Take the 2-minute tour ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In the "real" war, the Allies concentrated on, and defeated Germany before Japan. That might not have been the case if Hitler had not declared war on the United States in 1941, and the U.S. had concentrated on fighting Japan.

The "Japan first" strategy might be better for the revised edition, with four Pacific "victory cities," but mine is the earliest edition.

Reasons for concentrating on Japan might be the following:

  1. Japan is weaker than Germany, hence easier to beat.
  2. In "real life," Japan occupied (or threatened to occupy), the more populous part of the world in Asia. The revised edition clearly reflects that.
  3. If the "Japan" player is better than the "Germany" player, it might be wise to give priority to containing "Japan."

My plan for a "Japan first" strategy would be to have the U.S. fleet engage the Japanese fleet in the Pacific, to keep Japanese air power way from "Asia."

Then BOTH Britain and the U.S. build "factories" in India and Sinkiang, respectively. (The idea would be that Japan then could't capture both.) Russia would move forces east to protect India, and Sinkiang and ultimately to capture Manchuria. Each turn, the Americans would spend 10 of their IPCs manufacturing armored units in Sinkiang, while using their remaining 26 IPCs to neutralize Japan's 25 IPCs in the Pacific.

The armor manufactured in Sinkiang (and Britain's India) would recapture Kwantung and Indochina. Together, the Allies would capture nine IPCs and kick Japan off the mainland. The downside is that the Germans would probably capture most of Africa (10 IPCs) in the meantime. But both sides would have "consolidated," the Germans in Europe-Africa, and the Allies in Asia.

Does the above, or any other plan, represent a viable "Japan first" strategy?

share|improve this question
I can't say whether this will actually work, but it looks like there are two key weaknesses you'll have to work through: denying reinforcements to Russia's western front might cause Russia to fall (or fall faster than it otherwise would), and building two factories in Asia is a fairly steep price - those IPCs might be better spent elsewhere. Ceding Africa to Germany would also give them almost as many income IPCs as you're gaining from Japan. You'll bottle up Japan early, but giving Germany (relatively) free rein will probably cost you Russia. Try it and see what happens? –  Paul Marshall May 15 '13 at 19:11
@PaulMarshall:One of the preconditions for this strategy was that "Japan" is a better player than "Germany." Meaning that as an Ally, I'm less concerned about what Germany can do in Africa than about what Japan could do against Russia if not "ganged up" on in this way. Switch the relative strengths and I would NOT use this strategy. –  Tom Au May 15 '13 at 21:34
The "Japan first" strategy also requires significant investment in the US Pacific naval fleet. Pushing Japan off mainland Asia does no good if they have sufficient transports and reinforcements to retake key territories. That being said, I've found the "Japan first" strategy to only be effective when playing with the "no new factories" rule variant, as this requires Japan to maintain a large transport fleet and a strong UK/US presence on the mainland coupled with a strong US Pacific fleet makes it difficult for Japan to maintain such a fleet. –  Scott Mitchell Jul 9 '13 at 5:45
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.