ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
When pondering the ramifications of a Japanese capture of all of Australia in game, I personally think it's a strategic mistake for Japan to do so. The trick for Japan is to get the allies heavily invested in trying to defend Australia vs. a Japanese invasion so he keeps pumping assets into the place. A single cargo ship run to OZ might bring in 5000 supply. But if the allies give up on trying to supply the place, that same ship can make 3 or 4 times as many trips into the closer Pacific bases in the same time frame as the single run to OZ, building up supplies and fuel for campaigns much faster.
The consequences to the allied player if Australia is lost (other than VPs lost) is exactly zero. In fact it frees the allies of the burden of defending and supplying the place. And allows them to concentrate all their assets into a Central Pacific and Burma push at the exact time when Japan is now spread out across a vast southern continent.
So if going to Australia as Japan your goal should be to keep the balance of power on that continent on a knifes edge to goad your opponent into bringing in more and more stuff. The longer the allies stay invested in a fight for Australia the longer Japan's perimeter will stay safe from serious attack. Kill off Australia and the allies will simply bypass the south and head straight towards the Marianas.
The main advantage is destroying Allied units IMO! Supply? It doesn't matter where I send my freighters with supply, there are so many of them around, it doesn't matter if they go to CENTPAC or Australia, India or will just stay in port.
In 42 a Japanese player shouldn't look at where the Allied player is weak to overrun empty territory, he should aim at targets where the enemy is actually "strong", but not strong enough to defeat an attack. Why am I saying this? Because in my ongoing PBEM against Cuttlefish, we are in 7/43, the Allied have taken everything back except CENTPAC, Luzon and Formosa, Chinese hordes are running amoc and by early 44 I can attempt to land on Japan. The Japanese have lost nearly 7000 pts for ground losses already and are facing 30,000 Chinese av, 10,000 Commonwealth av and 10,000 US av that are preparing for Japanese targets and are taking them out one by one.
So the Japanese are facing roughly 50,000 Allied av in mid 43. All I have lost during the Japanese storm early on was the stuff in the SRA (minus 1000 Dutch av that never surrendered on Java). 50,000 Allied av was more than I expected, granted, 30,000 Chinese av included but have you ever seen a fully supplied, fully prepped Chinese Army of 15,000 av attack the Japanese? It's like an avalanche, so the Chinese are definately worth it. Destroying a couple of thousand Commonwealth/US av during the course of 42 would really mean something though. The Chinese need supply, they get supply from Burma, lose Burma, "activate" the Chinese. Hold Burma and you don't face the 30,000 Chinese av on the offensive. So by saying this, I would aim at destroying Commonwealth units in India as those are the key for Burma. Australia is the key to the SRA, but as the Japanese you probably can only lock one door, not two. My logic would be to keep the Commonwealth Army from taking Burma, stall the Chinese by doing so and bringing Japanese units from China to either North Australia or the Southern SRA to defend the fast track into the SRA. You can't defend Australia as the Japanese, the Allied can land a couple of thousand av anywhere in Australia in early 43, a strong defense in Northern Australia would be the better option then IMO.
I think the most important thing to do in 42 early 43 (as long as the Japanese offensive runs) is to destroy Allied ground troops. Taking empty terrain if the Japanese don't kill Allied troops would pretty much mean nothing to me as an Allied player.
< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/22/2013 8:50:34 AM >