Posts made by newpaintbrush

@Novosibirsk:

Anyways, the Allies can consolidate to the sea zone southwest of UK

Just thinking out of the box, but if they consolidate where you are saying, doesn’t that give the opportunity to consolidate the german fleet on the second turn? Right in front of WE? Isn’t this the goal of every German player to get his fleet together as early as possible to throw it at the Allied fleet. If you can get the fleet together, and attack the allied fleet early enough, it can set the UK back three turns and/or take them right out of the European Campaign. Makes sense. Any US fleet that is over there consists of two trannies and a DD. That would get swallowed up.

This whole post had an underlying meaning that I wanted us to sort of stumble on. If the Allied fleet does not consolidate off the coast of Algeria, then it opens the door for a consolidated German fleet on G2. Almost everytime I have managed to consolidate the fleet, It always gives the allies a hard time in the European waters. Without a European allied fleet, Germany Is free to focus on Russia. So the next question for you all would be, how does Germany deter the allies from blocking Algerian waters? Or better yet, what can Germany do to consolidate it’s fleet as early as possible?

(its) fleet.

Germany can play with an African bid and send its Med fleet west.  Why do you need an African bid?  I’ve explained it before a few times; I ought to put up a website or something with the explanation.

1.  The German battleship and transport must move together.  The transport is an extra hit that has to be taken down, so it protects the battleship.  The battleship obviously escorts the transport.

2.  The transport should be used to take Gibraltar.  If this is not done, the Allies can attack from London with 2 fighters 1 bomber to sink the Med fleet.

3.  You must take Anglo-Egypt.  If you do not, UK can use that fighter to reinforce the UK Pacific fleet, and the ground units to reinforce Africa - alternatively, they can consolidate to Africa, move the Indian fleet into the Mediterranean, retreat the Mediterranean destroyer to the Indian Ocean to make a serious fleet, all sorts of nasty stuff.

4.  If the Med fleet goes west, you MUST have African units.  Assuming Ukraine is taken, all you can attack Anglo-Egypt with will be 1 infantry, 1 tank, 1 fighter, and 1 bomber against 1 infantry, 1 tank, and 1 fighter.  That is horribly risky for the Germans, and there is a good chance that Germany will be forced to choose between keeping a fighter and keeping a tank to take Anglo-Egypt - and that’s the “GOOD” scenario for Germany; the bad scenario is that the attack fails and Germany loses air.  Regardless, UK takes back Anglo-Egypt next turn.  So it’s really not “good” scenario or “bad” scenario depending on luck.  It’s more like “extremely bad” and “total disaster”.  What Germany can do to help is have an extra infantry and artillery or tank that can hit Anglo-Egypt.  Now Germany can take Anglo-Egypt comfortably; even if UK takes back (still likely), Germany will almost certainly not be at risk of losing air.

–

If you consolidate off France with the German fleet, I build up air and light navy to counter.  Now the Germans have to reinforce their navy; if they stay where they are, the Allies pull two attacks; one hit and run, and one killing attack that destroys the German navy.  If the Germans attack the Allied navy, any surviving German navy will be destroyed by Allied air.

So there are five or six choices for Germany; the main ideas are that Germany must reinforce or retreat.

1.  W. Europe IC for instant reinforcement of Germany’s navy.  Allows Germany to mostly empty W. Europe of ground to be used on the eastern front.  However, Germany is racing the UK and the US for navy while fighting off the Russians.  Very difficult.

2.  Germany builds reinforcement in Baltic.  Probably impossible because if the German main fleet is at W. Europe, any Baltic build can be instantly be destroyed by UK and/or US air.

3.  Germany builds reinforcement at Southern Europe.  Impractical because it takes two turns to reach W. Europe.

4.  Germany retreats to Baltic.  Allies set up transport chain from East Canada to Algeria.  (ground units are produced at Eastern US and moved to Eastern Canada next turn.  On the turn after that, US transports pick up the East Canada units and move them to Algeria.  Once this starts going, it keeps going).  Now Germany is faced with hit and runs in Western and Southern Europe.  (Both Western and Southern Europe have to be protected.  If a medium amount of forces are used, that is a LOT less on the eastern front.  If only a few infantry hold the country, the UK and US can take both territories and keep trading with Germany.

5.  Germany retreats to the Mediterranean.  The Germans will probably control Africa for most of the rest of the game, but now the Allies go for the Norway / Archangel / Karelia / Eastern Europe attack.  If Moscow is being pressured, the Allies can transport masses of infantry to Archangel that can reach Moscow on the next turn.  If Moscow is not being immediately pressured, the Allies can take Norway, then start transporting in mass ground units to hold Karelia, Eastern Europe, etc.  The Allies will probably have to pull back to Norway at some point, but a massive force in northern Europe is something that Germany will have to deal with.

Naval consolidation is a good move if you can do it with Germany, but it’s hard to stop the Allied counter.

@Jennifer:

How do you plan to invade England when they have 2 fighters, 2, armor, 2 infantry, 1 artillery and 2 bombers + 2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 bomber, 1 artillery, 1 armor from America on it?

Keep in mind you have maybe 6 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 transports and 1 battleship to use on Germany 2 and that’s making some assumptions that you did not loose any of those assets prior to your second turn and that you landed all those aircraft in France somehow knowing that England was going to buy a bomber and an IC instead of something else.

How is it that every time I propose a move, that the Allies mysteriously pop up with these shadow forces in the ideal place?  That’s why I really dislike Jennifer’s responses.  Somehow the Allies always watched to see what Germany would do, and did something that would otherwise be almost retarded to counter Germany’s response.  But in that case, Germany can just have done the other thing.

Why don’t I say that with Germany, I just bought three transports?  So RLY, I am running five infantry five tanks five fighters and a bomber plus battleship support shot against an antiaircraft gun, two bombers, four infantry, three tanks, and three fighters.

Or maybe I just moved the Baltic fleet and Mediterranean fleets west, and the UK didn’t blow up the Baltic fleet, and I landed all air at W. Europe, so I smash the Allied reinforcements of London.

–

The simple fact is, Squash is playing with bloodthirsty maniacs.  One bomber and a IC, maybe UK is going for a high-risk KJF strat.  But TWO ICs?  I’m betting the Allies are leaving London open.

@Jennifer:

I’d also say you need 2 ICs, FIC/India or FIC/Manch. I’m torn on which setup is best.

I doubt that you need 2 ICs at all.  But if you MUST go 2 ICs, India is the clear winner over Manchuria.  You can get units to Manchuria every turn with Japanese transports.  But you cannot move units to India every turn with Japanese transports unless you set up an expensive transport chain.

@Wrongway:

I am running A&A revised at a convention this weekend. 4 hour time slot (I know, I know )
I want to use special victory conditions, 9 cites total or 1 Ally capital falls, same with the Axis.

I want to give out national advantages to each nation, possibly even more than one to speed the game up.

Any suggestions?

I know I want to give the US mechanized infantry… because that really helps them get into Africa quick.
Other than that. I dont know.

Bear in mind, I want ones that are going to speed up the game.

Not bog it down, so Germany’s Atlantic wall is a no-no.

Just say “I want a quick Allied slaughter of the Axis”, not “I want to speed up the game”.  It’s more accurate.

@ncscswitch:

You just don;t need that many TRNs

I disagree.

Additional transports let you pad the Japanese navy against US attack, and let you attack targets like Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and India with the infantry from the southeast Pacific islands.  Additional transports also let you threaten a larger Alaska or West Canada attack.

I mentioned six transports, but I consider that the minimum; I actually hit seven transports in most games, and have played up to nine transports in a long game.

“May not sound like much, but in a hard fought game against a skilled opponent, a single INF in the right place at the right time (like an extra INF in the front wall of the Japan attack that you get with the IC), you are able to take territory stornger and faster, and do more damage to your opponent with less loses of your own forces.  And extra INF to Asia by Japan early has a cumulative benefit over several turns.”

This is exactly why I advocated the use of Japanese infantry/tanks rather than infantry/artillery in that other thread - tanks have the mobility to hit the right place at the right time.  Transports can also be used to give infantry greater effective range.

(edit) - fixed typo (/edit)

@Caleb3285:

A second German sub in the Atlantic does pose a problem to the Allied fleet, but I would rather let that German sub do its business against the US and UK, and keep the Russian fighter to trade territories with Germany, than to attack the German sub and lose a Russian fighter to the German counterattack.

sorry to interrupt this thread with a noob question, but I thought subs could only attack other sea vessels, are you saying that it gets a counterattack against an attacking fighter?

That was “counterattack”.  It’s probably in reference to USSR using its fighters against German navy on USSR1 before Germany can go, then having to land one of those fighters in Karelia.  Germany can crush Karelia on its first turn regardless of what the Allies do.  So the USSR doesn’t lose the fighter on the USSR turn; USSR loses the fighter on the German turn when the Germans take the terrritory that the USSR fighter landed in.

I would almost never build an industrial complex at East Indies.  It gives you more speed and flexibility in any attack on India, but I think that infantry bolstered by tanks can serve just as well (allowing an attack focus to be changed from Yakut to China to India), while requiring less IPCs spent on ICs and transports.

If the Allies are attacking heavily, I can see that an IC at East Indies could serve the same role as the W. Europe IC.  (But I don’t like the W. Europe IC either!)  :-P

I’ve been playing with an IC build on J1 with a bid of 9 (8 to the Germans, 1 leftover to Japan), and I think that I am going to stop the IC builds in favor of massed transports, infantry, tanks, and fighters to fill out Japan’s IPC bill.  You need two dedicated transports to empty the isolated islands, four more to transport constantly from Japan, plus spare fighters to fend off an Allied attack in later rounds; early game, that’s 5 transports to build (assume one dies first turn), so probably build of:

J1:  3 transports, 1 artillery, save 2 IPC
J2:  Depending on situation, Japan may be at 32 IPC, buy 2 more transports, 2 artillery, 1 infantry, 1 tank (or thereabouts).
J3:  Switch to infantry/tanks plus occasional fighter, depending on Allied strategy.

If the Allies let me take India securely, I WILL build an IC there, spending the IPCs that I’d been saving towards future fighters, but I frankly feel that a French Indochina  IC is not that effective (as you can put 8 units there every other turn with four transports from Japan).

If the Allies beef up in India, I’ll focus on producing infantry and tanks at Japan and save up some extra IPCs for fighters in later turns.  Saving is usually a terrible idea, and I think that it may STILL be a terrible idea in this case.  The THEORY is that Japan needs to mobilize ground troops as quickly as possible, and does not need fighters until the US starts to approach Japan and the 3-4 IPC islands, so Japan maximizes its pressure on Russia while maximizing defensive potential with a quick fighter (and probably sub) build.  Whether it works in PRACTICE or not is something I’ll have to wait for my next couple of games to show.

@ncscswitch:

I am not going to post full blown counters here.

I would rather “shock and awe” someone trying this against me :-)

I always tell my opponents exactly what I’m thinking of doing (including branch possibilities and contingency plans) if they ask.  I even volunteer information if I think I have the advantage.

(exception:  tournaments and ladder games, but I will go into anything at length after the game is over)

@Jennifer:

Paint:

You knew that 1 transport would be at New Guinea because it had to move there to invade.

You knew that 1 transport would be at Borneo because it had to move there to invade.

I also stated that the SZ 59 transport was attacked by an Aircraft Carrier and Destroyer, so you knew they would be there.

Also stated was that Solomons was attacked with a fighter and a submarine (fighter lands on US Carrier) so you knew where that was.

So yes, I submit you knew the placement of all naval forces already.  Since America’s is static and has no chance to move.  However, it might have taken some deductive reasoning because I did not specifically state the actual location of each ship because I expected responders to figure it out based on the information provided.

Sorry, whether you submit it or not, I had no idea.  I STILL don’t know where that UK bomber is supposed to have ended up, and that is crucial to the Japanese response.

Deductive reasoning?  You initially posted a somewhat vague picture of what the Allied navy and air force looked like; I responded with some scenarios stating that a detailed analysis was not really possible without a better picture (well, I can’t give one anyways, see below).  Your LATER post mentioned that the Hawaii fleet had two fighters and a carrier; I responded asking about the UK fighter position in relation to the first post - even though you’d posted a reply mentioning two fighters, sub, and a carrier at Pearl, there was NO WAY to tell that from your INITIAL post, or would you debate that?

If I ask a question of someone, I am going to provide all the information I can to help that person better help me.  It is POSSIBLE that I could draw up six or seven major contingency plans based on different Allied responses given the unfortunately limited information (STILL) available, but why would I go to the trouble of writing a lengthy but vague article for four hours because someone couldn’t be troubled to take fifteen minutes to post the minutae of the anticipated board position?  I just don’t see myself taking the trouble.

(edit) I really DO NOT know the board position, and I really DO NOT think that I can make any kind of informative post without more information.  I’ve wasted time like that before; I don’t like wasting time.  EVEN for hawt models.  Lol srsly?  Ya rly! (/edit)

@squirecam:

@ncscswitch:

For a real version of teh German effect of Russia not taking Ukraine on R1, check out the Tournament Consolation game.  Russia ONLY took West Russia on R1.

…

But otherwise, Russia has only 14 INF on the board, plus 3 ARM and 4 FIGs.

Dude, USSR bought TWO FIGHTERS. Bad move.

I would not use this game as an example at all……

Squirecam

2 Russian fighters?

lol srsly?

If you put a stack in Algeria, you undermined your Africa campaign anyways.

Anyways, the Allies can consolidate to the sea zone southwest of UK, then take Norway on US2, and set up containment of Germany through Norway/Karelia/Eastern Europe, or feeding units into Moscow through Archangel.

If you play with a bid, you can put units in Libya to threaten Anglo-Egypt with 3-4 ground units and air, while your Atlantic sub and Mediterranean fleet unite off Gibraltar; the Med fleet and fighters at Western Europe and fighter(s) and bomber landing in Libya make any Allied attack on Algieria very costly.

REAL consolidation is not great, because Japanese transports should be moving units to French Indochina, and also pulling infantry off the isolated islands (they can’t do both).

I’ll usually run around with two little fleets, and consolidate if the Allies get close.  One fleet will typically have two battleships for two support shots, but it can easily change to a split of battleships  between western and eastern navies.  It’s sort of like consolidation because they can usually unite in a single turn of movement, but it’s not REAL consolidation (the whole navy doesn’t go from point to point together).

@Valendez:

Personally, I’ve never played with bids, and every time the Axis give a pretty good fight, and have won many times. The times i’ve played w/ my friends, it’s been about 50/50 between Allies and Axis victories. I thought that with bids, the only difference that would happen would be in the german/russian front. It had never occured to be to get 3Trannies + an IC. I just’ hadn’t thought of it.

Does anyone else place any other use to the axis with the bid other than a) units in ukraine, b) unit(s) in Libya c) units in WRussia d) 1ipc Japan… ?

Well, depends on the rules.  There’s the famous “I’m gonna pop a transport in the Baltic, go for Long Range Aircraft, and sack London on the first turn WITHOUT losing my entire airforce ho ho!”  Then there’s the less famous “I’m gonna pop a transport in the Mediterranean so I can threaten a rush on the Caucasus, and move infantry from S. Europe to the front instantly with a battleship support shot”.  Or the German sub in the Atlantic, Japanese infantry at French Indochina, etc. etc.

@General_D.Fox:

Is there anything anyone might do differently during a game if they don’t play with bids? My friends and I don’t play with it, and things turn out pretty well sometimes.  Would you approach the way you play a game differently if you had no bid? I know that would mean taking Egypt would be slightly harder, but what else or how else would you come at it?

I will use my Secret Techniques if I am playing Axis in a game without bids.

Secret Technique Number One!  Free beer!

Secret Technique Number Two!  Rent a movie the other players haven’t seen yet and play it during the game!

Secret Technique Number Three!  Bribe the hot girl across the street to undress in sight of a window that players can look through during the game!

Secret Technique Number Four!  Free food!  (Players think less efficiently on a full stomach.)

Secret Technique Number Five!  If doom is imminent, summon a Cat of Instant Destruction with a well-placed tank miniature that has been hollowed out and filled with catnip!

There are more Secret Techniques that I use, but they are Really Secret.  Also, very shameful.

–

Or I might go for high-risk maneuvers if out of the box rules are being used.  Long range aircraft for invasion of London first turn!  Rocket research for Germany!  Three transports in the Baltic first turn!  Two Mediterranean transports first turn!  Tank dash to Moscow!  etc. etc. etc., I have a lot of 'em.

@Jennifer:

@newpaintbrush:

1.  If the Allies positioned their fleets poorly, Japan navy kills the entire UK navy and air in the Indian Ocean, while Japanese air and ground attack China and Burytia, with extremely high probability of taking both with at least two-four infantry surviving in both.  Assuming all allied air is out of position to attack French Indochina, one infantry remains at French Indochina to force Allied attack of at least two infantry or commitment of USSR tank (either quite acceptable).  Japan builds three transports west of Japan with Japanese battleship escort to prevent probable UK bomber or US long range aircraft attack.  In future rounds, Japan builds one or two transports, a few infantry, and fighters.

What forces do you plan to use to do this?  You have to overcome 6 Infantry in Buryatia, 2 Infantry and a Fighter in China.  You have 1 Transport, 1 Battleship in range to assist in Buryatia.  You have 7 infantry, 2 fighters on the mainland, of which only 2 of those infantry can actually reach Buryatia.

Actual Numbers:

Japan can attack with 3 Infantry, 1 Armor, 4 Fighters, 1 Battleship and 1 Bomber vs 6 Infantry on Buryatia. 1 Infantry of the stack surviving, plus the rest of the equipment.

That leaves 5 Infantry, 2 Fighters that can reach China. 3 Infantry, 2 Fighters survive, on average.

That leaves no airpower nor any battleships to attack Pearl.  Resulting in a MASSIVE gain for the Allies be saving 2 fighters, 1 aircraft carrier and 1 submarine there. (Unless you plan to attack it with 1 destroyer only, the only other naval vessel in range not being used elsewhere needs to move to SZ 60 to retrieve a fighter, presumably???)

So what’s the situation?  You have wasted 100% of your attack resources in plundering 3 IPCs in land value you normally would have gotten anyway but you are down 5 IPCs to England, the American fleet is unscathed, the British fleet is in position to sting more islands on UK2 with forces they never expected to have around anyway, and if they loose, so what?

There are other possibilities depending on the Allied move.

2.  Take India immediately.

3.  Do Pearl Harbor, plus three transports and battleship EAST of Japan at end of unit placement, going for immediate defense of Asia.  USSR has to pull out of Burytia on USSR 2, or commit tanks and/or fighters to counterattack Japan’s forces which will give Germany a far easier time in the west.

–

It is almost certain that Japan can do AT LEAST one of these.  The first option is attack-oriented, the second is stall-oriented, the third is defense-oriented.

The last two make more sense.  It doesn’t over extend you.  But I’d actually say sink the british fleet.  As I said, if you leave those transports alone, what’s to stop England from trying for Philippines, East Indies and/or Okinawa?  Or even taking all those units and taking India and or FIC back?

Let me clarify.

I did mention that the first option was ATTACK oriented.  The UK and US can run around in the Pacific, but it takes them a while to build up enough to really chase off the Japanese fleet, and the game plan is that by the time that happens, Moscow falls.  It is not a matter of overextension.  The fact is, if the Allies spent 15 IPC on an IC in India, and lost eight infantry and a fighter first turn, as well as the UK Pacific fleet, the Allied forces in Asia and Africa are going to be in poor position.  To be clear, at that point Japan is not worried about DEFENDING the Japanese islands.  Japan is thinking about exploiting (ATTACKING) the overextended ground unit placement in Asia to make a quick and powerful attack on Moscow, supported by the Germans.  Given the right Allied placement (or wrong, depending on your viewpoint), Japan and Germany combined can almost CERTAINLY take Moscow in such a game.

As for the other two making sense - they ALL make sense, given the situation.  But again, if I don’t know what is going on in the game, I can hardly be expected to give solid advice, can I?

@Jennifer:

You have all the information on allied fleet positions.

No, I did not.

Sometimes I make a mistake and ask for information that was already provided, but not in this case.  If you review earlier posts, you will note that the Allied fleet positions were NOT NOTED.  The only thing I had to work with was

"I been thinking, if you can take Borneo and New Guinea then put an IC in India you might have a real threat to Japan.  "

which doesn’t give any but extremely vague guidelines.  Did the UK use a fighter to attack an island, or was it used to strafe the Jap sub at Solomons?  (That is entirely open to interpretation, and I have seen both variations played out.)  If the UK had used the fighter to attack an island, and the fighter survived, the UK AC would have to be positioned so the fighter could land, so could NOT be used in the attack on the Japanese transport at Kwangtung.

Please do not assume I know what you plan on doing, because I do not.

A bomber and an IC for UK?

lol srsly?

INVADE LONDON!

–

Strat bombing is, I think, a bad idea for the Germans.  The way you are probably thinking of it is -

“5/6 of the time, I made a GOOD move with that bomber; I’ll beat up the UK without it costing me a thing!  Maybe I’ll lose 1/6 of the time, so what?”

The way I think of it is -

“1/6 of the time, I made a horrible error that will probably cost me in the range of 15-48 IPC in lost opportunity attacks over the course of the game, which will probably mean that I will lose. 5/6 of the time, I made a little ding in the UK income, forcing the UK to build infantry instead of tanks, which is not going to make a real significant difference in the UK plans.  100% of the time, I could have hit something else with more force, like the crucial Anglo-Egypt battle, or even have, along with fighters, attacked a crucial target like an overextended Atlantic fleet or West Russia which would win the game for Germany.”

German air is incredibly important because you need it to trade territories with USSR and to help protect against the Allied fleet and to help in Africa.  There are ALWAYS going to be better targets for the German bomber than a UK IC first turn (probably Anglo-Egypt).  I don’t think I would even hit a Russian IC with a German bomber because German air is so important; I really don’t want to take that 1 in 6 chance of losing that precious German bomber.

If I’m feeling reckless, and am playing a “Crush the Caucasus” attack, I might try running German and Japanese bombers into Moscow each turn.

@Jennifer:

I been thinking, if you can take Borneo and New Guinea then put an IC in India you might have a real threat to Japan.  This would require you to move an armor from Caucasus to protect India until extra infantry can be brought in.  But it’s going to put Japan in a real hotseat.

2 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 AA, 1 IC in India
2 Infantry USSR, 1 Infantry UK in Persia
2 Infantry, 1 Fighter in China
6 Infantry in Buryatia SSR (2 in Yakut, 6 in Sinkiang - American IC to be constructed)

As Japan what do you do?

This tells nothing of the vital positioning of the Allied navies and air forces at the start of Japan’s turn.

I feel that this question is akin to asking “You are playing rock, paper, and scissors, and you know in advance what your opponent will play.  What will you pick?”  The correct answer depends on knowledge of information that is not provided in the question; information that you are supposed to already have.

I’ll do my best to answer this question, but the usefulness of my reply is necessarily limited because of the limited information available.

1.  If the Allies positioned their fleets poorly, Japan navy kills the entire UK navy and air in the Indian Ocean, while Japanese air and ground attack China and Burytia, with extremely high probability of taking both with at least two-four infantry surviving in both.  Assuming all allied air is out of position to attack French Indochina, one infantry remains at French Indochina to force Allied attack of at least two infantry or commitment of USSR tank (either quite acceptable).  Japan builds three transports west of Japan with Japanese battleship escort to prevent probable UK bomber or US long range aircraft attack.  In future rounds, Japan builds one or two transports, a few infantry, and fighters.

There are other possibilities depending on the Allied move.

2.  Take India immediately.

3.  Do Pearl Harbor, plus three transports and battleship EAST of Japan at end of unit placement, going for immediate defense of Asia.  USSR has to pull out of Burytia on USSR 2, or commit tanks and/or fighters to counterattack Japan’s forces which will give Germany a far easier time in the west.

–

It is almost certain that Japan can do AT LEAST one of these.  The first option is attack-oriented, the second is stall-oriented, the third is defense-oriented.

@ShadowHAwk:

Why attack their fleet at all?
Just attack their islands for IPCS and then position in a way that makes them attack you.
Get 2 BB and 3 carriers and see how they fare against that.
If they move away from their mainland you can move in and blockade them.
I dont mind them having a fleet as long as they cant transfer troops with it i dont care.

Of course, you just attack the isolated islands and build a defensive fleet . . . if Japan lets you.  The problem is Japanese fighters and subs, and the German attack.

To clarify - Japan should respond to a KJF strategy with transports, infantry, and fighters.  Transports move infantry off the isolated islands quickly, infantry are cost efficient defense in Asia, and fighters are the offensive punch in Asia that can be redirected to attack the Allied navy.  Now - Japan will often put its fighters in Asia to help out in the attack on Russia.  So if you are sailing in the eastern Pacific or close to Australia, you are fine.  But once you start getting close to vital islands (Borneo, New Guinea, Phillippines (sp?), those fighters are in range, considering that Japan has carriers, plus Japan pulls back and does a heavy sub build in the waters east of Japan where its fleet unifies.

Now, you’re talking about taking the higher IPC islands that are all a good distance from Western US.  Once you push out that far, you get into range of Japanese fighters that were built in Tokyo, very possibly subs that were built at Tokyo, additional fighters from Asia, and the bulk of the Japanese fleet.  All of Japan’s power can be concentrated immediately on the Allied fleet, and Japan has lots of transports to take as fodder, as well as two free hits on its battleships.  The Allies are not in such good position, though - if they are out in the middle of the Pacific, their reinforcements will be slow to arrive.  You can have two battleships and three loaded carriers, plus a couple assorted transports, but by that time, Japan’s navy and air force can easily be two battleships, two carriers, four transports, eight fighters, and a bomber, plus very likely a couple of subs thrown in for good measure.

So Japan beats up the Allied navy, retreats, and rebuilds, to continue stalling the Allies while Germany presses on Moscow.  That is, I think, the inevitable consequence of building a defensive Allied fleet and pushing on Japan early.

Practically, it is usually a better bet to take some islands to park fighters on, build up quickly, and stay in the waters east of Japan.  If Japan flies its fighters east, then those fighters can’t be used to pressure Russia.  If Japan doesn’t fly its fighters east, the Allies quickly functionally control the waters immediately east of Japan, forcing Japan to retreat from those waters because of fear of a US sub/fighter attack.  The mentality of the Allies there is not defense, but offense (or rather, the threat of offense).  Progress is slower but more certain and far harder to stop.  (If Japan moves east, the Allies can retreat, and force Japan to extend its lines of reinforcement, while the lines of reinforcement from Western US are shortened).

Yes, you can do the move described in the first post (move, then load, then offload).

I believe the theory behind not allowing transports to offload in two territories is the fact that deployment into significantly different areas will take time.  For example - if you have a division in Alaska, and another in Western Canada, and there are no enemies nearby, you could meet up halfway and get on a transport.  But if you are on a transport and offloading, that transport would have to sail to a different region to offload troops in any geographically significant other location.  So FUNCTIONALLY, the transport can only offload into one territory.