I think you should re read the rules. They’re clear.
Sealion defense after J1 DOW?
-
I personally haven’t tried a Sea Lion against human players yet but if I were to do it, I would have to convince USA that Japan is gunning hard so I would have Japan go for Philli and Hawaii on turn 1 leaving San Diego Fleet the only remaining US fleet in Pacific and then proceed to go for the Dutch. That might convince USA to ignore UK. I would build no navy on G1 prior because a naval build ‘usually’ hints Sea Lion.
-
I got a Sea Lion game going on right now. Russia just moved their stack back from E. Poland (R4) and won’t be getting lots of NO money anymore. Germany will secure Leningrad on round 6, and should have no problem sustaining the push while keeping the fleet reinforced underneath the w. germany air base. I had 9 tanks left on London in the Sea Lion game.
G1 purchase was: 2 bombers / 1 sub (I got diced in the G1 opener on the UK fleets and lost 4 planes in this game). UK got too aggressive with their purchases.
G2 purchase: 8 transports / 1 destroyer
G3 purchase: 1 carrier / 1 destroyer (sz 110 placement) and a mixture of ground for Berlin.In the game, Japan has virtually no US opposition other than a little bit that the US added to their starting fleet. All Chinese territories are gone on J4 and UK Pacific is turtling.
The onus of the race is on the US in my opinion when Sea Lion is well executed. I am pushing Russia back now, but they were able to purchase a lot of tanks. This means that Moscow will still be safe for a long time regardless of no UK support. Therefore, I think in a Sea Lion game, the US should still continue to go after Japan to slow them down.
I really don’t understand the difficulty behind not just defending London with a standard UK1 defense purchase.
-
@zergxies:
Besides liberation, one of the other reasons J1 and SL don’t mix well is that the US can get a fighter and 1+ bombers over to London before G3 easily.� � With the amount of fodder on London the fighter alone will probably take out 2-3 German aircraft.
Usually on a J1 Attack that is against UK/ANZAC and not USA.
This is a key point.
IF Japan J1’s against only UK/ANZAC then USA is still neutral until the start of their production phase, which they can then declare war. This is very important because the USA cannot non combat troops/air power forward into UK territory until they are officially at war…that happens on USA1 during production. Which mean USA units cannot enter UK territories unit USA2 non combat phase.
IF that is the scenario, USA can not arrive in UK until USA3, which will be to late if there is a G3 Sea Lion in effect.
Once again I will stress this point.
Japan/Germany have this tug and pull on the first 2 turns. Japan is the key nation when it comes to Sea Lion and the USA response.
Japan goes J1 and declares war on the USA…Sea Lion is off the table, that is the bottom line. If you are the Germany player you need to dust off that G2 against Russia plan of attack.
*** Foot Note ***
Let me clarify and be clear for new players on this point.
IF japan declares war on the USA on Turn 1. What that means is two fold.
#1 USA can now non combat move into any allied country on both the Euro/Pacific map. USA declares war on the Euro Axis powers at the start of the USA1 production phase.
#2 USA Production ramps up to full war status on USA1.
USA can get 1 FTR and 1 STR bomber into England on USA 2 for the FTR.
USA builds 3 FTRS on USA1.
USA2 3 FTRS fly to Gibraltur.
USA3 3 FTRS are in London.
You have now forced Germany to go into London on a G3 invasion or it is all over.
*** Side note ***
I hope your Japan partner is not a friend because some German players will come unglued on a J1 against USA.
Just letting you know.
:lol: 8-) :-D :evil:
This isn’t a rule I was familiar with. I tried it in TripleA and it’s totally fine with US declaring war US1 after a J1 against UK and Anzac, and in non-combat moving a fighter to iceland. Is this rule not implemented in TripleA?
Regardless most J1s I’ve seen involve taking the Philippines as you have the units, deny a bonus, and benefit from the mobility the naval base grants. But to your point, it’s not required I suppose :)
-
US Just Cause against Japan is that Japan has declared war on UK/ANZAC and/or has taken full control of French Indo China. US doesn’t care if Japan invades USSR. The only other way to declare war on the US without actually declaring war is moving within two sea zones from US mainland.
Triple A follows this as far as I know.
-
I got a Sea Lion game going on right now. Russia just moved their stack back from E. Poland (R4) and won’t be getting lots of NO money anymore. Germany will secure Leningrad on round 6, and should have no problem sustaining the push while keeping the fleet reinforced underneath the w. germany air base. I had 9 tanks left on London in the Sea Lion game.
G1 purchase was: 2 bombers / 1 sub (I got diced in the G1 opener on the UK fleets and lost 4 planes in this game). UK got too aggressive with their purchases.
G2 purchase: 8 transports / 1 destroyer
G3 purchase: 1 carrier / 1 destroyer (sz 110 placement) and a mixture of ground for Berlin.In the game, Japan has virtually no US opposition other than a little bit that the US added to their starting fleet. All Chinese territories are gone on J4 and UK Pacific is turtling.
The onus of the race is on the US in my opinion when Sea Lion is well executed. I am pushing Russia back now, but they were able to purchase a lot of tanks. This means that Moscow will still be safe for a long time regardless of no UK support. Therefore, I think in a Sea Lion game, the US should still continue to go after Japan to slow them down.
I really don’t understand the difficulty behind not just defending London.
Didn’t you surrender in that game around turn 11?
-
UK can easily stop Sea Lion by stacking infantry on the island and reinforcing it from Canada however if Germany and Italy around the clock bomb London, it makes it hard to build due to spending in repair.
However, it’s also hard for Germany to defend London from liberation because you can only build 3 per turn on the island so you’re forced to reinforce it as needed with your navy making the Kreigsmarine more of a critical target AND you’re going to weaken the incoming assault from USSR so you have to ask yourself, is it worth trying to fight USSR with a weakened force, possibly lose, but you sure showed those dirty Brits or do you just withdraw from London forcing US to liberate it and take those battle harden 6th Army and use them against USSR?
-
IF Japan J1’s against only UK/ANZAC then USA is still neutral until the start of their production phase, which they can then declare war. This is very important because the USA cannot non combat troops/air power forward into UK territory until they are officially at war…that happens on USA1 during production. Which mean USA units cannot enter UK territories unit USA2 non combat phase.
But USA can DOW on Japan at the start of their combat movement phase in this situation. So it’s pointless for Japan to keep peace with the USA except in the sense that they are then able to ignore USA units at sea on their turn.
-
I got a Sea Lion game going on right now. Russia just moved their stack back from E. Poland (R4) and won’t be getting lots of NO money anymore. Germany will secure Leningrad on round 6, and should have no problem sustaining the push while keeping the fleet reinforced underneath the w. germany air base. I had 9 tanks left on London in the Sea Lion game.
G1 purchase was: 2 bombers / 1 sub (I got diced in the G1 opener on the UK fleets and lost 4 planes in this game). UK got too aggressive with their purchases.
G2 purchase: 8 transports / 1 destroyer
G3 purchase: 1 carrier / 1 destroyer (sz 110 placement) and a mixture of ground for Berlin.In the game, Japan has virtually no US opposition other than a little bit that the US added to their starting fleet. All Chinese territories are gone on J4 and UK Pacific is turtling.
The onus of the race is on the US in my opinion when Sea Lion is well executed. I am pushing Russia back now, but they were able to purchase a lot of tanks. This means that Moscow will still be safe for a long time regardless of no UK support. Therefore, I think in a Sea Lion game, the US should still continue to go after Japan to slow them down.
I really don’t understand the difficulty behind not just defending London.
Didn’t you surrender in that game around turn 11?
This game is at the start of turn 5 and is a saved game that started last night. I don’t remember which one you’re referring to. I’ve probably played a 100+ games now on triplea.
What is your handle on triplea live? I don’t think I’ve seen you on before.
Probably 70% of my Sea Lion games have resulted in an Axis Victory. Most of my successful Sea Lion games were against opponents that write it off having not yet seen how effective it is. In many cases, Sea Lion is like a “One Trick Pony.”
The 30% losses were at that grey area where the UK placed just enough troops to make it very expensive for Germany like 2 fighters / 2 infantry instead of 1fighter / 6 inf. Germany may have captured London, but lost most of its air and all of the tanks which are needed to push Russia back.
And or the AAA guns hit an unusual amount of times and I lost like 5 planes which then resulted in the loss of my tanks. People tend to forget that if the dice hit more than 1/6, it’s way above average. Some of my Sea Lion losses where it wasn’t due to a pyrrhic landing were when the Allied player IGNORED Germany and went full throttle at Japan knowing that Russia could take care of itself for a long time. Often Japan is way behind in a Sea Lion game having not done a J1 or J2 attack. They go for a late game liberation of London.
-
@Caesar:
UK can easily stop Sea Lion by stacking infantry on the island and reinforcing it from Canada however if Germany and Italy around the clock bomb London, it makes it hard to build due to spending in repair.
However, it’s also hard for Germany to defend London from liberation because you can only build 3 per turn on the island so you’re forced to reinforce it as needed with your navy making the Kreigsmarine more of a critical target AND you’re going to weaken the incoming assault from USSR so you have to ask yourself, is it worth trying to fight USSR with a weakened force, possibly lose, but you sure showed those dirty Brits or do you just withdraw from London forcing US to liberate it and take those battle harden 6th Army and use them against USSR?
Caesar, if SL is done right, yes Germany might only place 3 infantry per turn on London, but the Germany Navy (and an intact air force; if not lost in Sea Lion), is often enough to destroy the US Navy in SZ 110 and simultaneously re-capture London. This results in forcing the US to take a much longer time than people realize for the US to really be able to liberate London if they come over too quick. For awhile, Germany can get away with just adding 1 sub to their Navy per turn because they have 5 fighters @4 to defend that (2 on carrier + 3 on air base) and a crap ton of planes to kill a light US fleet if it comes to SZ 110.
Also, if done right, Russia can be dislodged from E. Poland on R4 (Russia’s optimal position for getting lots of NO money) and begin the drive to the 1st objective of Leningrad.
What I’m describing is based from experience on several successful Sea Lion games. I fully contend that I’m not that good at this game. In this thread are players who’ve beaten me. Like I just mentioned, Sea Lion is kind of a One Trick Pony. It’s not something I ever intend to do. SL is a target of opportunity that I want to occur. Several things have to go right and the UK player has to get just a little too aggressive on UK1. Beware the G1 purchase of 2 bombers / 1 sub. It works for several directions.
-
@zergxies:
Besides liberation, one of the other reasons J1 and SL don’t mix well is that the US can get a fighter and 1+ bombers over to London before G3 easily. With the amount of fodder on London the fighter alone will probably take out 2-3 German aircraft.
USA can get 1 FTR and 1 STR bomber into England on USA 2 for the FTR.
True. And it is a very good idea to fly that fighter to Gibraltar and the bomber to London. However, not everyone does based upon Japan’s actions. If the J1 opener is near perfect a US player might think I better get after Japan quick with everything. In those circumstance, often players even bring the cruiser and transport to the Pacific and leave Brazil to the UK since the US is on a one way mission. In this instance, the UK has no reason to not place 6 infantry / 1 fighter on London. Sometimes they don’t because of a false sense of security in that Germany didn’t purchase any boats on G1.
In that scenario, G2 drop transports / 1 destroyer and bomb London, G3 SL and purchase a carrier / and another destroyer. Now the Axis are off to good start with a hard charging Japan while an allied major power’s capital has been captured.
-
If the germans take it, the Italians can fly in onto them, if you didn’t Taranto, the Italians can join the Sea Lion with their TTs also.
-
@Caesar:
UK can easily stop Sea Lion by stacking infantry on the island and reinforcing it from Canada however if Germany and Italy around the clock bomb London, it makes it hard to build due to spending in repair.
However, it’s also hard for Germany to defend London from liberation because you can only build 3 per turn on the island so you’re forced to reinforce it as needed with your navy making the Kreigsmarine more of a critical target AND you’re going to weaken the incoming assault from USSR so you have to ask yourself, is it worth trying to fight USSR with a weakened force, possibly lose, but you sure showed those dirty Brits or do you just withdraw from London forcing US to liberate it and take those battle harden 6th Army and use them against USSR?
Caesar, if SL is done right, yes Germany might only place 3 infantry per turn on London, but the Germany Navy (and an intact air force; if not lost in Sea Lion), is often enough to destroy the US Navy in SZ 110 and simultaneously re-capture London. This results in forcing the US to take a much longer time than people realize for the US to really be able to liberate London if they come over too quick. For awhile, Germany can get away with just adding 1 sub to their Navy per turn because they have 5 fighters @4 to defend that (2 on carrier + 3 on air base) and a crap ton of planes to kill a light US fleet if it comes to SZ 110.
Also, if done right, Russia can be dislodged from E. Poland on R4 (Russia’s optimal position for getting lots of NO money) and begin the drive to the 1st objective of Leningrad.
What I’m describing is based from experience on several successful Sea Lion games. I fully contend that I’m not that good at this game. In this thread are players who’ve beaten me. Like I just mentioned, Sea Lion is kind of a One Trick Pony. It’s not something I ever intend to do. SL is a target of opportunity that I want to occur. Several things have to go right and the UK player has to get just a little too aggressive on UK1. Beware the G1 purchase of 2 bombers / 1 sub. It works for several directions.
I disagree, I believe if US goes all in for Sea Lion defense, s/he will simply build as large as a navy they can and move it to the Atlantic and begin a full liberation or shield for London.
-
We have discussed the relationship between Germany and Japan in relation to a J1.
J1 is almost by definition a term that means Japan is going all in on the Money Islands and taking Calcutta.
What if Japan goes with what most players would call the sub optimal plan, go all in on Navy with your focus on Hawaii, ANZAC and the Money islands and play a defensive plan on the main land. Yeah, that plan, the plan that Japan tried to pull off in the real war.
J1 with its focus on taking out the pacific fleet and the Phill.
J2 mop up the remaining loose USA islands. Set up for a J3 on Hawaii or Queensland from the Caroline islands.
Now you really put the USA in the pickle. Japan is going all in with navy and pacific island hoping and Germany is going all in on UK.
Which way does the USA go? They cant go both.
Looking at the board the USA almost has to go after Japan because all they need to do is take Hawaii and Sidney and the game is over.
So, if Japan does this type of opening move, it is going to be really hard to defend Sea Lion if Germany knows the USA is not going to stack SZ91 with a huge liberation fleet/army.
-
We have discussed the relationship between Germany and Japan in relation to a J1.
J1 is almost by definition a term that means Japan is going all in on the Money Islands and taking Calcutta.
What if Japan goes with what most players would call the sub optimal plan, go all in on Navy with your focus on Hawaii, ANZAC and the Money islands and play a defensive plan on the main land. Yeah, that plan, the plan that Japan tried to pull off in the real war.
J1 with its focus on taking out the pacific fleet and the Phill.
J2 mop up the remaining loose USA islands. Set up for a J3 on Hawaii or Queensland from the Caroline islands.
Now you really put the USA in the pickle. Japan is going all in with navy and pacific island hoping and Germany is going all in on UK.
Which way does the USA go? They cant go both.
Looking at the board the USA almost has to go after Japan because all they need to do is take Hawaii and Sidney and the game is over.
So, if Japan does this type of opening move, it is going to be really hard to defend Sea Lion if Germany knows the USA is not going to stack SZ91 with a huge liberation fleet/army.
Japanese strategic choice in WWII was always China, that’s what the bulk of the Army was committed for. The Navy was only ordered to destroy the US Pacific Fleet so Japan could operate freely and return the flow of oil. The whole reason for Japanese Island hopping was the show the strength of IJN, also Navy didn’t want to invade Australia, it was already pushing their navy to the limits, it was the whole reason why they build airfields to deny US Lend Lease to Australia.
As far as the game; I always make the argument that US needs to invest 75% against Japan by at least matching the Japanese navy 1:1 and then go for their money.
-
GH had it right! Better safe than sorry. You don’t want to lose a capital and it’s income if preventable just because you think it can be taken back at some future time. Turn 2 is when you decide your options.
Suggested Topics
