Awright guys, I think we can lay off dat wawawd cat. Prollly he/she won’t be participating in a d***-size comparing contest for at least a little while.
For my part, I’d say KGF is correct, with play against Japan IF JAPAN ALLOWS IT, which Japan probably should.
Why I say KGF is “correct”?
1. Most cost-efficient units on attack and defense are ground units.
2. To get ground units into battle, UK and US need naval units.
3. To get naval units into battle against Germany or Japan, they must be built first; UK and US both have weaker navies than either Germany or Japan.
4. UK only has one industrial complex, close to Germany. Building another early industrial complex near Japan costs IPCs, means a delay in production, and is limited to 2-3 units per turn (anywhere from Anglo-Egypt Sudan, South Africa, Australia, or India)
5. Japan’s starting navy/air force is bigger than Germany’s starting navy/air force
6. Japan’s outlying islands are far away from the action in Moscow; ground forces will need to be transported in closer, which means more naval/air battles. In contrast, near Germany, units can be offloaded into Archangel, one step away from Moscow.
What about Japan “allowing play against itself”?
If Japan mostly ignores its outlying islands and withdraws its forces west to attack Asia / India / Africa, US can build a small fleet to mess with Japan’s outlying islands. This will mean Japan either loses IPCs, or will have to pull some units back to stop the U.S.
If Japan doesn’t ignore its outlying islands, that’s less pressure on Moscow.
Either way, the Allies can see what Japan does and act accordingly.