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?