Posts made by Spendo02

UK has the advantage of making the purchase decisions after Germany in this situation.

Just watch for TT and where that Inf stack ends up that starts in Berlin.  Usually those are pretty solid indicators of Sea Lion or just smoke and mirrors to keep UK buying defensively early in the game.

Admittedly, G4 Sea Lion is always a possibility if Germany does a half and half purchase of TT.  Tends to be less losses that way as well.  Although to run through it again (been a while) I went to AAA and Germany got diced on the first roll on taking London.  One hit with 13 TT full of units and 8+ aircraft seemed a bit odd.

I honestly don’t see many Sea Lions these days, its a bit risky if your Russian opponent knows what to look for and how to press the advantage there.

But to answer your question, I haven’t had to deal with the Axis making a fortress out of The Rock, so this is speculative and what I’d do after seeing it once.

Russia kind of played Japan’s hand, didn’t she?

5 Inf, 1 Ftr 1 Tac defending against 3 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Ftr 1 Tac and 2 Bombers?

Still 83% in Japan’s favor.  Just may not have much left for ground units afterwards.

Seems a bit of a waste by Russia to lose 2 aircraft?

1. Scramble all UK aircraft on the G1 attack.  Sink as many ships / shoot down as many German aircraft as possible.  As this is vital to the Axis strategy of leveraging a Navy and aircraft from Gib - the less they have of them to stack up the better.

2. Suicide your Med fleet to cripple the Italian fleet.  Again, if the Italian navy / air force is giving you problems, this is your best chance to do some damage now before it all stacks up off of Gib.

3. UK2 and UK3 can consist of 3 SS placed off of Canada, plus 1 Bomber each round placed on London.  6 SS and 2 Bomber (potentially 3 depending on what you did with the one in London) is nothing to sneeze at for a navy that probably has 1 DD off of Gib, maybe 2.

4. Save as much of your remaining navy as possible (IE the DD in SZ109/106, CR in SZ91).  Position them off Canada or SZ83.  These are both places the Axis navy does not want to go to hunt you down.  The strength of the Axis is in stacking together in SZ91, and an aerial counter attack if you fail to reclaim Gib.

5. Sacrificing the starting UK TT to get 2-4 extra ground units on Gib will prove troublesome for an Axis trying to make a landing (Ger or Ita) with only a single TT.

6. Fly that French Ftr down to Gib.

7. Send the UK TT from SZ98 to Malta, snag the Inf/AA and drop them off at Gib.  You do expose any surviving aircraft from the suicide attack on the Italian navy, but I’ll chance it if it means an expensive attack on Gib.

Overall that should get you something like up to 5 ground units on Gib + AA + 1 Ftr.  Ground units depend much on what you lose to the Axis before you get to go.  Its going to take a lot more than 1 Inf/Art on a TT to dislodge them, making it expensive for the Axis to take early.

You also position yourself with somewhere around 6 SS, 2-3 Bombers, 2-3 DD and maybe a CR to strike against a SZ91 naval presence by the Axis - and thats as the UK.  No US purchase modifications necessary unless the Axis keeps spending on a Naval conflict it cannot win.

Just make sure you are able to finish off stacked Axis aircraft on Gib, or put such a severe dent in them the US doesn’t have to worry about its fleet being sunk sitting in SZ91.

Honestly, if the plan is to deny the Allies use of the NB at the rock - why not just simply SBR the NB by Italy?

US can never use the NB unless the SBR utterly fails, which accomplishes the same point of interrupting the rotation of TT to and from Europe.

In fact, the surprise factor can set the Allies back multiple rounds if you time it correctly and strand a landing force without US reinforcements in the pipeline.

The danger with the Americans is not seeing 3 turns out where you want to be.  You have to make this decision based on what you currently see, so it is like playing the stock market.

The only thing you have going for you is most of the strategies are pretty well ironed out and documented so you can make an educated guess based on Axis positioning of what is likely to occur.  And, once you get past the first 2 rounds, everything becomes fairly clear as the Axis reversing course after the second or third round is pretty much game over.

I’ve found that by far the hardest part is planning the US purchase.

The strategy in moves is pretty straight forward:  Go East or Go West.  Win the Ocean.  Keep the pressure on, don’t let there be a lull of reinforcements.

Nothing halts a German advance like Rome falling…

Buy 10 Subs and simply sink the Axis fleet and ignore the aircraft altogether?

I doubt Germany and Italy would want to leave just aircraft there once there is no fleet to protect it and initiate a scramble they won’t win.

Double bonus for convoy for Italy for remaining subs.

My friend does this often with the US in the Pacific, forcing Japan to address the fact that not having enough DD means once the IJN is cornered, its over.

Sink the ships UK1.

Comparatively, Italy loses more based on comparative income to the UK by losing the core of her navy on I1.  Its going to cost Italy multiple turns to build a smaller navy going forward compared to what the UK can build in Canada, S.Africa and later in London.

If that is not enough of a compelling reason to trade hardware, I do not know what is.

Never leave the Italian navy intact, as if they build on it the allies will need to invest further throughout the game to address the threat of a 1-2 punch of Italian navy with a German SS / Aircraft to mop up the survivors.

If you can trade starting hardware and only need to build 3 CV and 1-2 BB to support an initial landing vs needing 4 CV and 4 BB to survive a 1-2 punch… which would you choose?  I’d rather have the flexibility of spending later knowing the Italians are on their “island” for the remainder of the game and the german naval defense is a token defense, not a legitimate threat.

Sink the ships, take the card out of the Axis hand.  Its economic strategy.

Thanks for the response.

I’m fully aware this ragtag unit in S.France will not survive a G2 assault.  In fact, the allies may count on that to redirect German resources early in the game.  The question is, what does this do to impact:
A: Italian expansion in R1
B: German advance into Moscow

Do the Italians simply take Greece with those Inf/Art from N.Italy and starting units in Albania?  
Do you instead land 2 Inf and 2 Art in Syria so as to access Iraq early and put pressure on Cairo?
How does this impact the Italian income on I1, does this create problems going forward for them?

What is the impact of a G3 move to Eastern Poland devoid of 6 Armor and 4 Mech that generally arrive there?

Is that enough for Russia to prepare a sufficient counter attack with a R1 purchase of 7 Art and a R2 purchase of 6 Armor?

Assuming Germany buys 10 Armor on G2, at most that arrives on G3 is 13 Armor (3 starting from Poland, Slovac and Romania plus the 10 put in Berlin on G2).  Germany most likely has around 25 Infantry supporting those Armor and 5 Artillery.  Is Moscow in a strong position to counter attack a German advance and cut through a ton of German infantry before the full retreat / stacking of Moscow occurs?

I’m just thinking about the trade off.

Russia brings approximately:
25 Inf, 2 Mech, 10 Art (7 Purchased R1), 2 Mech, 8 Armor (6 Purchased R2), 2 Ftr and 1 Tac
Germany brings approximately
26 Inf, 5 Art, 13 Armor (10 Purchased G2) that stands in Poland on G3

The game changer is what G1 purchase was - if its naval, Germany stands to lose 65% of the time in Poland from a Russian counter.  If its 7 artillery, Russia has to play fallback with only a 20% success rate in Poland as the Artillery jumps from 5 to 12 for a defending Germany.

Sometimes the delay game by redirecting resources can play well into your favor.

What would you do as Germany (R2) / Italy (R1) with 1 Arm, 2 Inf, 1 Art and 5 Ftr + 1 Tac on S.France - blockaded by the joint fleet of the UK/French?

Italy would face this on its first turn:

S.France would have:
2 Inf (1 UK - Malta, 1 FR)
1 Art (FR)
1 Arm (Alexandria)
3 Ftr (2 London, 1 Scotland)
1 Tac (SZ 98 CV)

SZ 93 would have
3 CR (SZ98 / SZ91 and FR)
1 DD (FR)
1 CV (2 Ftr - Malta / Gib)
1 TT

If nothing is done about this, Germany would see S.France with 3 Inf, 2 Art, 1 Arm, 1 Tac and 4  Ftr on G2 and have to decide how many surviving units from Paris are going to be needed (with aircraft) to eliminate the threat to Paris from S.France.

I’ve had the most success with Japan in a “slow” play that is methodical, overpowering and highly calculated.  The times I struggle with Japan are when I try to take all the DEI by J3 and end up losing TT and stranding units.  There’s no way I’m sending a TT to go get those units off the island, the cost is very prohibitive in time and resources to protect one to simply pick up 3-7 IPC worth of units and they don’t defend overly well or at any bonus for being stranded either.  In short, losing an undefended TT at a DEI costs you 10-14 IPC, and stops further expansion of those units for potentially the entire game.  As the Allies, I’d be excited to wipe 10-14 starting IPC off the board for free from an undefended TT.  Even if its lightly defended and I can sink more ships, it’s still a win for the Allies.

So, I’d rather take 1-2 DEI per round, solidifying each holding and challenging ANZAC and the UK to suicide against heavily defended landings.  It may take an extra round or two, but you’ll spend 3 rounds and too much IPC to simply recover from a lost TT by water ballooning.

My friend swears by it, and things get dicey for the Allies in the Pacific when he plays Japan, but each time I sink a TT, I’m winning the battle because its stops further expansion - which is the key for Japan.  Eventually the tides turn and expansion comes to a halt.  Problem always is, did he make the US spend enough in the Pacific that they are delayed in arriving in Europe?  I’m a better player as the US in the Pacific than I am in the Atlantic - mostly because my playgroup does not play Germany well against Russia so I tend to stalemate there.

G1 Purchase: 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CV
G1 Combat:
2 SS, 1 Ftr (Norway), 1 Tac (Germany), 2 Bombers to SZ111
2 SS, 1 BB, 3 Ftr, 3 Tac to SZ110
1 SS to SZ106
2 Inf, 2 Art (Via Holland) to Normandy
All remaining ground units able to invade France do so, including the 3 Arm from S.Germany and 1 Tac from Hungary
All ground units capable of hitting Yugo do so, leaving 1 Inf behind in Romania to NCM to Bulgaria

G1 Combat decisions:
1. My aim is to sink the UK fleet, not destroy their Ftr.  I’ll not trade a Ftr for a Ftr with UK, so if all that is left are Ftr and I’m going to trade a BB and/or Ftr to finish them off, I’ll retreat.  If I get them all in one fell swoop, I’ll take it.  Note in some cases the BB can retreat with a single hit on it to SZ112, which bolsters the fleet you’re about to place there.
2. I generally prefer to strafe Yugo.  I’ll roll combat for one round and then retreat back to Romania.  Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t and I take Yugo.  Both are acceptable results.  I prefer the strafe because Italy can use the IPC on mainland Europe in the early rounds.
3. I know many people say to leave Normandy alone.  I see the merits, but I’d rather collect 2 IPC for 4-6 rounds than have to leave units behind to keep the French from liberating Paris or taking Holland / S.France.  To me, its a staging point for the UK/US to both land Ftr on.  I’d rather see-saw ownership of it for multiple turns than see 4-8 Ftr land on top of 20 ground units combined between the UK and US in the middle rounds.

G1 NCM:
Fly the Ftr from Poland down to Rome.  An extra Ftr scrambling may save some of or all of the Italian fleet.
Step 1 Inf from Norway to Finland, place the 4 units
Step 1 Inf from Romania to Bulgaria, place the 4 units
Leave the Inf/Art Stack in Berlin
Leave 1 Ftr (from Norway) and 1 Tac (from Germany) in SZ112 to land on the CV.
Land all remaining Ftr/Tac/Bombers in WGr
NCM the CR + TT to SZ112

G1 Place units:
Place your SS, DD and CV in SZ112.  You could have as much as 1 SS, 1 DD, 1 CR, 1 BB (tipped), 1 CV + 1 Ftr/Tac and 1 TT in SZ112 with 3 aircraft capable of scrambling over it.
Note:  This creates a formidable defensive wall for a few turns, which keeps the UK squarely on London or building in Canada.  Eventually this fleet will be sunk, but you may be able to suicide it with a component of bombers to sink everything the Allies put off of Gibraltar if they don’t pay attention.  Keep that in mind, as you could set the Allies back 2+ turns if they get loose in defending a navy out there.  
Note 2: You’re also in a good position with this fleet for a G3 Sea Lion as you may not have to send any aircraft to protect TT on the Amphib part of the invasion.  I generally don’t Sea Lion, but its good to keep the options open if UK plays silly.

Lastly, there’s a million ways to play Germany.  Mine isn’t 100% correct, or the best.  There are better players on this forum than me that can tell you that.  The dicey battles include SZ111 (retreat once ships are sunk), Normandy and you can risk losing the Tac in Paris to AA.  SZ110 can also get dicey if there are 3 Ftr scrambling.  I’ve seen it played both ways and from experience the odds are you’ll retreat after sinking the navy or face trading aircraft with the Allies.  When I’ve played as the UK I generally let the fleet get sunk (its inevitable) and save the aircraft to land on CV once Germany is fully committed in Russia.  This also allows the UK to build an Armor/Mech in S.Africa early which seems to be a constant thorn in the side of the Italians while also building 6 Inf in London in case Sea Lion materializes.

Some comments on your OP:  
1. Don’t build factories as Germany.  Build units that can take the Russian factories.  I’d rather spend 12 IPC on 2 Arm that can take and hold Ukraine’s minor than building one in Romania.  Use the units from S.Germany + Bulgaria to make it highly expensive for the Russians to try to hit your soft underbelly.  The only thing I’d consider building regarding infrastructure is an AB in E.Poland if you have an opportunity to sack Moscow early and can use the additional air power to minimize losses.  Note that Bombers can reach Moscow from E.Poland, so realistically E.Poland is your launching pad for just about everything and keeps the Russians worried about which way you are actually going to go (Arm/Mech move there from Berlin each round you purchase them).
2. My brother and friend both call it the “water balloon” effect.  In short, never get caught thinking throwing a water balloon on the board that explodes everywhere is good.  In the short term you may gain a few extra IPC, but you lose momentum as you have to dry off the board and regroup - which inevitably means you’ll sustain losses in both units and territory you just gained.  Is it really worth taking Baltic States for 1 IPC when you’re going to lose 10 IPC worth of units to do it?  In short, always think ahead 2-3 turns when considering fighting over a small potatoes territory.  How soon can the enemy counter attack there, what kind of losses will I sustain to both take and hold it, is there a total economic benefit for doing it?  If not, is there a strategic benefit worth the cost (answer is usually, “No.”).  So be wary of water ballooning, it almost always comes back to haunt you.  And if you really want to understand it, play as Japan.  Their opportunities are boundless to water balloon, but when you start losing all your TT and stranding units on islands, you’ll realize its better to be a slow moving ball of destruction versus an exploding water balloon.

Good luck!

Germa

You could always just have TacB roll @4 in naval combat in all situations to simulate dive bomber / torpedo strikes.  Or maybe simply 1st round sneak attack capability for dropping those torpedos.

There are probably synergies to be had pairing specific naval units together as certain naval units moved much faster than others creating the ability to attack and withdraw before the larger ships could navigate into position to retaliate.  But, from by observation normally navies are kept in a big rolling mess so it would become overtly confusing to move up this cruiser to defend at 4, or this destroyer to attack @2.

One thing I always questioned was why aircraft in a zone were not on “patrol” and you could simply fly over them.  I’ve suggested before that AB allow aircraft to basically be “on station” and “on patrol” and the defending nation could roll @2 or less to detect and intercept aircraft flying over the territory which would initiate combat and stop units from flying to their intended destination.  If you didn’t have an AB, you could roll@1 to detect and intercept.  Most of this use would probably be seen in the Pacific, but there are probably a few places in Europe where there could be strategic value for such a HR.

Lets be honest here, Sea Lion is a cat and mouse game.  Germany signals to the UK player that I’ll do Sea Lion if you don’t hedge against it by buying 6 Inf and 1 Ftr on UK1.  As a German player, I want you to turtle.  I don’t want a carrier on top of 2 Destroyers and a Cruiser with 4 fighters scrambling over it before I make my second purchase.

So, I’ll buy enough navy to make you play honest and not try to land in Europe all by your lonesome before the Americans arrive to save your ass.  Those ships on G1 pay dividends for a couple rounds, and maybe I’ll augment them with a few subs to keep you worried about my Air Force swinging over the top of my navy and subs if you expose your Navy too early.  After that, those ships I bought on G1 can be scuttled, they really aren’t going to be stopping a US landing, and they are just fodder to an ever growing RAF thats just waiting for carriers to land on to seize control of the English Channel.  In the end, that Navy buys me another round in the early / mid game before you can threaten landing on W.Germany and ruin my Major Complex.

If you are playing against someone who ignores your Sea Lion threat, you continue with the purchase on G2 and get those TT out.  As a German player, you REALLY don’t want to buy them, but if the UK insists on building a minor in Egypt, putting ships off of Canada or anything other than playing turtle you’re obligated to at least make it a reality you will be sacking London by flying a SBR and turning off that industrial complex to limit the units pouring out of it.  As a German player, this is the least beneficial play, but you’re obligated to turn London off and possibly for good in the following rounds.  You’re hoping Russia was expecting an all out blitz and played defensive on R1, backed off and purchased artillery for a potential counter attack, but if those Reds are in cahoots with those tea drinking Brits and they staged it you’ve gotten Germany caught between the hammer and the Anvil.

The problem with spending all those IPC on a slew of TT is that you’ve effectively severed the head or the spear in less tanks or the shaft of the spear in one less purchase round of 10 Mechs for fodder.  Even diverting TT and INF to land amphibiously is less than opportune for Germany - you could have gotten those same INF to the same position for a G3 attack on Russia without the TT by simply stepping from Berlin to Warsaw on G1.  So, what to think about?

Unfortunately, once you have those TT and SBR’d, UK is likely going to repair and do everything she can to defend London.  This is the gambit both sides play.  Can you take London without losing your aircraft?  How many units do you need to keep the United States from reclaiming it right away?  Will you lose your transports, stranding anything that ends up surviving?  Are the Americans in a position to take your navy out with bombers?  Can you hold off the Russians?  Are you SURE?  The Russians can be pretty solid on the offensive and Poland is the only thing between Berlin, a Red Europe and a GG.

Its a ballet that you have to play, and a wise player from the UK forces a German player to start one way, and then forces the Nazis a different way when a course reversal is less than opportune.  This is what Sea Lion is.

So, how do I play?  I threaten Sea Lion by purchasing a CV, DD and SS on G1.  I can buy enough TT on G2 to take London if the UK player plays very loose.  Generally UK plays a conservative 6INF 1FTR, so I abandon Sea Lion and G2 is a combination of Armor and Mech as I prepare to move on Russia on G3.  I think G2 advance on Russia exposes my starting INF stack too much.  I could change that by going all out ground purchases on G1 and not threatening Sea Lion, but I’ll be diverting resources on rounds 3, 4 and 5 to deal with the RAF and the Royal Navy if I didn’t purchase those ships on G1.  I’d rather have an uninterrupted stream of Mech / Armor advancing during those rounds and replacing losses for multiple consecutive rounds than stranding a stack of Armor with no fodder in front of them and facing a choice to retreat, delay or sacrifice them.

Sea Lion, in my experience is reserved for use against UK players that don’t know what they are doing yet, or one who completely invites it on purpose.

Playing as the Germans, if I get a bad roll on the G1 expedition to sink the UK fleet, I’ll give up fighters before Tac.  I prefer having those Tac to roll @ 4 over my armor as I march to Moscow.

As the Japanese, those Tac go very well with all the starting Ftr, bringing some UMPF.  I’ll generally trade Ftr before Tac if Japan gets diced somewhere, because its cheaper to spend 10 IPC to keep those Tac rolling @4.

In both cases, I rarely purchase more than I start with.  If I DO buy aircraft, they will be bombers.  The extended range and guaranteed roll @4 creates all sorts of chaos across the board.

If Italy survives the KIF and starts making money, I’ll get a second bomber with her to fly over Armor/Mech that backfill German advances in Moscow.

As the Americans, its a bit different because theres a large expanse of territory to cross that bombers can’t always support dictating a balance of Tac and Ftr to support any land advances she makes.  Rarely do I buy bombers with her unless I am trying to lure Japan to Hawaii so I can sink a part of her fleet with a combination of bombers and subs.

I do enjoy purchasing bombers with the UK in the mid game.  It puts a damper on German production once Germany’s aircraft move deep into Russia.  Early game I’m buying Ftr with the UK to land on carriers later to control the English Channel.  Nothing beats absorbing a few hits with carriers to simply land the Ftr in London for the carrier to turn back off its side and re-land the Ftr on them again.  Those Ftr also provide amazing coverage for a US landing where Germany would re-consider a suicide blitz to clear the US units out of France because tehre are 3-6 UK Ftr landing atop of 8-10 US fodder.

In short, I rarely buy Tac for any nation and only enough to keep the US extension of power in the Pacific a viable threat to a loosely defended Japanese fleet.

They have their purposes, but you’re usually better served to buy an Inf and a Bomber instead of an Art and a Tac.

Oh, of course.  Yes, I used mech as the fodder to give my bombers a second shot in case I missed.  Granted I didn’t want to lose the bombers, but it was a fair trade if I did lose one to isolate the regiments.  If I am able to cut down one large stack before it became an IPC sink to shut down Russia turtling 70 units on Moscow, I’d happily trade the Italian bombers.

I was just curious if anyone else thought it was a bit “gamey” to do it.  Chalking it up to the same level as a US/UK move to sack Denmark and then take an unguarded Berlin in a 1-2 punch.

Too gamey?

Used 2 Italian bombers to good effect in can-opening the Russian Front and effectively split the Northern Leningrad Regiment that was in retreat from Moscow’s.  Did it twice and cut the armies down which enabled Germany to sack Moscow.

Theres no mechanic provided in the game, but a simple pad and paper can track how many units come from each territory.  In the event of a retreat, you cannot retreat more units than came from that territory when declaring an attack.

Of course, thats just another layer of complexity and time required before conducting combat.  But that seems the most logical rule if you don’t care for the gamey version written in the rules where you can send 1 Infantry in from one side and send 10 infantry from another and effectively move the 10 infantry two spaces.

Just wanted to add something to the Japan discussion:

Opportunity Cost of replacing land units in China:

When there is a single Chinese infantry on your flank, sometimes its better to swing in with fighters and risk the 10 IPC loss of a fighter than it is to lose the infantry you use to attack with.

Here’s my reasoning:  As you get deeper into mainland China, it becomes more difficult to replace lost ground units.  If you win that first battle against China and have to trade an Inf and are only left with maybe an artillery and a Mech you run into a problem where China placing a single Infantry unit on your flank creates problems.  Sometimes it is better to simply send extra aircraft or even JUST aircraft to remove that infantry from the map.

If not, you face the quandary of figuring out how to prevent China from replacing lost IPC you fight hard for in the South by simply moving a single Infantry into a territory on your flank and no units coming from the rear to stop that advance.

I’ve found that building a Minor helps alleviate this, but the risk of losing it by any Allied nation shooting in to cut your supplies and returning the territory to China (hence destroying the minor) is a dangerous proposal.

Alternatively, you can use transports that generally require an escort with an American Bomber on Hawaii, Midway or some of the other Islands with AB’s.  That is generally going to mean you want at least a DD and a TT to resupply ground units to Mainland China costing you at least 15 IPC plus 2 ground units worth of IPC.  I’d happily trade a Fighter than have to spend 21 or 22 IPC to stop a Chinese advance of even a single Inf on my flank and wait multiple turns to stop the bleeding.  I’ve played people that will risk the US bomber anyways at the proposal of the DD missing and the US being able to sink 22 IPC worth of units and costing Japan more time before ground forces arrive to reinforce the mainland front.

With the minor, you can generally address this with fast moving Mech’s where you spend initially 12 IPC J1, 12 IPC J2 on 3 Mech and then on J3 can move them 2 spaces from the Minor provided you control the spaces next to it.  Again, you are costing yourself at least 20 IPC and 3/4 turns before addressing it on J3/J4

So, the opportunity cost is:
1.) Deal with the problem immediately and maybe lose 10 IPC
2.) Spend 12 IPC 2 rounds in advance for a Minor, at least 8 IPC, potentially 12 IPC 1 round in advance and on the third round address the problem and probably STILL use aircraft to finish the job as Mechs still only attack @1.
3.) Spend 15 IPC on a DD and TT, plus 7 IPC (Inf/Art or Inf/Mech) for 22 IPC, Land a round later and on Round 3 you may be in position to address that Flanking move while potentially STILL using aircraft to make sure you don’t get diced.

Personally, I’d rather just cut the red tape and risk 10 IPC early with an asset I have many of (aircraft) to give me more flexibility in IPC spending on the naval threats that face Japan once she advances into the South Pacific.

Note I’m not saying that the purchase of a minor in China or FIC is a bad thing - generally its a requirement and a boon if the US moves into convoy SZ6 while your ships are in the DEI/India.  I’m simply pointing out that I’d rather be able to send 3 Mech towards India than have to shoot them into the heart of China to deal with rogue infantry on my flanks or behind my line.

Generally I declare on UK2 if Japan has not declared already.

Simply put, a UK stack on the Burma Road creates more headaches for Japan than anything else.  China is an IPC sink for Japan, giving China artillery makes it doubly so.  Russia in Amur makes it even more dangerous for Japan on the mainland.  Japan cannot afford to wait, and bogging them down in China if they’ve waited two turns already technically drives Japan to a long play game where they’ve lost the economic advantage.

Throw in the NO bonus for India and ANZAC for a round and its generally worth making the US wait to join the war.  Particularly as the UK after 2 rounds has probably collected at least 12 IPC from DEI that Japan has not taken due to lack of DOW.  It possible to hold some of them for a third round, depending if you leave units on the DEI or just hop from island to island with the same Inf and TT.  You could easily place 9-10 Inf on India on UK3, making India a tough nut to crack if you’ve been placing Mech on UK1 and UK2 (I think you could have 8-9 Mech as well).

It makes for a slower game, and it could hurt Moscow in the process depending on the German plays.  US cannot even threaten Germany for a long time if it has to wait until Round 4 to move off the coast of the US in the Atlantic.  Earliest landing for US ground units in Europe would be Round 5 if that happens and thats assuming the US is prepared on US4 to move units and a fleet and ground units to Gib.