Is There a KJF Strategy in AA41?

[souL]

Sorry, thought you were someone else for a second there… disregard me being angry, sir!  I understand.

Anyhow, it does not take a ton of Rus resources to bolster ind, and hopefully GB can reciprocate once they’ve stabilized India.  Also, India is only 2 spaces away from China.  It might be turn 3 or 4 before you’ve realistically got a shot to get to China, but you’d be surprised how little something like Burma means to the Japanese if they need to deal with 7 inf in man on J2, a large American navy build from US1 moving into sz 51/car on J3, and so on.  Also, armor can cut across from per through kaz and into chi without affecting the Soviet bonus.  Remember that if your tank survived from egy :).

No strategy is perfect and there are ways to protect Cau, but I can’t answer them all for you.  Often you have to wait to see how a game is playing out before you make up your mind on how to answer a strat one way or the other.

[dondoolee]

@souL:

Sorry, thought you were someone else for a second there… disregard me being angry, sir!  I understand.

Anyhow, it does not take a ton of Rus resources to bolster ind, and hopefully GB can reciprocate once they’ve stabilized India.  Also, India is only 2 spaces away from China.  It might be turn 3 or 4 before you’ve realistically got a shot to get to China, but you’d be surprised how little something like Burma means to the Japanese if they need to deal with 7 inf in man on J2, a large American navy build from US1 moving into sz 51/car on J3, and so on.  Also, armor can cut across from per through kaz and into chi without affecting the Soviet bonus.  Remember that if your tank survived from egy :).

No strategy is perfect and there are ways to protect Cau, but I can’t answer them all for you.  Often you have to wait to see how a game is playing out before you make up your mind on how to answer a strat one way or the other.

No problem, completley disregarded.

What I wonder is, if Japan ignores the Phil J1 (A move which I consider a usually better move) is an Indian IC viable?

[allies_fly]

@dondoolee:

What I wonder is, if Japan ignores the Phil J1 (A move which I consider a usually better move) is an Indian IC viable?

Not unless Russia commits a lot of units to persia/caucasus tanks on R1.

[souL]

Well if they ignore Phi on J1 and you’ve built a Russian bmb on R1 then we know a few things:

1.  2 jpn trn are in sz 37.  The only units they can transport to Phi are either in Bur or in FIC for some reason.  Any unit coming from Bur didn’t go to Ind.

2.  Your Russian bmb took out a trn in sz 38.  Nothing is moving from Sum this turn.  That leaves only a brn trn heading for Ind.

The big question remains:  did the Axis player leave the trn starting in 62 vulnerable to the US bmb?  If he did, it’s likely that either Phi or Ind will fall, but not both.

So, build your factory in relative peace.  If youv’e committed 3 inf and 1 arm from Russia, that allows for 8 ground forces, an AA gun, and what amounts to essentially an extra bullet shield in the bmb.  If the Egy ftr survived G1, and you know if it did before you do anything at all, you’re in even better shape.  J2’s essentially the only turn that concerns an Indian IC at all.  Find a way to get clear of it, and I promise you that 95/100 times, played right, that factory’s got game balance in its hands.

If he’s chosen to leave the US with 55+ for two turns in a row, they BETTER be doing something to work against the Japanese.  It’s still salvageable in the Pacific becuase, well, 110 IPCs into the ocean in 2 turns is tough to deal with for any faction, but you better be able to do meaningful damage immediately, because you gave a free factory up in India.

Only build a factory in India on UK1 if you’re SURE it will hold to UK2.  If you’re not, there’s nothing wrong with putting up a good fight for a territory worth 8 IPCs to the Japanese.  Keep everything on it, pile the Russians into it, and prepare to reinforce it with US planes and Russian inf next turn if it’s there.  The longer it takes Japan to settle into there, the better Russia is for it.

[axis_roll]

@souL:

Well if they ignore Phi on J1 and you’ve built a Russian bmb on R1 then we know a few things:

1.  2 jpn trn are in sz 37.  The only units they can transport to Phi are either in Bur or in FIC for some reason.  Any unit coming from Bur didn’t go to Ind.

2.  Your Russian bmb took out a trn in sz 38.  Nothing is moving from Sum this turn.  That leaves only a brn trn heading for Ind.

What about the transport that takes borneo on J1?
The way I look at it, Japan can basically attack India J2 with:

• 2 inf (sum)  Even if Russia takes out Sum tran

• 3 ftrs from FIC that attacked china (yun, elsewhere)

• 2? ftrs on carrier on sz37 after taking out UK dd, tpt in sz35

• whatever remains from burma battle of 3 inf, art on inf

{assuming no Philipine attack}

…so Japan can likely have 4 inf, art, 4-5 ftrs to attack India J2

The only way India is possible is if Egypt ftr survives, Russia has pushed 2+ inf into Persia R1  or buys some tanks to move there on R2… but  can Russia afford tanks if a bomber is bought?

and IF the Allies do all that… Japan doesn’t even HAVE to attack it on J2.  They can focus on China or elsewhere J2, take a couple of rounds and bring a superior force on J4, for example.

Seems to me this Allied option is only really available of Germany buy a navy or all inf.  If they buy 4+ tanks, Russia will need units in Eastern Europe / Caucasus/ Moscow and UK can’t afford not to get an Atlantic navy floating to force a second front.

[Twigley]

Am I the only one who reckons that the Japanese player can afford to virtually ignore the US Pacific fleet in Rounds 1 and 2? They pose no invasion threat whatsoever - and building in the Pacific delays American input in the Atlantic.

I’m not arguing that the yanks shouldn’t try to get at the Japs. But I think it is best done via a north African convoy system - keeping Italy in her place while simultaneously forcing the Japanese into a war of attrition in India/Persia/North Africa - which as the advantage (unlike the south Pacific islands) of not being right on her doorstep.

Think of it like the Solomon Islands campaign - get the Japanese to invest in protecting and invading territory which is beyond the range of any of their meaningful production. Make Godzilla Japan waste IPCs simply projecting her forces.

A US Pacific buy I think is best on Round 3 maybe - when you have goaded the Japanese navy out of the Pacific entirely, then a sudden American upshot really throws a spanner in the works! At the same time - you have got a UK/US navy getting units into Africa, neutering Italy and providing an every growing threat (throught additional transports and land units from the UK) to France.

Russia should be fighting for her life in the east - she’ll need plenty of artillery to deadzone her territories and plenty of fighting men to back them up. I honestly believe that a key to a sustainable Russia is to KILL the italian navy. As long as the Russian player cannot leave Caucasus lightly protected for fear of an amphibious assault, Russia will never be free to play the fluid deadzoning defence that she needs to.

But that is getting off the KJF. In fact - I think in this game the KJF/KGF debate is over. You can’t focus on either because neither dies quickly enough to save the Russians from the other. KILL ITALY.

[Zhukov44]

I don’t understand the rush to capture India (ie landing en masse in Burma J1).  Why is that worth skipping the Philippines and granting the USA an NO?

That a Russian bomber can hit the East Indies tranny is pretty cool…still as Japan I might go ahead and sacrifice the transport to take it J1 anyway because I want to get that factory up immediately (though perhaps not in a full scale KJF).

The logic for aiming for a J3 attack on India is that holding down India will cost the United Kingdom and Russia on other fronts…it seems like Japan can afford to build up in that region until the potential exchange is entirely in Japan’s favor…and then eventually claim the free factory.  Meanwhile, Japan can expand at will, securing China and denying the Allies Pacific NOs.  If the Allies put up determined resistance at India, why not wall them off at Burma and wait until the Jap advantage is overwhelming?

[axis_roll]

@Zhukov44:

I don’t understand the rush to capture India (ie landing en masse in Burma J1).  Why is that worth skipping the Philippines and granting the USA an NO?

It is not for the pressure alone on India J2 that I prefer Burma.
It’s for the ability to attack a UK army that is withdrawing (sz34… hello!)
It’s for the ability to take Australia with 3 transports and a loaded carrier if I want on J2.

I forgo the $14 swing for positioning.  I figure the territory in the very middle of my empire can be swallowed up easily next round without  problems.  Japan 1 I want to expand my influence as wide as possible because there is no units to opposed that expansion, and if there is, that is a huge effort on the allies part to hold that area.  THEN I can do as you suggest:

why not wall them off at Burma and wait until the Jap advantage is overwhelming?

that MAKES the allied commit allot or… w/d.  And to me, that is something the allies CAN NOT afford to do.

[dondoolee]

@Zhukov44:

I don’t understand the rush to capture India (ie landing en masse in Burma J1).  Why is that worth skipping the Philippines and granting the USA an NO?

That a Russian bomber can hit the East Indies tranny is pretty cool…still as Japan I might go ahead and sacrifice the transport to take it J1 anyway because I want to get that factory up immediately (though perhaps not in a full scale KJF).

The logic for aiming for a J3 attack on India is that holding down India will cost the United Kingdom and Russia on other fronts…it seems like Japan can afford to build up in that region until the potential exchange is entirely in Japan’s favor…and then eventually claim the free factory.  Meanwhile, Japan can expand at will, securing China and denying the Allies Pacific NOs.  If the Allies put up determined resistance at India, why not wall them off at Burma and wait until the Jap advantage is overwhelming?

The NO is not worth the positioning nor the immediate effects in most cases.  Establishing as stong of backbone as possible on the mainland for Japan ought to be objective #1, paticularly in the early phases.

Plus, if you can guarantee the UK wasting it’s t1 puchas on an IC by making it uselss fo awhile, why not?

Add that along to everything axis_roll said

[souL]

The American fleet can build trn bb ca, move the dd cv -> sz 56 and sail out to capture 51 on J2.  Ignore that fleet if you want, but it’s going to mess up your islands.  And there’s another fleet is right behind it, ready to kill whatever has survived in SZ 51.

In fact, if I’m going all-out on Japan, I’m either going to sz 51, sz 59, or sz 46 by US1, no matter what.  It might be sz 46 if he’s sent his bb to sz 62 to support man on J2 (my 7 inf have likely moved into it).

Now that I’ve made Japan answer threats on J2 and J3, hopefully India’s solidified.  I’ve been mulling around the idea of just building a factory in India anyhow when Japan moves into Bur.  Takes a few extra Russian soldiers and a surviving ftr in India, but it can be held.  If not, whatever takes it SHOULD be sparse, and with how Japan starts even if it falls on J2, there’s likely to be no one to re-take it on J3.

[dondoolee]

@souL:

Well if they ignore Phi on J1 and you’ve built a Russian bmb on R1 then we know a few things:

1.  2 jpn trn are in sz 37.  The only units they can transport to Phi are either in Bur or in FIC for some reason.  Any unit coming from Bur didn’t go to Ind.

2.  Your Russian bmb took out a trn in sz 38.  Nothing is moving from Sum this turn.  That leaves only a brn trn heading for Ind.

The big question remains:  did the Axis player leave the trn starting in 62 vulnerable to the US bmb?  If he did, it’s likely that either Phi or Ind will fall, but not both.

So, build your factory in relative peace.  If youv’e committed 3 inf and 1 arm from Russia, that allows for 8 ground forces, an AA gun, and what amounts to essentially an extra bullet shield in the bmb.  If the Egy ftr survived G1, and you know if it did before you do anything at all, you’re in even better shape.  J2’s essentially the only turn that concerns an Indian IC at all.  Find a way to get clear of it, and I promise you that 95/100 times, played right, that factory’s got game balance in its hands.

If he’s chosen to leave the US with 55+ for two turns in a row, they BETTER be doing something to work against the Japanese.   It’s still salvageable in the Pacific becuase, well, 110 IPCs into the ocean in 2 turns is tough to deal with for any faction, but you better be able to do meaningful damage immediately, because you gave a free factory up in India.

Only build a factory in India on UK1 if you’re SURE it will hold to UK2.  If you’re not, there’s nothing wrong with putting up a good fight for a territory worth 8 IPCs to the Japanese.  Keep everything on it, pile the Russians into it, and prepare to reinforce it with US planes and Russian inf next turn if it’s there.  The longer it takes Japan to settle into there, the better Russia is for it.

1. that is simply countered by putting 1 jap car in Jap territory.
2. If I thought the Indian IC was remotly viable it may be a habit to even skip yunnan T1 leaving the very plausible fact that India can be hit with 8 inf, 1 art, 4 Fig, and up to two bombads by Japan by J2.  It is impossible to underestimate how much Japan does not want a viable UK Indian IC, how much Japan wants to obliterate the UK Asian/Pacific troops, and how valuable South Asia is to Japan.  If you wish to have to commit THAT many russians, I would welcome that, and expect Gemany to be in moscow faily quickly

You can build up a navy in the US, but it won’t be effective to relieve what UK foces remain in India.  It can keep Austalia, NZ, and Hawaii alive a few extra turns but, that is a sacrifice I would make any day of the week .Any trannies that can be built or put in play by Japan can all be protected without much consequence on J1; meaning that you can fool Japan once or twice when employing an unfamiliar bomber strat, but that is it.

If you wish to have a Japanese heavy strat, I think it is much easier, safer, flexible, cost effective, and stronger to withdraw to Persia  (Where Japan has to worry about russia without russia even having to commit units)and take UK built troops and pump them though N. Africa with a united Allied fleet as their protection; a move that strongly effects Germany, Italy, and Japan all at the same time.  Besides that, you would have 6-8 (half of which is probably armor) units heading to Asia instead of 3 with the Indian IC.

[Twigley]

A turn 1 US pacific buy simply keeps the Japanese Navy in the Pacific. A good Japanese attack round 1 is one that will leave all units out of range of immediate counter attack. Then J2 consolidate the Japanese navy - and you’ll have enough cash to pop some stuff in that factory you bought round 1.

I’m happy to take the Phillipines round 1. If I want to do that and take India later then I probably will. The UK can put units in India (at least they’re not in europe), and the US can put boats in the Pacific and the Japanese can keep pace with both. You definitely won’t invade Japan before Germany has beaten Russia, and who exactly is going to save Africa from the Italians?

I believe that you need to have decisive force as early as possible. Building up the US till it has decisive force against multiple Japanese carriers, a battleship, cruiser, and any other cheap cannon fodder units the Japanese add to their navy will take far too long. (round 2 you have maybe 45 IPCs = land units for rnd 1 factory, extra factory and a couple of naval units, rnd 3 50 IPCs maybe = land units for 2 factories and whatever navy to keep US at bay).

Either way. This can continue until the US realises that without its help - Europe has been lost - and the Japanese are (maybe) worried about their navy - but with Russia gone - not really.

[bongaroo]

With US going all out for the Pacific, how should Germany and Italy respond?  I think that even with the US spending all out for boats and planes that Japan can gather up a large amount of IPCs quickly enough to stay ahead in the boat race and pressure Russia through China fairly effectively.

I’m thinking a strong offensive that keeps Russian forces from responding to the Japanese in the backyard the best route for the Axis.

Any other thoughts?  Work Africa aggressively to Gain the UK IPCs?  Focus on Russia?

[Zhukov44]

@bongaroo:

Any other thoughts?  Work Africa aggressively to Gain the UK IPCs?  Focus on Russia?

Both of those would work well I think.  It also depends whether Russia is diverting troops to Asia to try to stifle Japan’s economic growth–in that case maybe a tank rush is in order.

[johnmk]

My impression is that Kill Japan First is not efficient compared to Kill Germany First. A strong Japan, in the medium-term, is simply the cost of doing business when it comes to defeating the Axis in the long-term. It’s an atypical situation that would pragmatically call for Kill Japan First.

Part of the reason is the unit setup at the start of the game. America can more cheaply and more quickly start pumping units into Europe and Africa than it can into Asia, since in the Atlantic, she’s unlikely to find significant opposition beyond the first turn or two. The extra turns and cost involved in building up a force that can take on the Japanese navy and air force (with some prospect of coming out on top) is a cost not required to take on the Germans and Italians, who have the further handicap of split navies instead of the united Imperial Japanese Navy. Japan might end up with Asia, while you hope to end up with Germany and Italy. Another factor here is the distance involved. America traveling to Asia takes twice as long as traveling to Africa and Europe.

It’s unfortunate that a more balanced approach isn’t practical. It sure would be fun to see significant U.S./Japanese interaction all throughout the game.

[axis_roll]

Well said John

+1 karma to you.

---

building off your post, one might consider a strong mid-game USA pacific fleet.

This helps to keep Japan honest and prevents ALL of her income from going after russia or helping Germany/Italy by flying her ftrs to Europe.

However, that is {obviously} not a KJF strategy.

[Funcioneta]

The problem with ignore Japan strat in this game is that Japan will eat all Asia by round 3-4 as much and start sending troops to Africa round 4-5, stopping the traditional North African dominance strat, and Germany and Italy are stronger than Germany was in Revised so they can hold much more. Not defending Pacific Ocean has also a risk of losing WUSA in 41 scenario (5 starting trannies, probably 2 more built round 1, why do Polar Express when you can catch California instead?). The problem with japs attack on WUSA is that you need one round of preparation to defend from it or Japan will catch you too late to defend, but if you note the menace, Japan will simply shift to Asia without losing none in the process

Anyway, in case of a traditional JTDM approach, lets compare numbers:

1. Revised

USSR 25-30
UK 25-30
USA 37-40

Allies 90-100

Germany 30-35
Japan 45-50

Axis 75-85

And still, with a small bid, axis had a 50% chances of win

2. Anniversary, 1941 scenario

USSR 20-25 (Arkangel NO lost because of KGF dinamics)
UK 25-30 (if buy SAF IC, if not it will be 20-25)
USA 42-44
China 0 (last chinamen popped China 1)

Allies 90-100

Germany 35-40
Italy 9
Japan 65-70

Axis 110-120

See the pattern? Axis has the economic advantage in this game mid game, not the allies. I really cannot see how allies can win with a ignore Japan strat. If you think Japan is slow now, you are wrong: they have income to purchase tanks and bombers from the rear and fodder from India and Burma or East Indies, and also start with a crazy amount of trannies (arrive to Africa sooner). USA is also slower now because trannies built don’t defend so you must buy more defending boats and italian navy is harder to kill now anyway

A balanced approach will not save your rear normally but at least you have a slim chance because economic gap will be lesser (more NOs to allies; Australia, N.Zealand and Hawaii saved, no trades of Alaska, soviet NO conserved, etc.)

[a44bigdog]

I have had success with a balanced approach, and due to what happens with an ignored Japan I think it is the best way for the Allies to proceed. I know for me it is. Some of this is counter intuitive but as with anything I post it is founded on experience not theory.

Russia. Stacking Bury is fine but I only send 1 infantry into an open Manchuria instead of the whole bunch. It is too easy for Japan to eliminate this stack leaving the entire Northern approach vacant. While I do this I pull back all but 1 infantry from Buryatia to Stanovoj. This forces Japan to commit a few forces to retake Manchuria if taken and to take Bury. If I think I can delay the Japanese for a turn or two, I will attack their forces in Bury with the Stanovoj stack. This entire front is fought as a delaying action. That means I will attack, withdraw or hold as the situation appears to warrant. I attack Finland with an eye at taking Norway on round 2 and Deadzone Karelia. I find that Russia can generally not hold Karelia but it can deadzone and set it up for trades. As long as Germany is not producing anything in Karelia, other than the NO and 2 IPCs for the territory they have not gained anything that will immediately harm Russia. At a minimum the Novosibirsk Infantry are going to China and if at all possible the Kazakh duo as well. The longer Russia can hold up Japan in China the more free infantry China can produce, the Japanese income expands more slowly, and Russia has some less concerns with defense. I try to keep a steady stream of 2 or so infantry headed this way backed up by a an armor or air power if such looks favorable.

UK
Normally the UK Atlantic fleet is reduced to practically nothing so I will spend round 1 and 2 building this up. I will also buy up to 4 transports for this new fleet. This is what goes against the normal thinking, but the Pacific Transport should load 1 infantry and 1 Artillery from Australia and sail west. On turn 3 it and the new Atalantic fleet can dump up to 10 units in Algeria. The 4 Atlantic transports can send in 8 units on round 4, while this transport can bring over the Canadians for a second dump of up to 10 units. Depending on what had to be purchased for the Navy there may even be additional units in the UK for it to ferry over on subsequent turns. More than likely though it will be of better use sailing south and liberating sub-Saharan Africa. By doing this a steady stream of 8 units can be landed from the UK in Africa every turn. If this transport is used in the Pacific it will most likely only be of an actual benefit for one turn. The UK proceeds in force across North Africa to fight Japan in Persia and India. While it will take some time to get there, I have found that when it starts to encounter Japanese forces it will have numerical superiority.

USOther than the initial Eastern US troops going to Africa to reinforce the British and the starting bombers being used for SBRs it is 100% against Japan in the Pacific. With the US actively fighting in the Pacific it should maintain its second NO and make 48 IPCs per turn. This works out very nicely to 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 transport, 2 fighters, and 1 carrier EVERY turn. Naturally there will be turns where other ships or perhaps additional bombers are called for but this is THE primary purchase. While it will go against all traditional Axis and Allies thinking to be purchasing a transport every turn I have found that this is vital in the Pacific. The chances of setting up any transport chain are almost nil and many times an entire fleet may have to be sacrificed. Many times the transports themselves WILL be sent to take islands where they will be destroyed by air power, while fleet strength itself is preserved. Any island Japan has to retake is troops not headed to Russia, or Africa, or anywhere else of great concern for the Allies. If Japan engages in a naval race with the US that is fine as well as it reduces the amount of troops available in Asia. Also there are many islands Japan would LIKE to cover but most likely can not. While you may find yourself in a position where both neither Navy can eliminate the other by sending out a steady stream of transports it overloads Japan.

[Panzer Leader]

@Zhukov44:

I don’t understand the rush to capture India (ie landing en masse in Burma J1).  Why is that worth skipping the Philippines and granting the USA an NO?

That a Russian bomber can hit the East Indies tranny is pretty cool…still as Japan I might go ahead and sacrifice the transport to take it J1 anyway because I want to get that factory up immediately (though perhaps not in a full scale KJF).

The logic for aiming for a J3 attack on India is that holding down India will cost the United Kingdom and Russia on other fronts…it seems like Japan can afford to build up in that region until the potential exchange is entirely in Japan’s favor…and then eventually claim the free factory.  Meanwhile, Japan can expand at will, securing China and denying the Allies Pacific NOs.  If the Allies put up determined resistance at India, why not wall them off at Burma and wait until the Jap advantage is overwhelming?

Last time I played as Japan I actually did go after India right away and did leave Phillipines alone on the first turn but went after them on the second. I actually forgot about the US NO and was striclty looking at strategies. Once I realized what I had done (on US turn) I thought I screwed up big time, but as it turned out it did work better in the long run as Japan was able to eliminate the US fleet and hold India with turn 2 factory that I built there. So I do not know if taking out the Phillipines first is better or if taking out India right away is better, but it did work. Just some food for thought. 8-)

[bugoo]

@Funcioneta:

The problem with ignore Japan strat in this game is that Japan will eat all Asia by round 3-4 as much and start sending troops to Africa round 4-5, stopping the traditional North African dominance strat, and Germany and Italy are stronger than Germany was in Revised so they can hold much more. Not defending Pacific Ocean has also a risk of losing WUSA in 41 scenario (5 starting trannies, probably 2 more built round 1, why do Polar Express when you can catch California instead?). The problem with japs attack on WUSA is that you need one round of preparation to defend from it or Japan will catch you too late to defend, but if you note the menace, Japan will simply shift to Asia without losing none in the process

Anyway, in case of a traditional JTDM approach, lets compare numbers:

1. Revised

USSR 25-30
UK 25-30
USA 37-40

Allies 90-100

Germany 30-35
Japan 45-50

Axis 75-85

And still, with a small bid, axis had a 50% chances of win

2. Anniversary, 1941 scenario

USSR 20-25 (Arkangel NO lost because of KGF dinamics)
UK 25-30 (if buy SAF IC, if not it will be 20-25)
USA 42-44
China 0 (last chinamen popped China 1)

Allies 90-100

Germany 35-40
Italy 9
Japan 65-70

Axis 110-120

See the pattern? Axis has the economic advantage in this game mid game, not the allies. I really cannot see how allies can win with a ignore Japan strat. If you think Japan is slow now, you are wrong: they have income to purchase tanks and bombers from the rear and fodder from India and Burma or East Indies, and also start with a crazy amount of trannies (arrive to Africa sooner). USA is also slower now because trannies built don’t defend so you must buy more defending boats and italian navy is harder to kill now anyway

A balanced approach will not save your rear normally but at least you have a slim chance because economic gap will be lesser (more NOs to allies; Australia, N.Zealand and Hawaii saved, no trades of Alaska, soviet NO conserved, etc.)

I find an error with your allied income assuming a KGF strat.  One major goal within turns 3-5 is to gain Russia her $10 NO which is not extremely difficult and puts Russia in the 30-40 bracket.  The other goal is to establish a trading of france, which may or may not be possible that early depending on the situation which is another 11-16 IPC boost to the allies.  The last thing to keep in mind is unit efficiency, Japan is shoving mainly armor at Russia, while they are defending with large quantities of INF, more effective IPC for IPC.  Also note it is easy for the other allies to reinforce the Russian positions with fighters.  Granted, the allies need to purchase transports, however, G/I typically must defend atleast 3 territories (rome, france, berlin) against a large allied drop which evens it out a tad.  And I don’t see G making much more than 30 after a few turns (-5 from norway/finland, only having 1 or 2 NOs).

And as far as killing the UK units retreating from India, any decent allied commander will rally there UK units in persia T1 if there is a large threat, and then reinforce with Russian Inf for the rest of the game to hold the Japs from getting past persia.  The 6 UK units make this much easier with a feed of 2 or 3 russian Inf a turn until the US armor get there. That is an extremely important tactic as Persia is the quickest way in for the Japs and must not fall.  It is also important to stack Chi with any surviving chinamen (typically 1 or 2) and Russian Inf.