Hello, I wished to examine the economic value in a J1 attack because I was curious, bored, and wanted to share. This J1 attack is assumed to hit Kwangtung, Philippines, and Celebs, along with sinking transport at pearl, UK bb/transports, and ANZAC dd/transport. To me, this seems to be the most economical J1.
By attacking J1 you give the US a 40 IPC boost, so the desire is to offset this with your gains. With the J1 attack you cost the allies in income:
US
7 (island/NO)
UK
8 (Kwang/NO)
4 (DEI landing)
ANZAC
5 (assuming UK grabs there NO with a transport on UK1)
–---------
24 IPCs
As Japan you gain 8 IPCs that not attacking J1 you would not have gotten
32 IPC swing.
Now you also manage to kill some valuable allied units that would have escaped. Now the only units that you can kill on J1 that you should not be able to get at on J2 anyway would be the US transport and US bomber/fighter at Phi, along with possibly the ANZAC destroyer/transport which you should be in range of anyway on J2 depending. So we’ll just take the US units, worth 29 IPCs.
32 + 29 = 61. So you are ahead by 21 IPC in value compared to not attacking.
Now the downside, and there is always a downside. You have terrible positioning against China at this point forcing you to build mainland factories, little to no threat against Pearl allowing the US starting fleet to get into action right away, your bombers are exposed sitting at Siam to UK airpower, and you are likely to get diced in one of your battles and loose. But I think the biggest thing is that, atleast in my opinion, the US IPCs are the most valuable for the allies. They are the only ones who can truely go toe to toe in the DEI area with Japan. Even if UK gets 29 IPCs on turn 1 it is an annoyance, but they cannot truly compete with Japan. By waiting a turn or two to strike with Japan, you buy yourself a turn or two before the US can do anything substantial.
Any thoughts?