Japan is m fav country to play and like many other players I try not to get into static purchaces,  as its easy to counter.  I employ this strat to quickly balance the navy between the US and Japan, forcing US to build more on the pacific side.  Generally the first 2 or 3 turns i play with japan I purchace transports and ground units, I try to get as many troops to the main land so by turn 3  you have so many troops you can afford to slowly filter planes off the mainland to newly bought carriers.  I also load the land up because I find when I go to take the DEI this usually weakens my mainland leaving openings for China an UK.

And this is why I play alpha rules,  if usa gets a major anywhere off north America it’s game over.  Another good one is to take the American transport in the phillipenes and run it to Persia to build an ic.  Alpha rules remove the gamebreakers.

It’s all about delaying A US attack for one turn, then one more turn, and another.  Every turn you hold onto the dei is another carrier payed for.

Economy is always an axis first priority.  Japans main problem is not gaining economic steam,  but keeping it in later turns,  and by building carriers you can keep up with the US navy on the cheap and send a smaller navy down to the DEI to keep your economy intact.

I tried this in a recient game and it worked pretty good for japan.  All I did was try to buy one or two ACs a turn after turn one,  and fill them with the planes off the land,  and slowly filter the planes as the enemy land troops diminished.  If a medium to strong force is kept in the carolines and new builds in sz6 you have a strong attack force against Hawaii if he decides to move out.

Japan (at the start) Can keep the US navy at bay for half the cost US spends.  Japan can build 2 ACs and fly 4 planes to fill them.  Japan $32 , USA $72 to match

For USA to sustain a bomber campaign they will need to purchase consistent replacements.  This would drain their economy to the point of only being able to fight on one side of the board.  The bombers also need a place to land and it’s hard to take territory without land units.  If I were axis and saw USA doing this I would have a heyday.

@Gargantua:

Made the thread should be retitled.

Light British committment to the Middle East, breaks the game and buffs Italy out.

I’m still supporting a UK1 minor IC buy.

Just stating the fact that it probally wont break the game.

@Clyde85:

I’ve been thinking about it and I think that since a minor IC is only 12IPCs it might be better to place it on UK1. Britian has a bit more flexability with its starting economy, so it could probably afford to spend the 12 IPC on the IC in Egypt, if it spends the rest of its economy on defense in London

By not using the extra aa units in uk to prepare your defences, you actually are reverting back to alpha 2 defences for sealion.  Actually they are worse because the aa guns don’t get a roll on defence.
4 less infantry =1 ic.  Wich means 4 less 2 s on defence

IMO I think a UK1 Egypt factory is too risky.  If Germany is on the ball London will fall G3,  and that means you only get one build out of Egypt.  You might get liberated in a couple of turns but by that time you have probally built Italy a factory in egypt.

I like the dynamics of this new rule.  It causes japan to think twice before attacking Russia, and it make Russia not want to stock Amur with all 18 infantry early In the game as japan can get lots there early on.  However Russia cannot leave it empty fearing an amphibious assault.  So a reasonable agreement would be…. I as japan wont attack Russia if there is 6units in Amur (no more no less).  This allows japan to leave a skeleton defense, leaving more units for china, Calcutta, or DEI and a turn to prep defences if they break the treaty.  Russias benefit is they get to keep their economy intact.  You might want to add a turn restriction to this tho.