This is a break or bust strategy; no ecomonic strangulation or attrition of forces. Yes, a VC KO before Allies become too large is the goal.
But am I underestimating the size of the fleet America can bring to bear in the first few rounds? By my count, neither America nor Japan can attack each other’s fleet off the coast of Australia on round 4. Because yes taamvan, the entire fleet will be there save for maybe a blocker or two, assuming America is stacking off of Queensland or Carolines. I don’t care how threatened SZ 6 is, so long as Japan is safe, because after round 4, any units I produce will not be in play. And Japan is easy to keep safe.
I like the Argentine tango (1st time I’ve heard of it) for its ability to shuttle ground troops to DEI and south Asia w/o requiring a force at Hawaii to defend the transport corridor. But I think it gets rolling too late. It can only bring an extra 2 guys to Sydney for a J6 or 8 guys for a J7 attack. Let’s let Germany take care of India on G7. That means that 2nd round of transports - 14 ground troops can be dropped off in either southern Australia or Queensland (Allies can’t defend both) for a J7 attack on Sydney.
I also dont care about threatening China or Russia after round 4. The stack of ground troops working its way south to get picked up for the 2nd round of transports should be enough to keep China at bay long enough to keep Hong Kong safe (from them at least). So just keep enough planes defending Manchuria long enough to prevent the Amur stack from beginning its march on Shanghai before round 4.
Taamvan, if I’m going for a Pacific victory, I don’t care how strong Russia is on round 4. I dont even care if Berlin and Rome both fall on round 5 other than for matters of pride. Gargantua, that Afghani corridor is an important point in late game. But how many Allied planes are you imagining will be in Moscow beginning of turn 5 to get to India on 6 before Germany’s attack on 7? Germany will have 30-35 mobiles plus lots of planes. India, if it only buys inf and never moved any away towards Mideast or China, on a J3 DOW, can amass quite the stack of 40 something fodder by G7 (ignoring for the moment that can Germany can attack on G6 if India doesnt use about 10 of those to prevent an Italian can opener). Considering the distribution curve of Germany’s attack, I estimate that UK/Russia would have to get more than a dozen planes into India to make it close to a fair fight.
Cow, I fully appreciate the effectiveness of fodder, even expensive and weak fodder. But you’re talking about putting in 2 dozen hits to counter a strategy that puts in an extra 4 dozen hits.
All the objections posted are assuming that Allies are aware of the Axis strategy and prepare to counter it by fully committing to one side of the board. But Axis doesnt have to commit to either strategy until round 4. They’ll have a slow start if they divert, sure. But so will the Allies by pursuing a less than optimal course. E.g. When Allies think Axis is rushing a Pac victory, if UK/Russia are only producing fighters early to get them to India on time, Germany can always turn its stack of mobiles north after securing oilfields. When they presume a Crussia and America is buying only bombers to land in Moscow, Japan can always decide to turn its stack on China and move onto Burma without much American intervention forcing it to defend its seas.