Where in Asia do you propose they land?
Caucasus? Turkey? Syria?
None of these places have the advantages of landing troops directly into to Africa, or marching them east from Europe. There may be an occasional chance to drop a single inf off in Caucasus if the Ukraine falls, but in my experience, it hardly justifies a transport.
Any other landing zones along the coast of asia should be the responsibility to an underchallenged Japan.
Keeping the pipeline open to Africa is certainly worth the occasional transport.
as the rounds move on you need to buy some air craft. fighters cause they are cheap and have a good defeanse.
Cheap? As cheap as 4 inf in fact. 4 inf that can attack better, defend twice as well, and provide a crucial meat shield for tanks. Tanks?!? What another better idea than buying fighters for offense. You get all the mobility needed for a land war, twice the offense and the same defense.
Fighters can hit a navy, but a reasonably played UK and US will at best trade you an 8 IPC transport for your fighter.
you will have some replacements. every turn after turn 2 you need to buy atleast one fighter. in my opinion you will need to up it to two per turn if and when you conquer moscow.
You will have some replacement? Not if you're spending 12-24 IPC on fighters. That's 4-8 less cannon fodder, with a higher relative attack value, PER TURN
. With this kind of spending strategy, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Russians either knocking on the door to Berlin, or easily stalemating Karelia while sending troops East to fight the Japs.
Needless to say, with this strategy, you certainly are going to need help from Japan to get much of anything accomplished, unless you could conquering turkey by naval invasion as a key to victory. As much as I disagree with you strategies, I appreciate seeing a new perspective, keep 'em coming.