using their fleet to take out Australia and India on J2, so there is no real way IMHO for them to stop those turn 1 USA fleet builds (along with the USA air force) to move to Solomon islands and force the Japanese fleet back from Australia or risk losing carriers.  If Japan loses its one destroyer on turn 1 AND does not build a destroyer on turn 1 to replace it, then a 6 submarine build on USA 1 and a 8 submarine build on USA 2 can be quite effective at preventing the Japanese from ever moving its fleet away from the Japanese sea zone after turn 3.

Perhaps I’m going overboard with the submarines and perhaps a combination of destroyers and carriers so those fighters can reach farther would be better, I don’t know, but I just don’t see how Japan can compete with the USA AND still send a significant amount of forces against Russia at the same time.  And while the USA is bogging down the Japanese, Russia and UK should be able to hold off Germany while UK takes back any parts of Africa that they lost (shouldn’t be much since Japan can’t send any transports there).

@mikecool70:

If Japan loses its one destroyer on turn 1 AND does not build a destroyer on turn 1 to replace it, then a 6 submarine build on USA 1 and a 8 submarine build on USA 2 can be quite effective at preventing the Japanese from ever moving its fleet away from the Japanese sea zone after turn 3.

Mass subs like that don’t really work in this game due to a simple defensive tactic.  You’re right in that they can’t stop you from getting to Solomon on US2.  Let’s say, though, on J2 I had built 3 DD and 4 land units in response to USA’s build.  Then, on J3, I build 4 DD, and I can put 1 DD outside Caroline and the rest of the fleet in the Okinawa SZ (I call this the “DD wall” tactic).  Now the sub stack is threatened by the main fleet, but can’t reach it, and they’re left with 3 bad options.  One, you could attack the lone DD with your entire sub stack, but that gets obliterated by the counterattack next turn.  Two, you could kill the 1 DD with planes or whatever and move the sub stack out of range of the rest of the IJN.  Third, you could move back out of range of everything (even that lone DD is dangerous to be near since I could send all planes with it).  The last two options are bad since you’re getting pushed back and aren’t really doing too much to slow Japan down.

Even if US wanted to do the “sub cloud” idea where you spread them out into nearby SZ, that’s fine.  Japan can just attack with DD + FIG against each individual sub, and then put the main fleet just behind the wall of “skirmisher” DDs you just made, and the new DDs built join the main fleet.  Subs as a massed unit just don’t really seem to have a way to work in this game.

I think you need to go standard fleet, personally.  I would start with a BB, a CV, and an SS if it were me.

Honestly, it is not that simple in a fleet showdown in the pacific.  The US has to decide between killing the japan fleet and being able to survive the Japan fleet’s attack.  In the first case, it is difficult, in the latter, it is actually pretty easy.  Even if we assume Japan has all 3 carriers with planes, the cruiser and the battleship in the fight, 2 loaded carriers and 5 destroyers create a 50% battle.  The crazy thing, with the starting US cash and the 2 extra fighters plus the 2 destroyers already in the pacific, that can happen at the end of US1.  And the best thing, look at the IPC difference.  Carriers are terrible on the attack, absolutely horrible, other than the 3 square range for the fighters.  Hell, cruisers are better on the attack, that’s just sad.

Also, it is true that you shouldn’t ignore Japan if you go KGF.  The best way to do this in my opinion is on turn 1 buy a bomber, do NOT send the AC/DD to the atlantic, and keep all bombers in LA.  Starting on US2 begin buying destroyers and continue buying bombers, you can send them to algeria this turn for some Italian smashing.  Why boats?  If Japan comes at you, the destroyers are great fodder and help protect LA, and pulling back the bombers forces Japan to build defensive navel units to cover an assault on the US.  Just be sure to wait no longer than US4 to start dropping major navy into the pacific.

@Cmdr:

I don’t know DM.  Everytime I see America go full bore after Germany I see Washington DC in Japanese hands before the war is over.

Perhaps more people are not practiced in how to convert Japan from a Russian killing machine to an American killing machine?  Honestly, I am the only person I know of that literally had different strategies on how to take out America with Japan in Revised (yea, that would be MORE THAN ONE STRATEGY) that I practiced and actually got to work in Tournaments and League games.  Therefore, maybe I am more open to strategies to take out North America and able to see how some of them might work than other people do.

One thing that you must know, however, is that without attacking Japan, the allies are going to be really hard pressed to keep their income streams going.

1)  England only has the French NO it can possibly have.

2)  America only has the French NO and maybe the North American NO if they can manage to get both territories.

Otherwise, America and England are without national objective income.  That’s huge. (UK could have +15 IPC and America could have +20 IPC if America goes after Japan.)

So if you don’t go after Japan, you could be talking a -35 IPC ding to the Allied incomes.  Maybe not so bad for one round, but that’s not going to be cuddly and cute after 5 or 6 rounds!

Also, America is going to have to focus on building up troops in North America if Japan switches over.  Even if Japan does not win, that alone effectively takes America out of the game.

First, you don’t have the navy now to secure yourself from invasion.

Second, you have to build units for back home.

Third, you will lose units liberating your home

Fourth, whatever is left can go to Europe, but that’s not going to be a lot with only 38-43 IPC income!

---

However, if America goes hot and heavy in the Pacific, they can get +1 British NO just for Carolines if they wanted, they can liberate English islands, they can dump units from Alaska into Buryatia to heckle and liberate china, etc, etc, etc.

Remember, Japan’s a wuss when the game opens.  Yes, they start with 9 Fighters and 3 Carriers.  So what?  That gets bled off fast if Japan has to go after India AND hold off the American fleet AND take out China AND worry about rogue Russians.

I think that Japan does so well invading mainland US when the Allies go full bore KGF less because people like you are so well versed in it’s implementation and more because it is not a typical tactic and US players have trouble accurately assessing the threat that Japan can pose and they can sometimes lose track of the Pacific side of the board when their entire focus is in the Atlantic.

At best, Japan can get 11 units(8 from Japan, 3 from Manchuria) to Alaska every turn without building a bunch of rotating transports with extra IC’s outside of sz62. But, even this requires a cost of, at minimum, $64 for 7 extra TP’s and an IC in Manchuria. It’s costly and time consuming for Japan to get going, so as long as the US player properly sets up the unit train from W US through Canada and is always prepared to repel the initial landing in Alaska, then they shouldn’t have to worry about losing the west coast.

However, if America goes hot and heavy in the Pacific, they can get +1 British NO just for Carolines if they wanted,

This is optimistic. First, because Japan goes after the US so they can recapture the Carolines before the UK can profit from the NO.

Second, because sz51 is within fleet striking distance from sz62, the US would have to be able to control sz51 and the Carolines for it to be of any worth to the UK and with the initial air and fleet imbalance strongly favoring the Japanese, I don’t see this happening very quickly.

they can liberate English islands, they can dump units from Alaska into Buryatia to heckle and liberate china, etc, etc, etc.

Both of these assume that the US has such a large fleet that they are either capable of withstanding an attack by the Japanese fleet or the Japanese fleet is already destroyed, either one of which would take a very long time to accomplish.

@Cmdr:

I don’t know DM.  Everytime I see America go full bore after Germany I see Washington DC in Japanese hands before the war is over.

Perhaps more people are not practiced in how to convert Japan from a Russian killing machine to an American killing machine?  Honestly, I am the only person I know of that literally had different strategies on how to take out America with Japan in Revised (yea, that would be MORE THAN ONE STRATEGY) that I practiced and actually got to work in Tournaments and League games.  Therefore, maybe I am more open to strategies to take out North America and able to see how some of them might work than other people do.

One thing that you must know, however, is that without attacking Japan, the allies are going to be really hard pressed to keep their income streams going.

1)  England only has the French NO it can possibly have.

2)  America only has the French NO and maybe the North American NO if they can manage to get both territories.

Otherwise, America and England are without national objective income.  That’s huge. (UK could have +15 IPC and America could have +20 IPC if America goes after Japan.)

So if you don’t go after Japan, you could be talking a -35 IPC ding to the Allied incomes.  Maybe not so bad for one round, but that’s not going to be cuddly and cute after 5 or 6 rounds!

Also, America is going to have to focus on building up troops in North America if Japan switches over.  Even if Japan does not win, that alone effectively takes America out of the game.

First, you don’t have the navy now to secure yourself from invasion.

Second, you have to build units for back home.

Third, you will lose units liberating your home

Fourth, whatever is left can go to Europe, but that’s not going to be a lot with only 38-43 IPC income!

First, I like the idea of Japan going after the US, but it is not necessarily dooms day for the US if Japan lands in Ala.

One of the keys to an American European Shuck is the fact that you know how to set it up correctly.  In this case it is no different then 2nd Edition.

Second, you ARE ATTACKING JAPAN, you just aren’t doing it via navy.

The UK likely has 5 inf, 1 rt left over after J1.  They can form a nice mini-road block in Per while you land in Alg on UK 2 and 3.  You also have 1 inf, 1 rt from Aus that can go to Sz 30 (only if safe) or sail to Afr.

Also the US has plently of air and can buy a ftr or 2 or bom on US 1 and this provides the basis for a potential NA defense against Japan.  But Japan usually has bigger fish to fry on J1 and J2, they likely will want to finish up their conquest in the SE Pac.

Again, a proper US shuck from Wus starting in rd 1 pretty much deters any J attack.  The US only needs 3 trns for the Atlantic, more are great, but not necessary.

Here’s how you set up a basic US Shuck.

Rd 1 - Spend at least 21 on inf the remaining 19 can be spent on more ground troops, 1 trn, or air, or whatever you like.
4-5 inf should be placed on Wus.

Rd 2 - Buy at least 8 inf, and spend the remaining 24 on more ground troops, 1 trn, or air, or whatever else you want.
place at least 6-8 inf in Wus, and move rd 1 buys to Wcan, etc.

Rd 3 - Buy at least 8 inf, the remaining cash is spent on whatever you want.
Is J a threat?  Buy more air or go heavy ground, heck you can even drop some subs if J has no DD.

By Rd 4 the US has 8 inf in Ecan, Wcan, and Wus and should have bombers in UK or Alg (which can attack Ala) or Ecan if Japan is making some sneaky fleet movements.  Newly bought ftrs get placed in Wus then move to Ecan (if J looks like it could be a problem) so you have a nice cycle of added air defense, mobility, and att/def for Afr/Eu/NA.

Now, if Japan is building up for a US invasion, which should be easy to see, 4 trns in Jap sz or up north and the US gets really concerned you just lay back and work in a lower shuck.  You do not have to move 8 inf to Alg every turn just b/c you have 4 trns, so if you hold back 4 inf to reinforce Wcan you can end up like this:
Ecan: 4 inf
Wcan: 16 inf
Wus: 8 inf

Now Japan’s puny landing of 8 ground units in Ala gets slaughtered by up to 16 units + air.

No Japan player in their right mind is going to move to Ala in this case unless Moscow is taking a beating from Ger and they quite honestly don’t need any help.  But I find that scenerio unlikely with good Allied play unless they got hammered with dice or something.

Afr NEVER falls to Ger/Ita/Jap.  They can claim some of Afr, but never overrun the whole continent.  The UK lands 4 units in rd 2 and 3.  US lands 4 and 6, and with the above Shuck can follow-up with 4-8 from rd 4 on (dep on J threat), while UK shifts to Sz 6.

At this point Ita/WE/Ger all must be defended at least by token forces.

@Cmdr:

Also, America is going to have to focus on building up troops in North America if Japan switches over.  Even if Japan does not win, that alone effectively takes America out of the game.

First, you don’t have the navy now to secure yourself from invasion.

Second, you have to build units for back home.

Third, you will lose units liberating your home

Fourth, whatever is left can go to Europe, but that’s not going to be a lot with only 38-43 IPC income!

No, no, no.   :-)
This is the whole key to a good American shuck.  If the US player plans for a J invasion form rd 1 on (which they should do by default).  The threat never materializes b/c US can successfully detered it.  (see shuck scenerio above).
It cost the US nothing to set a shuck from Wus (vs. Eus) on Rd 1, it just takes planning, and anyone who has played 2nd Ed should be well aware of how to shuck from Wus.

Edit:
Fixed some spelling.

@U-505:

I think that Japan does so well invading mainland US when the Allies go full bore KGF less because people like you are so well versed in it’s implementation and more because it is not a typical tactic and US players have trouble accurately assessing the threat that Japan can pose and they can sometimes lose track of the Pacific side of the board when their entire focus is in the Atlantic.

At best, Japan can get 11 units(8 from Japan, 3 from Manchuria) to Alaska every turn without building a bunch of rotating transports with extra IC’s outside of sz62. But, even this requires a cost of, at minimum, $64 for 7 extra TP’s and an IC in Manchuria. It’s costly and time consuming for Japan to get going, so as long as the US player properly sets up the unit train from W US through Canada and is always prepared to repel the initial landing in Alaska, then they shouldn’t have to worry about losing the west coast.

Yes, this.

505:

The Alaskan route to Washington is a rookie’s mistake, IMHO.  Japan is far better off trying to invade from Midway/Wake/Hawaii than up to Alaska since Alaska gives America HUGE warning bells (the islands are just Japan being annoying, Alaska is an invasion!) and rounds to prepare to liberate.

Dumping right into W. USA gives America virtually no warning and is much harder to repell.

I don’t see an American campaign in the Pacific being held back unless Japan gives up going after Russia, in which case, isn’t that what you want?  With Russia earning 30+ IPC a round, they can push back on Germany without help from America, especially if Japan’s out of the game as far as the land war in Asia is.

If Japan doesn’t go full bore after America, within two rounds, the American fleet and air force should be on par with or superior to the Japanese fleet.   After that, it’s only one or two more rounds before America’s dropping marines off all over the Pacific cutting down Japan’s income or forcing Japan to build up to counter the Americans.

Yes, it assumes that the American player knows how to put together a fleet.  But your counter argument assumes Japan knows how to put together a fleet too!

Remember, America only has to put in 62 IPC to be on par with the Japanese fleet. (I subtracted the Battleship in SZ 53, the destroyer in SZ 50 and all transports from America’s fleet total and then subtracted all Japanese ships except transports from that.  Transports are not fleet, they cannot be used as fodder, they cannot defend and they cannot attack.)

Round 1 America has 40 IPC that cuts Japan’s lead to 22 IPC over America.

Round 2 America has 48 IPC that gives America a 36 IPC advantage over Japan.

DM:

Problem is, when I see America go KGF/KIF I don’t see a proper shuck being set up.

Generally, they build everything in E. USA/SZ 10 and nothing in SZ 56/W. USA.

If they DO build up a proper shuck, then ignore America.  You’ll have a 3 round head start (1 to build in W. USA; 1 to move to W. Canada and 1 to move to E. Canada before they can be used in Euro-Africa.)  That’s enough time to take out China for most players.

Sometimes America sees the invasion coming, in which case, Japan can hit Alaska, Solomons, New Guinea, New Zealand or something else without really slowing down the Japanese attack.  In that case, it’s normally an “improper” shuck where America builds for one round in W. USA and leaves those units there and focusing on building in E. USA/SZ 10 after that.

In that case, Japan has a two round head start.  1 Round to Build in E. USA; 1 Round to move to E. Canada.  OR, America has to build twice as many transports.

But you are correct, if America invests the time and resources to setting up a proper shuck (8 units a round in W. USA moving slowely to E. Canada) then an American invasion is generally off the table.

Unfortunately for most people, they don’t do that anymore.

Larry should split Canada and USA in more territories next time. Seems that’s the only way of preventing the ignore Japan strategy that starts building the chain in WUSA

Now we have a Pacific ocean that gives much more income than ever and yet many players stick to ignore Japan …  :|

@Funcioneta:

Larry should split Canada and USA in more territories next time. Seems that’s the only way of preventing the ignore Japan strategy that starts building the chain in WUSA

This is actually a very good idea.  Make it Wcan, CCan, and Ecan.  This is one extra move and tanks from Wus cannot reach Ecan in one turn.

I also like the idea of increasing HI to 4 ipc and making Midway worth 2 ipc and maybe Alaska worth 3.  Make Cus 2 ipc and maybe make Wus 8.  Infact I’d have all islands worth at least 1 ipc.

I think this will encourage the US to do something since they can now lose 9 ipc in the Pac (HI/Mid/Ala) and a J IC on HI could even be playable.
I’d also increase the value of some of the Japanese islands (I’d give them all to Japan to start), particularly Sol and Car.  This gives the US a benefit to go after Japan since they can actually gain an IPC reward.  The problem I see currently is the only way the US can gain IPC is to take Alg or Lib or Nor or Fin.  Most of the J islands in AA50 are British and it takes a huge effert to get to Phil.  So the US throws money at Japan but can’t gain until several turns down the road whereas Japan can always gain in Asia.

You have to adjust some starting units but very doable, IMO.

Gee, I was laughed at when I suggested all islands at least be worth 1 IPC or removed from the board. :P

Seriously, if they are important enough to put on the board, then they should be worth an IPC (this goes for Gibraltar, Greenland, Iceland, etc.)

Yes yes, I know, Wake Atoll was barely a tourist retreat, let alone worth anything financially, but it was a refueling station for the US Navy and thus, it had value.  Same goes for Midway, waste of dirt, but at least you could stop and refuel.

Solomons were a HUGE battle.

Philippines should be split in two next time, North and South (perhaps just segregate Manilla?)

I wouldn’t mind seeing W. USA, E. USA, C. USA get split in twain with North and South territories (Sea Zones also split) and a Central Canada dumped on.

IC should be in South W. USA and North E. USA (Maybe another in Chicago - aka north C. USA)