Posts made by newpaintbrush

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Can’t afford to destroy then on round 2 maybe, but that fleet becomes my primary target quickly.� A big air investment by the allies to destroy a big navy investment by the Germans is a win for the allies I think.� The allies require big air investments anyways so I see this is more of a negative diversion of investment for the Germans compared to the allies.

Take a live pig (oink oink), take a live cow (moo moo).  Spray them with cheez whiz, take two slices of bread, stick one to the pig, and one to the cow.

Some would call that a bacon cheeseburger.

That’s how I feel when I watch a lot of players play.  They get opening strategies online, or maybe they hear about them, or whatever.  They try to walk through scripted moves, but then they get all messed up and do weird and inappropriate stuff.  Then they wonder why the hell anyone in their right mind would EVER eat a bacon cheeseburger.

It gets even more interesting when these sorts of players tell others “This is how you make a bacon cheeseburger”.  Then other players start thinking about how to make improvements to the bacon cheeseburger, but if THOSE players aren’t particularly talented, things get even more distorted.  Before you know it, “bacon cheeseburger” becomes synonymous with the fourth act of a really nasty bestiality film coming out of Japan.

Of course you don’t find this out until after you have asked your date if she would like a nice bacon cheeseburger.  In front of her father, the retired sergeant of the Marines.   :roll:

–

Look, yeah?  I warned against the Allies trying to blow up a Mediterranean battleship/carrier combo.  I’m not trying to blow smoke up anyone’s ass.  It is NOT easy.  You may have played against players that used a Mediterranean carrier poorly, or maybe some key battles featured bad dice for the Axis so you had an easy time.  But normally, it is such a gigantic pain to slay a well-planned Axis Med fleet that the Allies shouldn’t even try.

@Hobbes:

@Bunnies:

If Germany has a battleship and loaded carrier in the Mediterranean, the Allies can’t afford to destroy the fleet.

Why not?

… if the Suez is closed it becomes trapped

(examines paw casually)

I would never play with that rule.  It has mind-boggling possibilities for abuse, a basic “f*ck you” to the Axis.

The remaining land units of the surrendering country are given to allied countries, the other half are given to the enemy countries.

I have no idea what you mean by “other half”.

Suppose Germany has a destroyer northwest of Norway, and 3 infantry on Norway itself, at the end of the first German turn.

Now suppose UK attacks the destroyer with a fighter, and attempts to land infantry and tank, plus sends fighter and bomber to hit Norway itself.

So the combats are UK fighter and loaded transport vs German destroyer

Then

UK infantry, tank, fighter, and bomber vs 3 German infantry.

My understanding is -

IF the destroyer destroys the fighter, the transport can retreat.  UK must then conduct one round of combat with fighter and bomber (only!) attacking the three infantry on Norway.

The UK infantry and tank do NOT die, but they cannot be unloaded during noncombat.  They will stay on the UK transport; UK can unload them on UK’s next combat or noncombat move.

There’s a ton of ways to get UK2 / US2 attacks of minimum 2 fighter 1 bomber into the Mediterranean, which have a good chance of wiping battleship/destroyer.  Sure, a destroyer will scare off players that are extremely risk-averse, but it isn’t enough for good odds.

German AC and/or transport can be purchased on G1 or G2.  That makes Africa very interesting, but it retards Germany’s progress in Europe.

–Allied Counterplay–

If Germany hits Anglo-Egypt on G1, UK can send London bomber and Indian Ocean fighter, with Russian fighter from Caucasus finishing German transport if both wipe.

US can build tanks and and a transport on US1 to retake Africa quickly starting US2, or even sack the two US transports to land on US1.

If Germany has a battleship and loaded carrier in the Mediterranean, the Allies can’t afford to destroy the fleet.

You won’t see Germany breaking West Russia on G1 in any Low Luck game in which Russia doesn’t completely suck balls.

It’s a real threat in a dice game even with a good Russia, though.

US either has to build an Atlantic fleet or a Pacific fleet.  Building an IC in Sinkiang then feeding it just slows US naval progression, which means delay in US’s ability to seriously project power in either east or west.

Generally Allied Asian ICs last a little while, delaying Japan’s advance, then Japan grabs them, then Japan takes advantage of the IC to gain a boost in momentum.

So what this balances out to is Japan gets a little bit less income at first, then gets a considerable boost in momentum from capturing then being able to use an industrial complex, but US’s advance is severely slowed.

The only way to have a hope of breaking this losing equation is a combination of careful planning and moderate to good dice results.

If you’re up against a good - not just decent - Axis player, you cannot just shove units towards Sinkiang/India and pop an IC on one or both, because the Axis will absolutely make you pay.  If the Allies push protection to the ICs to slow Japan, Germany should gain in Africa and particularly Europe.

Case Blue is about the G1 break of West Russia and the subsequent economic / unit balance advantage of Germany over Russia, isn’t it?  I’d say control of Caucasus is one of incidentals of Case Blue rather than the focus.

As far as following a set pattern of movements, I do not see that as a problem.  If you are making an omelette, you will do things very much the same, with slight variations.  You will not perform outré modifications such as attempting to heat your skillet using only the body temperature of your cat’s tummy, for the simple reason that it doesn’t work.  The outline I gave is the safest method that applies maximum combined Axis pressure quickly, and I did so giving clear and simple instructions for both Germany and Japan.  A slogan, as it were, rather than an operations manual.

As far as being an “infallible move” - well, let me be clear.  I do not say “Look, here is this thing that you have never considered, a sacred beast before which you should bow down in unthinking worship”.  Of course Russia MAY be able to block this sequence of moves and prevent Germany from grabbing Caucasus.  Even in the event that Germany DOES take Caucasus on G3-4, that should still be far from ending the game.

But having played rather a lot of games recently and having observed a deplorable lack of coordination between German and Japanese forces, I am positive in saying that this series of moves is something that players should have ready in their arsenal.  Most players I’ve seen that command the Axis just sort of push tanks at Russia and hope for the best.

A couple of specific comments on Hobbes’ reply -

1.  Dice results can mean G4 control of Caucasus is questionable.  The sort of dice results I mean are NOT immediately obvious to what I call “the casual player” - for example, Russia ending R1 with three units on Ukraine and nine units on West Russia is considered “pretty normal” by a lot of players that think to themselves “a chunk of dudes on West Russia and a few on Ukraine, nothing unusual about that.”  Casual players in my experience don’t realize just how improbable it is that Russia should end the turn with that much power surviving.  This sets Russia up in turn for a much stronger second turn.  Similarly, other small battles in which Russia keeps an extra infantry after taking control of a territory, or Germany loses an extra infantry even when successfully taking control of a territory, can make a big difference.

2.  I recently played a multiplayer game in which I deliberately flew Japanese fighters to an underprotected Caucasus.  In that particular game, Russia decided to attack Caucasus, and even got a little lucky in doing so, retaking it as expected but keeping one more survivor than it would have on average.  Still, Russia ended up being so weakened that Germany reclaimed Caucasus next turn (Russia couldn’t recapture it), and along with Japan pushing from the east, the Allies ended up resigning.  What I’m getting at here is two points.  First, Germany and Japan CAN still win after the loss of a major combined force in some situations.  Second, although it can generally be costly to press a quick attack on Moscow, it can cost the Allies still more.

How To Grab Caucasus In Four Turns Or Less

Assuming roughly average dice -

On Germany’s first turn, produce at least five tanks.  (Without at least five tanks, you won’t be able to pressure Russia enough for this to work).  Don’t move into a position that will allow the bulk of your forces to be beat up easily by a Russian attack or strafe.  On Japan’s first turn, try to land as many fighters as possible on French Indochina (or at least so the fighters will have range to land on Ukraine on Japan’s second turn).  On Germany’s second turn, move everything you can into Ukraine (often using the German transport), and move air in range to threaten Caucasus.  On Japan’s second turn, fly fighters in to Ukraine; you should usually be able to get at least 4-5 in.  (The sixth Japan fighter is often used at the US Hawaiian Islands fleet on Japan’s first turn so can’t make it into range by Japan’s second turn.)

Russia can stack Caucasus, especially with Allied fighters, but doing so will inevitably leave West Russia weak.  This allows Germany to move into West Russia on Germany’s third turn combining any units from Karelia and the units from Ukraine.  This leaves Japan’s fighters on Ukraine vulnerable to a UK attack; that can be offset by leaving some German infantry there.  (But the emphasis must be on stacking West Russia).  Japan’s third turn should see all fighters land on West Russia.  From that point, Russia must retreat to Moscow or lose it to German invasion, which sets up Germany’s fourth turn invasion of Caucasus, then Japanese reinforcement.

There are rather a LOT of weird things that both Japan and Germany can do to set up variations on this theme (for example, you don’t REALLY need FIVE tanks if you end up with a second Mediterranean transport at the beginning of G2), but the basics remain the same - Ukraine to pressure West Russia and Caucasus, forcing retreat from West Russia, followed by West Russia to pressure Moscow and Caucasus, followed by control of Caucasus.

Weird things?  For example, Germany can produce 8 tanks on G1 and ignore UK control of Western Europe.  Etc. etc.

The Spring 1942 map has a few small differences to Revised, one of which is that Western Canada can no longer be reached by transports doing a single move from Japan.

You can of course house rule tech.

1.  Your subs do not “surface for surprise attack defense”.  They just don’t submerge in the first place.

2.  There is no errata/faq that I know of for Spring 1942.  In the case of the amphibious assault, apparently your opponent engaged in naval combat and failed to destroy one of your subs.  At that point, your opponent retreated because the naval battle had not yet been won.  The “presence of a sub squadron on the surface” makes no difference, as attackers can ignore subs and transports when moving into and/or amphibiously assaulting.  Specifically, your opponent was forced to conduct a naval battle before offloading transports because of the presence of a carrier, and failed to remove all defenders (removal either by destroying them or having you decide to submerge subs); it is for this reason that your opponent could not offload transports.

The rulebook is poorly worded, but here is the sum of the situation.  Suppose on the final round of combat your opponent was attacking with two fighters and a cruiser, plus say four loaded transports, and that you were defending with two subs.

The fighters would not be able to hit the subs because there was no destroyer attacking.  Suppose the subs did NOT submerge, and that the subs got two hits.  That would mean the attacker would lose the cruiser and a transport.  (Transports are only removed as casualties when no other casualties can be removed, but they DO count as casualties).

On the next possible round of combat, the attacker would have two fighters (which couldn’t hit anything) and three loaded transports, and the defender would have two subs.  The fighters wouldn’t be able to hit anything, and the subs could kill the transports.  Since continuing to the next possible round of combat would only allow the attacker’s transports to be destroyed, there would be no point in the attacker even continuing to the next possible round of combat.  So the attacker, on losing the cruiser, should immediately end combat and retreat attacking forces, and should NOT proceed to the next possible round of combat.  That is, the combat would end with the attacker having two fighters and three transports, the defender having two subs, and the attacker retreating.

If the transports came from an adjacent sea zone, retreating is clear enough.  The transports cannot unload because the only units that can move in noncombat that had also moved in combat are air, and transports and their carried units are naval/ground, so do not qualify.  So the transports move to an adjacent sea zone carrying cargo.

–

In case Krieghund comes in on this, here’s a question - what happens if the attacker couldn’t retreat to a legal adjacent sea zone?   That is, suppose UK built a cruiser and two transports in the sea zone between London and Paris on UK’s turn.  Then suppose Germany moved some subs to that sea zone on Germany’s turn (but submerged), then UK picked up and dropped off from London to Paris.  In that case, UK attacked, but didn’t move attacking units, so then the attacker couldn’t “retreat to an adjacent sea zone that one of the attackers had come from” because the attackers didn’t move at all.  Would that mean UK could NOT retreat in such a case?

Bunnies’ KJF/counter strategy article!  (or sort of anyways - I’d do more editing on a proper article . . .)

US1 builds carrier, minimum, and probably destroyer, leaving it 20 discretionary IPCs.  If you don’t build at least a carrier, US can’t count on going anywhere useful on US2 because of a Japan air threat.  If you don’t build at least one destroyer (even considering the destroyer US starts with), you won’t be able to set up destroyer blocks.  The idea is to move to Solomon Islands on US2 to threaten Japan, Borneo, and East Indies.  This is why a transport or two extra on US1’s build is so useful; it allows a 3-transport threat to Japan, or attacks on a lot of high IPC islands.

It isn’t normally possible to set up a drop into Buryatia via Alaska with US - or at least, I should say, to do it quickly enough to help Russia.  The problem is there is no pressure against Japan’s fleet, so it can move its entire fleet plus air into range, plus US has no mobility as it’s locked to just a few sea zones to maintain the drop.  (The Solomon Islands US2 move at least threatens multiple targets).

Counter KJF - Germany sends a fighter to a Japanese carrier to stop US destroyer blocks, Japan builds subs and infantry.  Japan doesn’t try to take on the US fleet head on; it typically is setting up its counterattacks, like “oh, okay, you can HAVE Borneo and East Indies and whatever, then I’ll just kill your whole fleet and retake the islands - if I even want to bother retaking the islands instead of just crushing Moscow”  The one thing Japan should not do is to try to sit at Borneo building up defense.  Just no good.

UK1 India IC is usually icky.  Just remember this slogan - “If you build a UK India IC, be prepared to trade Moscow for Calcutta”.  I did say it MIGHT be possible to do things with the threat of a UK2 fleet (not necessarily an actual fleet, mind you), but there is no doubt that there is little point in building an India IC in the first place if it can’t be defended long enough to make a real difference in the game.  Considering the threats Germany poses against both Moscow AND LONDON, things can get nasty quick.

Australia and South Africa ICs are not worth building.  Too far from the action.

The problem with a UK Atlantic fleet is if Germany starts building air, and control of Africa.  First, if Germany locks up Karelia/Archangel with German fighters, UK will typically not be able to drop to the northern route to quickly reinforce Moscow.  (In fact, UK will have a tough time dropping to Europe at all).  Second, Germany can typically snatch control of Africa early, which cuts vital UK income early (and late).  Sure, it pulls away from Germany’s operation in Europe, but if Germany maintains control, it’s quite a bother.

A US Atlantic fleet typically solves both problems one way or the other, with US and UK potentially combining fleets.

Strategic bombing is a dicey strategy.  If you luck out, great.  If you don’t luck out, too bad.  But you really need to luck out.  With German tanks pushing for control of territory on a permanent basis, and Japanese infantry pushing from the other end, things get ugly for Moscow really fast.

Shuttling British troops through Africa leaves Russia vulnerable, plus so long as the German fleet survives in the Mediterranean, things will remain problematic for UK in Africa.

Conclusion: (Bunnies’ puts on serious academician face)

There are a lot of different flavors of KJF, each of which has its own problems if the Axis counter appropriately.  A big big problem is maintaining UK income (aka Africa).  There’s a bunch of possible Allied fixes, the easiest of which is use of UK transports in the Indian/Pacific to grab control of high IPC Jap islands.

–

P.S.  I almost always send Jap fighters to Europe, even against a KJF.  If the fighters die, Germany should be in such a great position because of the added Russian casualties needed to kill the Jap fighters that Germany will be able to heavily pressure Moscow.  If the fighters don’t die, Japan can retreat them after Germany has established a strong position at Caucasus.

In fact, (Bunnies gets all teary eyed reminiscing about games past and starts speaking in old crochety rabbit voice) in my last multiplayer game, I sent four Jap fighters to Caucasus, figuring they would die, but would account for about seven additional Russian infantry OR would allow Germany to keep Cauacasus (allowing Russia to establish a better economic position at Archangel).  It turned out Russia killed all the Jap fighters; Russia even got a little lucky and kept one more unit than projected.  Germany then smashed the Russians at Caucasus (Russia didn’t have enough to retake it, in part because Japan industrial bombed Russia) and moved a bunch of tanks up to Ukraine.  In the meantime, Japan had been kept mostly to its starting territories thanks to Allied pressure, plus US had a large fleet at Western US (it had just built it), but with a J1 2 IC build, Japan was about to send a chunk of tanks plus infantry off its islands to start grabbing territory in Asia.  The game progressed with moderate pressure from Japan from the east (pure tank builds coming out of the ICs) and plenty of German pressure on the west.  Allies ended up resigning.  They could start grabbing islands, but Germany would certainly crack Moscow and be along in plenty of time to maintain Japan’s territories on the coast, plus Japan’s main fleet was still intact.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

How about the situation where your 9 attacking bombers do half the hits of the 6 defending fighters……I just used/stumbled into this ploy Med fleet attack Sz2 from Sz13 and the bomber push from India.  I really wonder about the random number generator in this game.  Yeah well all have heard people blaming the dice and half of us have, myself more than once!  But rolling 6 sixes out of 9 dice with the bombers whereas the defender hits all 6 times…  Same game I attacked a lone tank with 3 infantry and a fighter.  I miss he hits, I miss he hits, I miss he hits.  Same game on G1 my Egypt round one consisted of missing with  a tank, fighter, 2 infantry and and artillery and of course the defender hits 2 out of 3.  I probably should have continued the attack but at the point I figured I should concentrate on Europe.  What would you have done Bunnies?

I’ve lost 5 out of 6 air to AA gun fire in a single round in real life.  When you have a lot of battles, you should EXPECT weird dice to come up for a few of them.

In the case of a G1 attack gone bad in Egypt, you have two options.  Keep going with moderately poor odds or take casualties on the infantry and artillery from Southern Europe and retreat the rest of your units to Libya.  Which is best depends on what’s going on in other parts of the board.

For example, when doing a West Russia/Ukraine attack with Russia, the West Russia battle should ALWAYS be done FIRST, because decisions about what to do in Ukraine may hinge on results of West Russia.  Having seven ground units surviving at West Russia makes for a completely different potential game to having ten ground units surviving at West Russia.

As Axis, I’ve used a Jap fleet in the Mediterranean as part of a successful campaign to push the Allies out of Africa.  On the other hand, as Allies, I’ve taken control of Africa and locked the Jap fleet in the Mediterranean where I could destroy it at my leisure.

Different situations lead to particular strategies working, or not working.

@jiman79:

I was hoping that Hobbes with his KJF analysis, could come with a suggestion on what to do (or not to do).
Is an India IC in general poor play?
Is it possible to wait one round - maybe buying air UK1 and still establish the IC?
Should an India IC be used to build up a UK navy in the Indian Ocean to join with a US Pacific Fleet?
Or should the IC produce ground units and try to push Japan of the Asian mainland, along with UK air from London?
Which UK1 attacks supports this strategy the best (Egypt or FIC, Bury stack etc.)?
How should the US build up a strong pacific navy fast enough to come to aid?

India IC in general is poor play; it must first be protected against Japan, then after Moscow has fallen, against Germany.  Waiting a round for a UK India IC usually serves little good purpose.  I think there may be lines in which a UK1 India IC may be useful with careful play, but I am not at all convinced.  Players will think about the immediate situation at India, but complications like a German Baltic transport buy threatening invasion of London also need to be considered.

The UK1 India IC is useful as it contains multiple threats, one of which is the unified UK2 fleet at India sea zone.  But UK should not put itself into a lockstep mentality where it is determined to build a UK2 fleet regardless of the Japanese move.  If the opportunity presents itself, UK should switch to a ground push fueled by the India IC.

Which attacks complement a UK1 India IC depend on the situation.  Sometimes it is best to hit Egypt, sometimes best to hit FIC, sometimes it is best to have a Buryatia stack.

The US needs at least one carrier on US1; any less slashes US’s ability to project power early.  The rest is discretionary.  Subs, destroyers, and transports each have a particular role to play (when I write this I am not thinking of generalities either; a player should not just start randomly buying a mix of units; a player should think about early attacks on the Japanese fleet, defense against Japanese air attack, and threatening invasion of high IPC islands and Japan itself, as well as the 9 VC win condition), as well as the ability of destroyers to block enemy fleet movement (Germany should send a fighter to the Japs if it looks like there’s a KJF in progress for this very reason).

On US2 and US3, US should buy a mix of carriers, fighters, subs, destroyers, and transports.  A carrier a turn is very useful because it lets new fighters be placed closer to Japan, which seriously increases US’s ability to project power.

The typical US threat involves moving the US1 fleet to Solomon Islands, from which it threatens Borneo, East Indies, Phillipines, and Japan.  This is why US1 transports can be particularly useful; they set up a wider US3 threat.  From there, US just keeps cramming more power in Japan’s direction.  It’s not too difficult to push Japan’s fleet into the Indian Ocean area.

What happens next, though, is questionable.  I think if UK built an India IC that UK has to end up controlling the Pacific Island income to compensate for Africa and to allow UK to project power to the region through another IC.  If UK built an Atlantic fleet, US may try to funnel reinforcements from the Alaska-Buryatia route.

I just wrote a series of articles in which, among other things, I mention how to handle the aforementioned problem of infinite recursion.

I am Such a Genieus.   :wink:

Maybe if Posters put up a lot of Demand for my Articles, there will be More Of Them.  :-D

(I submitted the article series a couple weeks ago, I think - they may be released sometime in the next couple months)

In chess, some moves, such as castling, capturing en passant, and moving pawns forward two squares instead of one, are fairly recent innovations.

In the game of Go, komi is now almost universally accepted, though it did not start to become standardized until around eighty years ago.

When the rules change, new lines of thought are necessary to find the best lines of play.

–

But even when the rules do not change, the perception of what the “best line of play” is still changes.

The rules of chess haven’t changed for about five hundred years.  But the popularity of the King’s Gambit has waxed and waned over time.  A few hundred years ago, it was thought of as one of White’s better options, sacrificing a single pawn to give White a lot of early tempo and attack openings.  Later, though, more extensive analyses showed Black to be able to defend its position with accurate play, but also that Black would often have to give up a pawn in return, balancing the material.

What was once considered a flashy but still powerful and dangerous attack is now simply one of a series of openings/systems (such as the Ruy Lopez/Spanish game, the Stonewall Attack, etc. etc.) that high level players must be prepared to face.

–

Using the King’s Gambit against high level players will probably not result in any particular advantage.  In fact, if the player using the King’s Gambit has not studied the analyses thoroughly, it could very well be that the opponent will have the advantage.

But a player that has studied the King’s Gambit can do quite well with it against low to intermediate level players that have not studied the King’s Gambit.

–

The King’s Gambit sums up how I currently feel about KJF, and a lot of other lines of play in Axis and Allies.  It’s less about “right” and “wrong” than it is about having a wide arsenal of strategies and tactics that can potentially see an opponent unprepared.

If you’re a intermediate chess player that has thoroughly studied and prepared for the Ruy Lopez, you could still be caught off guard by the Sicilian Defense.

Advanced chess players study the Ruy Lopez, the Sicilian Defense, the Caro-Kann, and all sorts of other openings, so they don’t get caught unprepared.

@Hobbes:

My last game the Allied player tried to pull it off, since G didn’t attack Egypt on G1. UK with 1 AC, 1 CA, 1 DD and 2 FTRs. I attacked it on J1 with 1 AC, 1 BB and 4 FTRs and still did the Pearl attack and China.

That isn’t like the setup I had in mind at all.  UK shouldn’t leave a fleet in range of a J1 attack, particularly the Japanese battleship, for precisely the reason that you described.

1.  My opinion is that it isn’t so much that KGF is more promising than KJF.  It’s that there’s more documentation and practice on how to go KGF than KJF, especially for later rounds of play, so players tend to favor KGF.

2.  There’s a novelty value in some strategies.  The novelty factor appeals to players that don’t want to do the same KGF plan they’ve used for the past few games.  The value factor comes from opponents that do not respond appropriately to the novel strategy.

3.  It isn’t so much a matter of KGF being more or less difficult that determine whether KJF is viable or not.  I think there are certain key factors that determine whether or not KJF is feasible.

One key in my opinion is Africa.  Germany’s in ideal position to attack Africa with a quick offload from Southern Europe.  The earlier and more Germany puts in Africa, the more the Allies will need to counter; if the Allies don’t counter, Germany maintains a high income while UK’s income is slashed.

There’s a huge bag of tricks the Allies can use in Africa/India, most of which I have not seen in serious play or discussed recently.

4.  The real decision on KJF is made on US1 unit placement phase, no earlier.  Sure, there are indicators of whether KGF or KJF is favored in earlier rounds, but it comes down to in the end where US decides to place its US1 buy.

–

I mentioned earlier (maybe another thread) that I think there’s two ways to go KJF.

1.  UK India fleet.  Optimistically, the Jap fleet is forced into battle or at least is completely locked out of the Pacific very quickly.  Russia collapses like a house of cards.  The Allies take control of all the island income from Japan.  US can maintain a flow of infantry into Soviet Far East and Buryatia from Alaska.  Once Moscow falls, Germany has a huge invasion threat against London that must be guarded against.  Otherwise, Germany takes control of the Suez Canal and tries to unify with the Japanese fleet to start pushing the Allies out of the Pacific, also trying to push the Allies off the Asian coast to regain Japan’s income, while surviving Russians ally with UK/US forces in the area.

2.  UK reinforcement to Europe.  Russia is used to keep control of Africa out of German hands.  Germans take control of Caucasus around G3-4, reinforced by Japanese fighters, while UK starts dropping reinforcements to Archangel/Karelia.

I don’t consider 6 infantry on Buryatia to mean much unless there’s a fighter there as well.

Japan can send 3 inf 1 tank 3 fighter 1 battleship bombard there while still having 5 infantry 2 fighter for China and 1 sub 1 cruiser 1 fighter 1 bomber for the US Hawaiian Islands fleet.

UK may have taken preventative measures by attacking French Indochina, but that has its own set of drawbacks for the Allies, as do various moves Russia and UK may make in the India-Africa region.