Beating J1

No one’s mentioned Japan putting a DD blocker in sz16 on J1. That limits US to attacking with 2 fighters. Japan can defend with 3 planes or 2 planes and a DD.

@shadowhawk Good point. I never use J1 DOW, so haven’t studied it, but just thought that potentially having to use up almost all kamikaze on round 1 is unsatisfactory to me. Has to be a better alternative. Blocker in sz16 and build a DD in sz6?

@shadowhawk If the Japanese tt can’t prevent U.S. tt from moving into sz6, then the U.S. tt also doesn’t prevent Japanese tt from leaving sz6 during combat move. Only a warship would prevent loading.

@shadowhawk Rulebook Europe 1940 second edition p.34 under Unit Profile Transports says “for purposes of determining the status of a sea zone, submarines and transports are ignored.” Just like a warship can pass thru any sea zone containing only subs and tt’s.

One strategy I like is buying all strats with the US rds 1 and 2. By the end of rd 3, you have the entire US fleet plus 11 strats and 4 fg on Queensland. This makes it very difficult for the Japan player to position the IJN in a spot where it is not vulnerable. They will usually end up wasting a bunch of DDs as blockers, which is in the Allied players economic advantage. Even if you can’t reach the IJN with your fleet, but can with planes , a triple whammy of 11 strats followed up with attacks by UK and AZ units typically leaves the IJN in a very diminished state and allows you to move the US fleet into a better position once the blockers are cleared out.

And if the Japan player is very cagey or really focuses on protecting and/or bolstering his fleet, the strats can be quickly reallocated to Europe by flying to India, then wherever. Then you can balance out the US spend by buying more fleet in Pacific whilst using the strats to help increase the attack power of whatever US units you managed to get to Europe in rds 3-5 or so.

@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:

One strategy I like is buying all strats with the US rds 1 and 2. By the end of rd 3, you have the entire US fleet plus 11 strats and 4 fg on Queensland. This makes it very difficult for the Japan player to position the IJN in a spot where it is not vulnerable. They will usually end up wasting a bunch of DDs as blockers, which is in the Allied players economic advantage. Even if you can’t reach the IJN with your fleet, but can with planes , a triple whammy of 11 strats followed up with attacks by UK and AZ units typically leaves the IJN in a very diminished state and allows you to move the US fleet into a better position once the blockers are cleared out.

And if the Japan player is very cagey or really focuses on protecting and/or bolstering his fleet, the strats can be quickly reallocated to Europe by flying to India, then wherever. Then you can balance out the US spend by buying more fleet in Pacific whilst using the strats to help increase the attack power of whatever US units you managed to get to Europe in rds 3-5 or so.

Not sure how that strategy would work. 3 bombers cost $36 have an OFP of 12 with three units. A carrier and 2 fighters also costs $36 and has a DFP of 10 with 4 units. Assuming the Japanese Player always puts their fleet where any planes have a landing area the chances of winning with the bombers is just 25%, 14% draw, and 61% loss. That means the US Player cannot reasonably gain an advantage on the IJN. Yet the IJN building carriers and fighters will have overwhelming superiority of the pretty naked US fleet so the IJN will own the Pacific. What am I missing?

I miss how this strategy works also as Japan can just build aircraft carriers and already has enough fighters to fill the decks. Three more flattops would be sufficient to protect the IJN fleet and also project enough power that the Allies cannot park their fleet stack in Queensland in the mid-game without even further investment into more Pacific-side spending.

Perhaps the bomber plan works well in face-to-face matches where people don’t have as much time to plan and don’t use battle calculators. This is often the source of advice discrepancies as the live players have a very different experience playing G40 than those who do PBEM or forum matches.

@andrewaagamer

If it’s a J1 attack then the US will already have the factory upgrades in rd1. So 4 bombers rd1, 6 bombers rd 2. As for the other planes, I fly all the planes the US starts with (assuming PHI is dead) to Hawaii. 4 can land on Hawaii, 2 on the carrier, then all down to Queensland next turn.

So if it’s only strats that can attack, and we assume the entire original IJN is in one sea zone minus 2 DDs assumed to be used for blocking, you’re looking at all 5 capital ships damaged, both DDs dead, and planes having to land on land. Then between UK and AZ you’ve got another 2 DDs, 2 CAs, and 6 planes to attack the wounded IJN, before even adding in any purchases. IJN may end up with a few ships left, but they will have to backtrack to a naval base to repair and join with newly purchased ships to create a fleet stronger than what the US has.

Also, if the IJN is parked off Malaya, the Allies need to hold only 1 territory bordering SZ 37 and the fg/tacs from Queensland can also join the attack.

Granted, a good Jap player probably won’t let this happen but the mere threat makes the entire corridor from Queensland/Malaya/DEI/India very treacherous to navigate. Typically the Japs will pull back to the Philippines to consolidate the fleet and have kamikaze’s available. But if they do that and therefore don’t kill India within the first 4-5 rounds, that’s already a big win for the allies. If the allies are able to take back any DEI before rd 4 that just provides even more landing spots for planes and less places the IJN can safely navigate. Hard to Japan to be a threat to win if you’ve cut them off from India and started to drain their income.

Obviously the United States can defeat Japan in the Pacific if they invest 100% of their resources into that theater. Something is wrong if an Allied player is incapable of winning or containing them despite 100+ production points being poured into the theater for the first few rounds. Honestly, I just turtle down as Japan and focus on keeping the money islands and China if the Allies have such a strong response in the Pacific.

I just don’t think that going all bombers is the most economical way to pursue a response as it has drained all of the income for the first two rounds, and still cannot provide adequate defense for the combined Allied fleet to stand toe-to-toe with the IJN. It won’t allow landings on the islands or mainland Asia, and won’t enable convoy raids in high value sea zones.

@arthur-bomber-harris

IME only 2 rounds of US investment into the Pacific is pretty low. And to be clear, I’d be going 100% Europe after that for around 4 rounds straight. After that typically just some modest investment to make sure Hawaii is protected. I think Germany is much more of a threat to win the game than Japan, but Japan can be a major threat if they get some momentum going. Bombers, being the unit with the greatest movement, allow the Allies to stunt Japan’s progress more quickly than anything.

Without transports and ships to protect them, I don’t see how you dent Japan. You can never take Caroline islands like this and that is a hindrance. Maybe Japan doesn’t rush India but he does not need to. Can sit at phillipines all day as a new carrier and kwangsi figs augment steadily while he slowly gains in China and SE mainland Asia while blocking/trading DEI. More likely, you have to block Japan from sinking SZ54 as bombers do nothing defensively. But maybe i’m visualizing this all wrongly. Do you have an online game as an example or do you play exclusively face-to-face?

@colt45554

Between US, AZ, and UK you start with 4 TTs in the Pacific. I typically buy one with AZ once every few turns. You should be able to take back at least a couple $ islands if Japan is just turtling in the Philippines. Japan can take them back, but of course that also means they have to move TTs and probably something else to help attack if you leave units on the islands which means you can kill that stuff. Japan also has to use 2 blockers to prevent the fleet in SZ54 from participating in the attack, and typically they’ll have one in SZ16 as well. So they are going to be investing a ton of IPCs into ships in your scenario, resulting in fewer land units on the mainland. That gives India a chance to turtle and build up a huge stack of inf.

I play almost entirely online, I could probably dig up a saved game or if not just make a new one as an example.

Well we could spend ages discussing if that is a good Allied plan, or we could play a match Mika.

@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:

@andrewaagamer

If it’s a J1 attack then the US will already have the factory upgrades in rd1. So 4 bombers rd1, 6 bombers rd 2. As for the other planes, I fly all the planes the US starts with (assuming PHI is dead) to Hawaii. 4 can land on Hawaii, 2 on the carrier, then all down to Queensland next turn.

So if it’s only strats that can attack, and we assume the entire original IJN is in one sea zone minus 2 DDs assumed to be used for blocking, you’re looking at all 5 capital ships damaged, both DDs dead, and planes having to land on land. Then between UK and AZ you’ve got another 2 DDs, 2 CAs, and 6 planes to attack the wounded IJN, before even adding in any purchases. IJN may end up with a few ships left, but they will have to backtrack to a naval base to repair and join with newly purchased ships to create a fleet stronger than what the US has.

Also, if the IJN is parked off Malaya, the Allies need to hold only 1 territory bordering SZ 37 and the fg/tacs from Queensland can also join the attack.

Granted, a good Jap player probably won’t let this happen but the mere threat makes the entire corridor from Queensland/Malaya/DEI/India very treacherous to navigate. Typically the Japs will pull back to the Philippines to consolidate the fleet and have kamikaze’s available. But if they do that and therefore don’t kill India within the first 4-5 rounds, that’s already a big win for the allies. If the allies are able to take back any DEI before rd 4 that just provides even more landing spots for planes and less places the IJN can safely navigate. Hard to Japan to be a threat to win if you’ve cut them off from India and started to drain their income.

Thank you @mikawagunichi for the explanation!

I agree, as you state, that things might work in a live game, especially if your Opponent has not seen it before, that might not be as effective in an online game where people have more time to ponder the board or have seen more strategies. Since our goal is to promote more consistent strategies that are beneficial for everyone, I am not sure that this strategy is going to work the way you hope it would or have experienced in the past in live games.

Looking over your strategy, if I am understanding it correctly, you take the entire US fleet into the Pacific. That lone cruiser in the Atlantic is going to do much good by itself. Everything can make Hawaii by US2 which allows the US fleet to move off Queensland on US3 setting up your threat for a US4 attack. Your potential United States forces are:
• (1) SS
• (2) DD
• (3) CA
• (1) CV
• (1) BB
• (1) Tactical
• (5) Fighter
• (11) Bomber

So, the first thing I am not understanding is why you seem to think the Japanese need to sacrifice two destroyers as blockers? I show that is not needed. Also, I am not agreeing with your casualty assessments. Let’s look at it from the Japanese perspective.

As you say we go J1. Normally Japan will build either 3 transports or two transports and a mIC for China. Going worse case against your strategy let’s build the mIC. We spend all $26 of Japan’s money and collect $41. On J2 we want to buy a mIC for FIC and use the one we already built so let’s say $22 for the mainland leaving us $19 which is (1) CV plus maybe an infantry for Japan. Now on J1 we took Borneo so on J2 we take the rest of the money islands and collect probably $59. Since the US fleet I assume is off Hawaii and there are 5 US bombers on the West Coast we need a strong fleet presence coming back from the Philippines to be stationed off Japan with our newly built carrier. On J3 we take Malaya with as minimal fleet forces as possible and move the rest of the southern fleet to the Philippines while maintaining the main Japanese fleet off Japan. With the $59 we build around $19 on the mainland at our two mICs and spend $40 on 2 more carriers and a destroyer for SZ6. On US3 the US fleet goes to SZ54 off Queensland and the Japanese counter on J4 by consolidating their fleet in the Philippines.

Therefore, on US4, sitting in the Philippines is a Japanese navy consisting of:
• (2) SS
• (5) DD
• (2) CA
• (6) CV
• (2) BB
• (10) Fighter
• (5) Tactical

Since the US only has one carrier only two of their planes (fighter + tactical) can make the Phillipines attack and I show that is a 0% battle with a loss of $162 TUV. Again, there is no reason for the IJN to block. In fact, the US has to block but I assume we will use ANZAC forces for that.

Okay, so on J4 the Japanese, with no threat on SZ6, build probably at least one more carrier, a destroyer and transports to threaten Hawaii. Not sure if the US finally built fleet units off the West Coast or built against Europe on the East Coast. Not really going to matter either way.

If I now look at the board here is what I see:
a) The US has put zero assets on the Europe side of the board until at least US3 so will not be able to move to Gibraltar till US4 and make any attack on Germany until US5. That makes Germany really happy and Russia really unhappy.
b) Japan is out of position to retake Sumatra if the Allies take it which I assume they would so Japan will not get their NO on J5.
c) China has 1 mIC dropping in 3 units a Turn against it so probably China is at a minimum a stalemate and more likely on the losing side of a logistics war.
d) India has one mIC dropping 3 units a Turn against it and since they are probably collecting $6 they are underwater in the logistics war.

Therefore, Japan is winning against China and India and is ignoring Russia.

e) The US has 1 carrier on the board in the Pacific unless they built on the West Coast on US3 and/or US4 and Japan has 7. On J5 the IJN moves to the Carolines and the Allied fleet is toast. They cannot protect Sydney or Hawaii and they are cut off from their reinforcements via the West Coast. Only if they block can they try and consolidate what little fleet they have off Hawaii and that is temporary because the IJN can move against them without worrying about being destroyed. Hawaii or Sydney falls and Japan wins in the Pacific eventually or the US goes 100% forever into the Pacific to try and salvage things and the Allies lose in Europe.

Since this strategy depends on the US having such a strong air attack that the Japanese must huddle and hide when that is not accomplished the tables are turned and it is the IJN that pushes the US fleet out of existence. I do not see how this strategy can be effective as long as the Japanese Player has the ability to make good decisions.

I do not mean to shoot down your strategy; I am just analyzing it.

*Edited to fix the move to the Carolines by the Japanese occurs on J5, not J4. Corrected tactical bombers to (5) for the IJN.

@andrewaagamer said in Beating J1:

@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:

@andrewaagamer

If it’s a J1 attack then the US will already have the factory upgrades in rd1. So 4 bombers rd1, 6 bombers rd 2. As for the other planes, I fly all the planes the US starts with (assuming PHI is dead) to Hawaii. 4 can land on Hawaii, 2 on the carrier, then all down to Queensland next turn.

So if it’s only strats that can attack, and we assume the entire original IJN is in one sea zone minus 2 DDs assumed to be used for blocking, you’re looking at all 5 capital ships damaged, both DDs dead, and planes having to land on land. Then between UK and AZ you’ve got another 2 DDs, 2 CAs, and 6 planes to attack the wounded IJN, before even adding in any purchases. IJN may end up with a few ships left, but they will have to backtrack to a naval base to repair and join with newly purchased ships to create a fleet stronger than what the US has.

Also, if the IJN is parked off Malaya, the Allies need to hold only 1 territory bordering SZ 37 and the fg/tacs from Queensland can also join the attack.

Granted, a good Jap player probably won’t let this happen but the mere threat makes the entire corridor from Queensland/Malaya/DEI/India very treacherous to navigate. Typically the Japs will pull back to the Philippines to consolidate the fleet and have kamikaze’s available. But if they do that and therefore don’t kill India within the first 4-5 rounds, that’s already a big win for the allies. If the allies are able to take back any DEI before rd 4 that just provides even more landing spots for planes and less places the IJN can safely navigate. Hard to Japan to be a threat to win if you’ve cut them off from India and started to drain their income.

Thank you @mikawagunichi for the explanation!

I agree, as you state, that things might work in a live game, especially if your Opponent has not seen it before, that might not be as effective in an online game where people have more time to ponder the board or have seen more strategies. Since our goal is to promote more consistent strategies that are beneficial for everyone, I am not sure that this strategy is going to work the way you hope it would or have experienced in the past in live games.

Looking over your strategy, if I am understanding it correctly, you take the entire US fleet into the Pacific. That lone cruiser in the Atlantic is going to do much good by itself. Everything can make Hawaii by US2 which allows the US fleet to move off Queensland on US3 setting up your threat for a US4 attack. Your potential United States forces are:
• (1) SS
• (2) DD
• (3) CA
• (1) CV
• (1) BB
• (1) Tactical
• (5) Fighter
• (11) Bomber

So, the first thing I am not understanding is why you seem to think the Japanese need to sacrifice two destroyers as blockers? I show that is not needed. Also, I am not agreeing with your casualty assessments. Let’s look at it from the Japanese perspective.

As you say we go J1. Normally Japan will build either 3 transports or two transports and a mIC for China. Going worse case against your strategy let’s build the mIC. We spend all $26 of Japan’s money and collect $41. On J2 we want to buy a mIC for FIC and use the one we already built so let’s say $22 for the mainland leaving us $19 which is (1) CV plus maybe an infantry for Japan. Now on J1 we took Borneo so on J2 we take the rest of the money islands and collect probably $59. Since the US fleet I assume is off Hawaii and there are 5 US bombers on the West Coast we need a strong fleet presence coming back from the Philippines to be stationed off Japan with our newly built carrier. On J3 we take Malaya with as minimal fleet forces as possible and move the rest of the southern fleet to the Philippines while maintaining the main Japanese fleet off Japan. With the $59 we build around $19 on the mainland at our two mICs and spend $40 on 2 more carriers and a destroyer for SZ6. On US3 the US fleet goes to SZ54 off Queensland and the Japanese counter on J4 by consolidating their fleet in the Philippines.

Therefore, on US4, sitting in the Philippines is a Japanese navy consisting of:
• (2) SS
• (5) DD
• (2) CA
• (6) CV
• (2) BB
• (10) Fighter
• (6) Tactical

Since the US only has one carrier only two of their planes (fighter + tactical) can make the Phillipines attack and I show that is a 0% battle with a loss of $162 TUV. Again, there is no reason for the IJN to block. In fact, the US has to block but I assume we will use ANZAC forces for that.

Okay, so on J4 the Japanese, with no threat on SZ6, build probably at least one more carrier, a destroyer and transports to threaten Hawaii. Not sure if the US finally built fleet units off the West Coast or built against Europe on the East Coast. Not really going to matter either way.

If I now look at the board here is what I see:
a) The US has put zero assets on the Europe side of the board until at least US3 so will not be able to move to Gibraltar till US4 and make any attack on Germany until US5. That makes Germany really happy and Russia really unhappy.
b) Japan is out of position to retake Sumatra if the Allies take it which I assume they would so Japan will not get their NO on J5.
c) China has 1 mIC dropping in 3 units a Turn against it so probably China is at a minimum a stalemate and more likely on the losing side of a logistics war.
d) India has one mIC dropping 3 units a Turn against it and since they are probably collecting $6 they are underwater in the logistics war.

Therefore, Japan is winning against China and India and is ignoring Russia.

e) The US has 1 carrier on the board in the Pacific unless they built on the West Coast on US3 and/or US4 and Japan has 7. On J5 the IJN moves to the Carolines and the Allied fleet is toast. They cannot protect Sydney or Hawaii and they are cut off from their reinforcements via the West Coast. Only if they block can they try and consolidate what little fleet they have off Hawaii and that is temporary because the IJN can move against them without worrying about being destroyed. Hawaii or Sydney falls and Japan wins in the Pacific eventually or the US goes 100% forever into the Pacific to try and salvage things and the Allies lose in Europe.

Since this strategy depends on the US having such a strong air attack that the Japanese must huddle and hide when that is not accomplished the tables are turned and it is the IJN that pushes the US fleet out of existence. I do not see how this strategy can be effective as long as the Japanese Player has the ability to make good decisions.

I do not mean to shoot down your strategy; I am just analyzing it.

*Edited to fix the move to the Carolines by the Japanese occurs on J5, not J4.

While answering @ShadowHAwk’s question I realized I had typed in one too many planes in the Japanese fleet. There are only 5 tactical bombers there. However, the battle results are correct and based on 5 tactical bombers; I just typed in one too many.

@shadowhawk said in Beating J1:

@andrewaagamer Everything is ofcourse different in a live game then in theory. As good or bad dice chance things.

But lets asume US1 they move their fleet to hawai and build bombers, though i think building 2 ACS is better.
Round 2 US have a fleet of 3ACs in hawai + 2 bombers japan isnt buying any fleet that turn or it gets wasted.
Round 3 there are 7 bombers in range of SZ6 And US fleet can move south still japan cannot build a single carrier or it gets sunk without enough protection.
But the hawai bombers can move in 1 turn to threathen south with the US fleet where you take 2 turns to get carriers with your fleet.

Ofcourse everything can be countered if you know it in advance. But every counter has a cost.

Japan can build a lot of fleet in 1 turn but that lowers its land forces for a bit. It can pull the fleet back to build but that gives up money islands for a turn or 2. It can pull back more air or some ships but that also leaves it weak in other areas.

I think the issue is Japan goes before the US so it allows Japan the ability to counter what the US does. As Arthur Bomber Harris said “the United States can defeat Japan in the Pacific if they invest 100% of their resources into that theater.” The open question is does an immediate 10 bomber build give the US control of the Pacific or not. I think my analysis says it does not.

As for building carriers or bombers and the threat on Japan (SZ6) we can take a look at that. We will assume that Germany has declared war no later than G3 so the US can land bombers in Russian territory during a US3 attack on SZ6.

At the end of US2 the US can have as an attacking US3 threat on SZ6 of either…

Four Bomber Build US1:
• (1) SS
• (2) DD
• (3) CA
• (1) CV
• (1) BB
• (5) Fighters (Assumes 4 are on Midway)
• (1) Tactical
• (11) Bombers

Two Carrier, one Destroyer, two Submarine Build US1:
• (3) SS
• (3) DD
• (3) CA
• (3) CV
• (1) BB
• (5) Fighters (Assumes 4 are on Midway)
• (1) Tactical
• (7) Bombers

I would think most Japanese Players at the end of J1 are going to have out of range of moving back to SZ6 one Cruiser, one Destroyer and one Carrier. With the US going 100% in the Pacific on US1 Japan is going to have to go defensively and bring their Philippines fleet back to Japan but would probably leave the rest in the south to take the money islands therefore those units do not make it back to SZ6 by J3. As presented before with a J2 build of 1 CV and a J3 build of 2 CV and 1 DD we are looking at the end of J3 a Japanese Navy of the below in SZ6:
• (2) SS
• (4) DD
• (1) CA
• (5) CV
• (2) BB
• (10) Fighter
• (3) Tactical

I did not use Kamikazes in the US4 Philippines battle because they were not needed. Without Kamikazes again our results are:
• Build 1 bombers = 5% chance of success with TUV loss of $91
• Build 2 carriers = 2% chance of success with TUV loss of $99
I would assume the Japanese Player would use Kamikazes in this US3 SZ6 battle making the results most likely even worse.

So, in either scenario the US is not able to sink the IJN nor force them to deploy a blocker to SZ16. When the US, instead of attacking, moves to SZ54 on US3 the IJN combines in the Philippines and we are back to where we started.

In direct response to your question Japan is able to build off Japan and can maintain their fleet presence there. Without any US presence in the south the small Japanese fleet there can still take the money islands and Malaya as ANZAC is not capable of doing anything about that. Nothing has changed.

Does the US going 100% in the Pacific hinder Japan from taking India, throttling China and attacking Russia or as you state “leaves it weak in other areas”? Of course it does! However, only at the cost of ignoring Europe. The question is not is a 100% US offensive in the Pacific a good strategy. The question is does a 100% US focus with bombers or carriers plus bombers in the Pacific on US1 + US2 stop the IJN cold and make them hide and it does not.

@andrewaagamer

I also think it’s important to keep it all in the context of the OP’s question. It’s a J1 attack and the Japan player won’t know that the US is about to use a bomber spam strategy, so highly unlikely the J1 buy included any warships. Also whatever strategies the OP has been trying so far haven’t been working. I think 2 CV + 1DD +2SS is a pretty common US1 buy vs J1 attack. Maybe he can give us more detail on what he’s been doing and subsequent movements.

I’d also add, that the Allied player can hold back the UK and AZ TTs for a few rounds so that they can swoop in a reclaim $ islands once the US has forced Japan to turtle in the Philippines. Any island which Japan doesn’t immediately recapture can be bolstered by landing AZ fighters on it. That would force Japan to commit more resources to reclaim it or have a lasting impact on their IPCs.

I’m working through a game now based on the Japan 3 CV purchases and consolidate in the Philippines scenario Andrew laid out above. Busy at work today but once I get through about 4 rounds can put up some screenshots and/or share the triple a file.

@shadowhawk said in Beating J1:

But if you pull back all your fleet from a T1 US naval buy of 2 carries then that means your transports near the money islands have 0 protection. So Anzac can just kill them and take 1 or more islands there which is a decent blow against japan.
But yea every action causes a reaction and you want your opponent to overreact or underreact to what you do.
Which is a lot easier in a F2F game,

There is a small Japanese fleet in the south but I would agree that between UK and ANZAC they can probably kill 2 Japanese transports if the US goes whole hog Pacific.

I also wholeheartedly agree that strategies that don’t really work in Forum or PBEM games work in F2F games. Especially if the opponent has never seen them before. With a limited timeframe to do a thorough analysis it is very easy to make a mistake and get clobbered.

@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:

It’s a J1 attack and the Japan player won’t know that the US is about to use a bomber spam strategy, so highly unlikely the J1 buy included any warships.

My counter strategy scenario did not buy any warships on J1.

@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:

I’m working through a game now based on the Japan 3 CV purchases and consolidate in the Philippines scenario Andrew laid out above. Busy at work today but once I get through about 4 rounds can put up some screenshots and/or share the triple a file.

Will be interesting to see what you come up with!

@andrewaagamer

After playing it out through round 4 and following your purchases and moves as much as possible, here is where I see things:

-On your point about taking Malaya with as minimal fleet forces as possible on J3, I do not believe that is advisable. The UK should easily have a stack on Burma, and likely one on Shan State (especially in a 1v1 since you wouldn’t have the potential complication of splitting countries and the UK player not knowing the US strategy). By holding any one of of the territories bordering SZ37, the allies can attack the Jap fleet there with DD + CA + 3fg by Anzac plus anything purchased AZ1. They can also attack presumably with the 3 UK planes and any ships that are off India or otherwise in range. A small fleet would likely be wiped out. Therefore in my play test, I assumed all the ships that took Sumatra and Java J2 go to SZ37 (2CV, 2BB. 1CA, 2DD) This should be enough to deter an allied attack Rd3.

However, even this assumes that the US has not moved anything down to Queensland yet. The way I play, I move bombers there ASAP, and also would fly the tac down, since it is excess to the carrier and 3 plane scramble from Hawaii. So I would already have 5 bombers and a tac there. With a 3 phase attack of:

US: 5 bombers, 1 tac
UK: 2fg, 1 tac, ships depending on location (I moved them west to keep them out of range, so none in my example)
AZ: 3fg, 1 DD, 1 CA

I think the cost of taking Malaya would be rather extreme and those ships should just head back to the Philippines J3. If the UK has stacked Shan State, Japan won’t even hold Malaya for a turn.

Now, onto the $ islands.

In my scenario AZ can take 1 back AZ3. I chose Java (reason based on UK ship positioning).
US4 take back Celebes and Borneo.
UK4, take back Sumatra. TT had previously been moved west to keep it safe from the Japs.

So now, beginning rd5 I have the massive Combined Fleet sitting at the Philippines plus a 3fg scramble (since those planes are clearly not needed on the homeland for the time being).

US and AZ fleet and all planes on Queensland and SZ54 with the following exceptions:

US DD blocking in SZ25.
US DD blocking in SZ46.
AZ DD blocking in SZ45.

I think the situation for Japan at this point is quite worse than you had laid out.

AZ is safe at this point with all the land units and fighters stacked there. Queensland can’t be attacked until J7 anyway since J5 and J6 would have to be spent killing the blockers then killing the fleet. But even then, 5 fully loaded TTs and 6 fully loaded carriers isn’t enough to take it.

India could be threated on J6 but the burma stack will have time to retreat and Japan would have to sacrifice multiple planes to take it.

Lastly, Japan could go to the Carolines J5, then take Hawaii J6. This would at least force the US to invest in units to protect the west coast. But with several more turns for UK and AZ to build their forces getting that 6th VC would be impossible for several more turns. The US bombers could be flown to India to wipe out any units on weakly held Jap territories and allow UK to take back the entire peninsula.

Meanwhile with all 4 $ islands lost, Japan will not be in a great position economically regardless of the direction they take unless they start re-taking islands, which will likely delay the assault on any VC. And Japan definitely needs to kill the allied TTs J5.

Another downside of building so many carriers is that remaining number of planes on the mainland is significantly reduced in order to load the carriers. This makes it even more difficult to kill the UK stack, wherever it may be.