US IPC's

[Guest]

After reading many of the strategy threads here, and based on my own experiences, I have a question of a strategic concept (not a specific strategy).

From the Axis persepctive, the United States is not a viable immediate target.  German can’t go after US territory AT ALL, and Japan is limited to 2 Asian territories, or Pacific harassment that is easilly countered/blocked by the US.  Even if stripped of every territory outside the contiguos states, the US would still collect almost 2/3 of its starting income.

Both of the remaining Allies are far more subject to economic damage: in terms of territories that can be attacked by the Axis, in terms of the number of IPC’s that can be lost outside of core/capital areas, in terms of the percentage of IPC’s subject to rapid loss, and in the raw effect of such losses since both UK and USSR start out with marginal or minimal IPC’s (3rd and 5th).

If choices have to be made between attacking a US held territory and a UK or Russian held territory, how many of you opt for the the UK or USSR over the US territory?

In the early stages of the game, this most often is seen with China/Sinkiang being weghed against India, SFE, Yukut; as well as Australia or New Zealand vs. Hawaii (or perhaps Alaska).  Later it could be counter-attacking US held Algeria or Libya vs. incursions to Syria or Persia.

In short, do you weigh economic damage against Russia and UK to be more essential as the Axis than simply grabbing ANY available territory to boost Axs income, including US territory?

[OpTorch]

@ncscswitch:

In short, do you weigh economic damage against Russia and UK to be more essential as the Axis than simply grabbing ANY available territory to boost Axs income, including US territory?

Since UK and Russia are already potentially weakened, extra taking of income will have a huge effect. UK at 14 or UK at 18 ips is really a big difference. Otoh, there isnt much choice, since there are not variabel countries of US to take. Sin/Chi and Haw and thats it, sometimes trading Ala.

There are 2 strategies to threaten the US, both by Japan. Both are end of mid game or end game orientated and based on a Japanese transport strategy iso of an ic strategy.

[Privateer]

I tend to plan with a bit more involvement than simply “see IPCs, must take”. :) The chief consideration for me is not the weight of one particular territory or its nationality, but the strategic situation taking it will create.

For instance, you mentioned the choice between taking Sinkiang and India. Sure, one is 2 American IPCs and the other 3 British and based on that consideration alone I should strike India, but look at where it will put my forces if I take Sink. Right smack under Russia. Sudenly the Russians will have a few more threatened territories and since I know they don’t usually have infantry to spare, if I have at least one armor in my force, I can blitz some of those IPCs. Even without armor, I can draw some of their forces out. If I have another force working up to Russia’s capital, that’ll be a nice help for them. If I don’t, presumably Germany does.

India, on the other hand is a nice choice because it will open the way to mideast territories that are usually ill-protected. It may make strategic sense to take if it is not too heavily defended. If it is, an attack there will be diverting a large force into a very bad position where it will have nothing to do for the next 1-3 turns.

In Africa, I don’t see how it matters that much if you hit UK or US territories. Both of them are overseas, so those IPCs would arrive on transports exactly one turn after being built anyway. So, when I do look at nationality, I mostly differentiate between Soviet and non-Soviet.