I personnaly think that the richest country in this game after two or three rounds is usually Japan. Unless there is an inexperienced player playing this country, they manage usually to take 6 more IPC quite easily. They take both China and Sinkiang and either India or Soviet Far East, then they go nagging Alaska or Australia. So normally at the end of the second turn they have about 31 IPC of production and the States 32 IPC.
If India is down, they can manage in one turn to build quite a naval stronghold and go bug about anybody, if they play more conservative on land. Also, with two or even three ICs onland, they may have quite an arsenal quite fast. So I personnaly think that the key to the victory for the axis come from Japan. Germany has to go very defensive until Japan come`s by.
Absolutely. Most experienced players would agree with all of this except that you don’t need two or three ICs on the mainland - one should be plenty. The majority of your effort should be in transporting large amounts of infantry onto the mainland every turn.
So when I play the american, I like to split my strike force: few transport to ship some men in Africa, and the other going to nag the Japs. Because if you`re not carefull, Japan can come very quick a very strong fighting machine.
The problem here is that you are using common sense!
It’s not that fighting Japan through the Pacific is bad, it’s just that it is more efficent to fight Japan through the Atlantic! That sounds crazy because it goes against history and common sense, but it is a case of the dynamics of the board game:
You can accomplish the same strategic goals by sending US troops to the Atlantic, with two important advantages: 1.) You can help defend Russia from Japan easier - Russia proper is only four moves away from the Eastern US(!), and 2.) your troops will concentrated and able to threaten both Germany and Japan, giving you much greater flexibility.