All good questions, which is what I mostly have at this point too. I am pretty much selling the house to bring all the pressure I can on the US to see if it can fall first. If it can fall (or to a lesser extent be neutralized), then it may be worth it.
US
-loss of W. US (-10)
-loss of continental continuity bonus (-10)
-loss of Alaska (-2)
-loss of Alaska bonus (-5)
-loss of C. US (-12) (it better fall at least once initially or I don’t envision this being a worth while strategy) (or, possibly traded as dead zone for a few rounds?)
-loss of Mexico bonus (-5)
-no 5 of 7 island NO bonus (-5)
Axis
+W. US (+10)
+Alaska (+2)
+C US (+12)
- strategic bombing of the only US major complex, Washington?
- could build minor complex in Alaska (J4) and Mexico (J4 or J5)
- UK Europe would lose some Canadian $
- Germany can go to sz 101, 89 or 106 to land troops.
- Italy could try to do can openers on the US…wouldn’t that be interesting to see?
I have been thinking about what you said with the US buying nine ground units on US1 and US 2 once they see Japans opening move (I had thought that would be the weakness of this strategy too) and Japan could conceal its intentions a bit by purchasing three transports on J1 and moving everything to sz 6 instead of out towards the US. Who would be buying ground units and moving the fleet towards Washington on US 1 if Japan’s naval units are in sz 6? Japan would then wait to move out on J2. Of course the US could buy nine ground units on US 2 and still move the fleet to Washington, but maybe that is enough of an opening for the Axis? I don’t know.
Again, I don’t exactly know how viable this is. For sure, it benefits the Axis if the US buys naval units since they can be bypassed (for the most part) to land troops in North America.
You at least can see how this has potential don’t you? Jen, are you even interested in trying this out?