NPB: 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.
DM: This is wrong.
You can go to Sol as early as rd 3 (pending J moves), but more likely rd 4.
You don't need LRA.
Ftrs on AC's in the Wus sz can reach sz 60 and land quite easily. Sol is only 2 moves from sz 60.
You are not vulnerable to a suicide attack. It is waaaaaay too costly for Japan.
US starts with a BB. trn, dd in the Pac (minus Pearl). Buy 2 AC's 1 ftr on US 1 and you have:
1 BB, 1 DD, 2 AC, 4 ftrs, 1 trn in Wus Sz.
US 2 looks like this:
1 BB, 1 DD, 3 AC, 6 ftrs, 1 trn
1 BB, 1 DD, 4 AC, 8 ftrs, 1 trn
Now you move to Sol on US 4 and Japan is going to suicide with what?
Well, when you said you were going to pop onto the Solomons, I assumed you were going early fighter heavy, planning to rush Japan ("That is, yes, you can run inland, but without supporting carriers"). But given the above information, it looks like you're going mass carriers. Which is probably pretty solid in general, but slow. Which changes my whole bloody reply, because I assumed you were trying for some sorta "turbo KJF".
DM: Mass air, you better be buying more ftrs/boms cause 6 ftrs, 1 bom will get slaughter. And if you are buying air that means less ground units for Asia and you still have to deal with the unified UK1 fleet floating around the Indain ocean which consists of 1 AC, 1 ftr, 1 DD, 2 trns, 1 sub. By UK 3 you can have a second ftr on the AC.
Or did you take that out on J1?
That carries its own downside for Japan.
Right, I do advocate buying Japanese fighters against KJF. But although the ground war in Asia suffers, it is actually not that terrible, because Japan has a hard time running troops in on J1 and J2 anyways (not enough transports). If you just build infantry and support the attack with fighters, you can keep the fighters close to the Asian coast, and still do all kinds of fun stuff. Not as fun as massed tanks, not nearly as much, really. But still fun.
Yeah, killing the UK AC is a real b**** for Japan on J1, because it has to allocate fighters all over the bloody place. I think I mentioned this in another thread somewhere, so you know it's not like I'm just thinking of this now . . . or maybe I am? bwahhaha, no not rly.
Typically, my response to the UK AC depends on what UK did. Germany should have killed everything in Anglo-Egypt, so I don't have to worry about a second UK fighter on that Indian carrier on UK1, which is potentially horrible for Japan. This should leave me with Pearl and Asia for my fighter targets. I can usually ignore the UK fleet depending on its positioning, and perhaps kill it on J2. Although that isn't possible if UK consolidates southwest of Australia, UK consolidation carries its own set of drawbacks that I am sure you will be familiar with.
Short version: Usually I kill the UK AC on J2, not J1, because I just can't spare the fighters on J1. But sometimes I leave Pearl alone and kill the entire Indian/Pacific UK fleet instead. Which carries its own drawbacks for Japan, which I am sure you will be familiar with as well.
DM: Japan is quickly forced by to sz 60 (or more likely 61) conceding the South Pacific to the US and UK fleets.
My point is that it's quick *once it starts happening*, and very difficult, if not impossible for Japan to stop. But US4 to Solomons is not what I consider "quick" overall. Quick once it starts happening, yes, but quick overall, no. Quick for me is US1 in Algeria, US2 in Libya or Norway, then steady progression. US4 without any territory gains is what I call slow. Of course, once you grab Solomons, you start decisively holding 3 and 4 IPC islands, whereas in Europe, it's hard to hold anything against a German counterattack. So basically I play a quick ramp up against Germany to bleed off its strength, then I gradually squish it to death. As opposed to a gradual buildup against Japan, followed by a quick offensive. And why do I prefer that? Because I find that if you go slow against Japan, you give the Allies time to crack Moscow.
The US bleeds Japan's strength off if Japan tries to recapture the islands (and if Japan doesn't, US can build factories that pump out 4 units per turn each). But it's still US 6-7th turn to support Moscow, at least. And if you fly US fighters to Moscow to assist, the US Pacific must retreat because of the loss of fighter cover, unless you have long range aircraft.
DM: The logical course at that point is for Japan to concede the South Pacific and the 12+ IPC over the next turn or two, in order to save the Imperial Navy.
DM: (in response to a comment about Japan leaving infatnry/fighters in Japan) Yes!!! This is precisely the point. If Japan is leaving 2 inf and ftrs behind that is less units to Asia. It becomes dead weight and very frustrating. If Japan is leaving anything
behind they are not maximizing their purchases or their moves. This is bad and to be exploited by the US and UK (if they still have their fleet around).
No. Not rly. Because Japan can afford to cycle fighters that land in Japan and still assist in Asia. And because the U.S. must outspend Japan to threaten Tokyo. The US must spend something on the order of 16 IPC to outweigh Japan's 6. That is - US spends 8 IPC on a transport, 5 IPC on a tank, and 3 IPC on an infantry, while Japan spends 6 IPC on infantry. Even then, the U.S. only has the advantage of skew. (Not inconsiderable, but not quite what you want). If the US does NOT spend that much on transports, Japan does not need to spend that much on defensive infantry.
Really, the above paragraph does not entirely reflect the situation, because keeping Japanese fighters at Tokyo reduces their effectiveness on the Asian front (unless you have an aggro Russian player that is trying to make gains in Asia, in which case the Japanese fighters function quite well). And the US fighters have multiple possible targets, including the Japanese navy, and can concentrate their forces while Japan must divide theirs. BUT, even with those compensating factors, it is no joke to try to take Tokyo by sheer force. It is far easier to try to grab Asia and the Pacific Islands and reduce Japan's IPCs, then attack the weakened Japan into oblivion. But that is very time-consuming.
And, by the way, the UK and the US should not BOTH have their fleets. If they both do, the Japanese player probably sucks. Because the UK can consolidate off Australia, but then there is no particular reason why Japan shouldn't do Pearl. But if the UK decides to go aggro in the Pacific, Japan can choose to kill UK or US navies. Either way, if Japan doesn't kill EITHER navy, well, I just don't know what the heck Japan is thinking.
DM: Btw, I didn't mean 2 IC on rd 1 or anything.
As a personal note, I go no J IC until at least rd 2, possibly rd 3.
I also find the Man/Sin IC connection quite deadly. Man IC say rd 2, Sin IC around round 4 or 5.
In a KGF game, I produce gigantic loads of tanks, and switch them between India, China, and Yakut as needed. I shuttle infantry from Tokyo to French Indochina to support the attack on India, and into Burytia or the Asian coast as needed.
I find that I do not use mass ICs, because I just have so many transports running around, I can just barely squeak out one - and even that one, I'm thinking twice about these days. BUT if it works, why not try it, I say. Maybe I'll try to pop a Ssinkiang IC out one of these days.
DM: I am by no means suggesting the US can just go full force Pac strat in all games. There are certain things to look for as a Allied player. Air and trns can be one way, but there are still holes in that. Big holes.
You're offensive punch is limited when trying to hit the US/UK fleets.
And you can't prevent the US move to the Sol, which is problematic.
Ah. OK then.
Read the rest. No real additional comments. Pretty much agree, yes, yes.