I like the game balance in this version in that it actually plays differently.  Each theater acts individually yet still blends into the world game map as a whole.  US and UK cannot effectively ship 20 FIG to Russia like they have in previous games unless they have already dealt with Italy and Japan and have them successfully contained (i.e., Russia is its own separate theater for the majority of the game).  In the Pacific, however, playing as a team for the Allies is required.  More territories and more money on the game board means that traditional infantry-push strategies will be ineffective; it will be up to the tactics and strategies of the players to see their conquests through to capture the capitals.

J2 attack is considered the “best” since you prevent the UK Pacific and ANZAC from grabbing the ENTIRE DEI FIRST from the get-go.  If you let these powers take the DEI first, there’s now defensive infantry there you need to shoot through, necessary amphibious assaults and more infantry/art needed for transports, carriers needed for air support; it becomes a huge mess very quickly.  While you do have the big fleet units and are better equipped to fight for the islands, if you can take the DEI first without needing their extra support the ships and air can used offensively elsewhere and not necessarily relegated to guard duty for your transports.  The UK and ANZAC also start with pathetic navy units in the area and generally can’t get to most of your transports or put up much of a fight in the first place (they’re really only there as blockers and to help drop off land units); another reason to beat them to the DEI first so you don’t have to fight landed troops already there.

However, if Germany is attempting Sealion, it might be a good idea to wait it out for another turn.  Just that you know you’ll be headed into the long slog for the Pacific theater with UK Pac at 30 and ANZAC at 20 with their NOs…  So possibly take it a bit slower.  (Though, with the new rule for the US being able to declare war on the Axis if London falls, there’s really not that much point of waiting till J3, the US will be coming after you anyway.)

You might consider buying a transport on Turn 1 of UK Pacific, to help take the DEI islands later on, but that’s about it in terms of building ships.  India’s income falls so fast from the Japs by Turn 3-4 that trying to maintain a navy is suicidal.  ART and INF buys are generally the way to go.  You can throw back the Japs in Burma for quite awhile with consistent land unit buys.  Just don’t leave your land stack in Burma and have Jap transports from Malaya in range of an undefended India.

Think of the Pacific UK in gameplay terms like Russia, where you just have to hold out until the cavalry arrives.  Usually this is the US, though the UK can sometimes send a fleet in from the Med after they’ve taken out the Italians there.

Now we’re talking about either attacking with the Russians OR attacking the Russians as Japan on game start?

OK.

I disagree here.  If Japan wastes a lot of resources killing the Amur stack, that’s just it, a waste.  You’re just building up a future unit deficit against China and India by not consolidating your forces in the right places.  It’s also worse to piddle around against the Chinese and the UK at game start since both powers can make MORE money as the game progresses compared to Russia which will always stay close to a static 37 IPCs (at least for the first 3-4 turns).

True, you could argue that those troops aren’t doing anything anyways, but what would you rather have on J5:  20+ land units you carefully marched across China to Burma with loaded transports in range of India; or 5-10 land units possibly without support isolated in Russia somewhere?

Same could be said of Russia with its 18 INF in Amur, if Germany goes hard for Barbarossa with a G2 build and attacks, you’ll be glad you were cautious with them at game start around R6-7.

Even though these land units aren’t effectively “used” every turn, they still have “threaten potential” to influence future events and builds across the board.

@Cmdr:

Does better, but still loses.

I would even suggest that a J2 attack would still work even in the face of a Sealion since the US would need to commit everything to the Atlantic for several turns for the UK retake and Japan would get even more gains than it would have otherwise in the Pacific.  It’s only (+20-30, depending on how many territories Japan takes on J2 attack) extra US IPCs for one turn since the US always declares war on US 3 collect income anyway.  Hell, with a good push on Hawaii on J2 you could force the US to split those extra IPCs into the two theaters right off the bat.  Early Japanese attacks still seem to work best.  Even if you wait and don’t provoke the US’s war NO till Round 3, the UK and ANZAC are making almost that much off the DEI already, AND fortifying it with infantry to boot!  (It’s also kind of dumb waiting around to declare war since the US can declare war if the Germans take London on Round 3 anyway…)

Also, define “loses” if the Euro Axis win by going for Barbarossa instead.  Faking Sealion has never been easier for the G2 build.  And all Japan needs to do is really buy time and force the US to spend in the Pacific.  Even historically the Japanese willingly entered a war with the US that they knew they couldn’t win; they were simply hoping to wear the Americans down enough to where the Pacific would become a stalemate.  Same thing in this game.  The way this game is set up in separate theaters with little overlap makes it even more so.

Bah.  Change the rules so that submarines can retreat if they survive a round of combat, offensive battles OR defensive.  It’s stupid that a single destroyer with backup planes can destroy an entire sub stack with the current rules.  Maybe have destroyers’ effects on subs only work on a 1:1 basis.

Gah, if you build 3 minor complexes in Asia you almost have equivalent output to a major IC (Malaya, Ksi, FIC, 36 IPCs vs. 30 IPCs).  If you did your job correctly in the DEI in the opening turns as Japan, the UK Pacific major IC ISN’T going to be producing 10 units a turn to counter that (likely it’ll be reduced to 6 IPCs in short order).  You also have the advantage of transports that can reinforce at will along the coast.  Japan can easily crush India over time as the UK’s unit deficit adds up, especially if Japan moves their starting units in China over to Yunnan in a hurry.

Get over it.  Japan is not underpowered, I would say its overpowered compared to the US with the ability to kill 10+ IPCs each turn of the US’s NOs during the entire game and the monstrous advantage in starting aircraft.  Even if you play to the point where Japan is finally losing against the US, if its J8 or J9, you’ve done your job in distracting the US away from the European theater and the Axis should be victorious on that side of the board.

NAs?

NAs were older Axis and Allied canon, they were power-specific “techs” each side started the game with.  Like mech infantry for the Germans and destroyer infantry carrying capacity for the Japanese.  Not sure on the specifics for the older games, however.  Someone’d have to look them up.

@warwinner:

I agree. I don’t think defending subs should be allowed to retreat, but they should be able to submerge. If you think about it, that’s the tactic they employed when they encountered a destroyer. I like the 1-1 match up. Should (defending subs) not matched up be allowed to submerge before first round of combat? I think so.

Someone bring it up on Larry’s site.  I think its a great idea.  Subs are damn near worthless except as fodder hits in major battles as is.

What are you talking about?  Convoy damage is so pro-Allies it practically breaks the game.  Italy is a dead duck if the Allies get significant forces into SZ 97 (up to -12 in convoy damage per turn with Yugo and Greece), and Japan’s SZ 6 can wipe out up to 1/2 of Japan’s starting income.  The Allies’ corresponding UK convoy damage SZ 109, however, is a damn death trap for the Axis for most of the game as both the US and the UK can reach it easily with destroyers and subs.

We need to add either more convoy zones to the map (I’d like to see more for Russia in SZ 126 and 127, also Vladiostock in SZ 5 possibly as an NO block), perhaps the ability to BLOCK resources entirely if you have enough naval units in a convoy zone from far-off territories.  It’d also be nice to see if subs could retreat if they survive an initial attack by a destroyer, their 1 defense is pitiful and they need some method of escape.