Japan can’t go tit for tat against America or they let America outspend them. In the first turn the nearby british navy must be destroyed, or at least pocket your naval forces in large numbers. Take India with nearby aircraft you can muster. Playing with the houserule that russia can’t attack on first turn, mass troop south of russian border and prepare for assault by next term. Within one to three turns Japan can have complete superiority over Asia depending on what Russia does in the east and what America does in the Pacific. IT takes america at least two turns to attack Japan itself, or they can invest themselves fully against germany or with an island hopping campaign.
If america tries ot out build your navy, simply buy planes and subs, America can;t go tit for tat, and if they didn’t move fast against Germany, then they wasted their time.
An island hopping campaign hurts america’s ability to replenish their fleet, thus you can out number and destroy it.
It all does with execution of your plan. Take Asia, and Japan will have more bread than a prison meatloaf. By then if you are playing world domination, it is probably in Japan’s best interest to elminate continental powers first russia, then germany.
I’m getting ahead of my self.
Tell me if i’m wrong, but Japan’s road to victory is domination in Asia, not destroying any American fleet. By the the time America can attack Japan, Japan can buy last minute forces to outdo an American invasion force. IT seems America must totally focus on taking Germany out and Africa, while staying with Alliance with Russia and the UK.
Japan must be a continental power or they fail.
In my opinion USSR taking Manchuria on T1 is practically a death warrant for Russia. Why?
1.) You would almost certainly take heavy losses in INF before you prevail.
2.) Japan will be forced to take back Manchuria on T1. This will indeed slow down Japan’s advance in East Asia for a turn, but the tradeoff is not worth it because…
3.) USSR is forced to either leave the rest of their Eastern territories underdefended, or to commit signifigant forces from the West to shore them up. Either way you’ve weakened USSR far more than the measly 3 IPC gain for 1 turn or the setback of Japan are worth.
CAVEAT:I suppose with careful follow-up planning by all the Allies, the situation could be exploited for a possible edge on Japan. A case in point would be if all the Allies gang up on Japan T1 with concerted attacks, or if the UK wish to place an IC on India. The USSR siezure of Manchuria could then prove valuable to the overall Allied picture. But in general I believe it would be far more useful for USSR, if he/she is feeling aggressive, to hit-and-run Manchuria by scoring 1 or 2 hits & retreating with whatever’s left, than to actually take the territory & set in motion a chain of events that would be detrimental to the Allied cause…
Just my opinion…
having said that TG, you must concede that your sister’s “ill-fated” grasp at France must have exceeded your expectations. I think that move may be a telling blow for the rest of the game.
The sheer ignorance and luck in that move has left me dumbfounded!
Now if you know me and read my strategies on America, I’m all in favor of an aggressive American approach (Conveyor belt vs. ATB). But what TM was suggesting was suicide! Suicide that might’ve won a World War… what are the odds? :roll:
Also i think that you can over-extend yourself as Japan depending on how Russia and UK are playing and still get away with it.
I agree. But I think there’s something to be said for “biting off more than you can chew,” especially on J1. Remember your risky move into Sinkiang?
ahhh that was a lucky bit of rolling in sinkiang