I’ve actually found that Japan is surprisingly weak against coordinated pressure from all 3 allies in asia. It’s surprising because on paper Japan has enough mettle to do anything, but in reality when 3 players go before them every turn you can give them way too much to worry about. It’s my standard allied opening and I have a hard time finding opponents who can respond to it:
A neutralize japan first strategy, involves simultaneous pressure form russia in the north with massive US (and initially british) fly-in of air support to buryatia, a UK IC in india, and an option for an IC in sinkiang if china has very few japanese forces in it at the end of turn 1 OR turn 2. The principle is that all three allies forcing japan to swat flies is enough to slow her down and often beat her in asia.
Even a moderately successful delay in japan’s ability to break through is often enough for the allies to carry the day on other fronts. But in my experience, there is actually a great possibility of actually shutting japan down even if they build two IC’s initially. If things are going well, UK may be able to take a french-indo IC, which would signal that japan has pretty much failed.
–------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, here’s a few principles I view as important if choosing to contest Japan’s control of asia:
1. Russia needs >6 infantry ultimately in the north, and also must threaten to supplement with this with some offensive power (even if you don’t use it, the threat is critical). examples include a plane landed in kazakh or a tank diverted from the western front (harder to manage).
2. Buryatia is a critical massing point for the first turn or two, because it’s the easiest square for the US to reinforce with its massive airpower. As long as it is held, us bombers built in western US can strike asian sea & land targets without delay. however, for russia to hold buryatia on turn 1 it’s best for UK to land a fighter there.
3. UK boats should occupy the sea zone outside kwangtung on round 1 (carrier, destroyer), while transport blocks sea zone outside french indo china to prevent japan from leveraging it’s second battleship. That battleship should have no useful targets on turn 1, while japan has to risk real losses to take out both the UK and US fleets on turn 1.
4. Tanks in caucusus are necessary to supplement any IC in india. You can’t gurantee japan won’t take india (by luck or skill), but you can leave the option of re-taking it so that british building in the IC there is not interrupted.
5. British troops in india also need offensive capabilities, preferably ready to strike on turn 2. this means that having your bomber (and your initial fighter) in striking distance of french indo at the end of turn 1. This is all part of the general approach of forcing japan to make hard trade-offs against multiple threats.
6. US ground troops, whether there’s an IC in sinkiang or not, are worth their weight in gold when you have significant air power available in asia. Each ground troops you keep alive enables a potential US attack and leveraging of it’s air force to kill japanese ground forces. Lacking ground troops, us air raids are risky and expensive.
7. Make japan take losses. Even if you end up ultimately losing the asian front, offensive moves are necessary by the allied powers to reduce the buildup of japanese ground forces. If done long enough, japan’s full strength will emerge too late to save germany. For instance, even if it’s “suicide” to move into manchuria with 8 russian infantry, it’s often still worth it. A force that size causes enough damage on the defense that forcing a pile-on from japan is worth the cost. The alternative of sitting and waiting while japan grows secure is what allows japan to overwhelm its opponents.
While all this is going on, the UK spends >50% of it’s money and the US spends most of it’s money against germany. It’s a big initial focus but not a sustained waste of money in the pacific with boats or anything like that.