Another difference: the lower cost of bombers combined with the defenseless transports. If Allies go KFG then Japan should buy 1 bomber each turn and send it to Europe in two turns (using conquered Egypt or Trans-Jordan). A large japanese airforce in Europe can make it really hard for the Allies, because Japan plays between UK and US and can take advantage of any openings left after the UK fleet has moved.

You know, I had to laugh at this.  I had posted the subject of limits on cooperation b/w the Western Allies and Russia.  Being the history nerd that I am, it never would have occurred to me to send Japanese bombers to Germany (and now that I know, I still couldn’t get myself to do it)!

@habs4life9:

But how would you define “the start of the game”?

I would limit it to those territories that are under Russian control at the time of set-up.  It would not apply to territories that Russia conquers and then loses (recognizing that the rationale of the rule should apply to territories like the Ukraine–but when was the last time the British or Americans captured the Ukraine anyway?).  As a practical matter, the rule tweaking I suggest is intended from preventing the British (primarily) from bailing the Russians out in Karelia.

Has anyone tweaked the rules by limiting the amount of cooperation b/w the Western Allies and Russia, e.g. no UK or US troops in territories controlled by Russia at the beginning of the game?  I know that the goal of this game is not historical accuracy, but it seems to add a dose of reality along with shifting the balance toward the Axis, at least a little bit.

What about letting the Russians collect IPCs from “liberated” allied territories, e.g. Sinkiang or Persia?

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks.