I totally disagree with PainState. Bluffing SL without following through is a massive waste of resources which could be being used against USSR.
I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO
I totally disagree with PainState. Bluffing SL without following through is a massive waste of resources which could be being used against USSR.
Fair enough.
BUT
If you do not fake Sea Lion and spend your G2 build on a all in tactic on Russia are you not letting the UK off the hook? Letting them build that factory in the Middle East, building up in South Africa or rebuilding their navy?
9-10 TRS in the Baltic Sea is a serious threat to Russia also. You can get all your units from Western Europe to the Russian front on G3 OR if you are feeling really crazy you could stage the TRS in the North Sea and threaten to go south with all those TRS and hit Gibraltar and go all in with German Med fleet fully loaded with troops going at Egypt.
With out a full commitment of the G2 TRS purchase you are letting the UK off the hook on UK2 to do what ever they want to do.
@Elsass-Lorraine:
I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO
What?
Hold on.
Lets just say the Baltic fleet has no worries.
You have Leningrad.
You build 10 INF or 5 Inf/ 5 ART in Germany. You can shuck those 10 units + your 3 builds in Leningrad every turn. You have in essence cut down the time of travel from Germany to Moscow by 2 turns with Inf/ART with those wasted TRS.
You see no benefit in this?
FOOT NOTE
My G1 build always has 1 DD in it. Germany needs a DD to stop those pesky Russian Subs.
Part of the problem is that the number of transports useful for taking Leningrad (2 to 5) is different from the number of transports useful for taking London (8 to 10). You get some use out of a massive transport stack against Russia on G3, but not enough use to fully justify the cost of the transports. 9 transports + minor factory in Leningrad cost 60 ipcs per turn to fill with a conservative mix of infantry and artillery, leaving you zero or negative budget for tanks, mechs, planes, ships, and the western front. Most turns, at least a few of your transports will sit empty if you bluff Sea Lion.
A full Sea Lion bluff can make sense if the UK player is stronger (or rolled better on round 1) than the Russian player, or if the Russian opening is particularly vulnerable to a Baltic attack, but calling it mandatory is a big stretch. You’re transferring power from Britain (which is weakened by the need to place low-value infantry in London) to Russia (which is strengthened by Germany’s relatively inefficient purchase of 8+ transports.
I often prefer a partial sea lion bluff, with 2-4 transports and perhaps a couple of extra planes. It should still deter a full Middle Earth opening, but I know I can use all of the assets at full efficiency on the eastern front if I need to.
I’d be more inclined to purchase 3 transports for Germany and the rest on ground troops and another warship if I was trying to fake Sea Lion on the second turn. That gives you 4 in total now and makes them think that you are targeting Scotland to do a double-scotch landing. With 4 transports you move troops to Leningrad when you are ready.
As far as Sealion, I’m much more in favour of the later attack on London when the UK is not suspecting it. You build your fleet slowly while beating the piss out of the Russians and then BOOM you hit London. If America is going KJF then the Atlantic is wide open and there’s no taking it back.
About the 2 air base thing, I like one air base on Holland if I’m trying to protect that fleet and more warships instead of bombers if I’m going to do a G3 Sealion (which is not likely).
Iam against a passive approach to Sea Lion. You either do it or fake it or move on with another plan of attack against Russia.
I can see how you can do a middle ground approach of building a few TRS, and then the rest for Russia. I just do not think the UK is going to buy into the idea of Germany going Scotland and then see what happens and go Sea Lion on G4. If the UK does not buy in and they are right….well we are back to square one of using German TRS to shuck to Russia.
The middle ground approach I will admit is good for Germany to hold Norway, present a Leningrad threat / shuck plan and a London threat later on in the game if the UK are caught napping.
I just think Germany does not have the time to dick around and feint this and feint that and drag the assault on Moscow until turn 12.
Germany has to have a solid plan from Turn 1 and go for it. A G2 9TRS build is part of that plan to present a bold front against both UK/USSR… It allows Germany to go both ways, UK or Russia with strength.
You have to choose, attack with conviction OR mess around with middle ground / hedging our bet plans of attack.
Back to the SZ 102 discussion in regards to Sea Lion.
The USA does not start with the units necessary to contest SZ110 and help London.
That is a choice the Allies have to make, during a live game and if they choose wrong it could cause problems over the next few turns for either side.
The Axis have the upper hand at the start and force the hand of the Allies. The SZ102 carrier build is an example of the Axis forcing the USA to build 2 CV, move 4 planes and build bombers on USA1.
Germany could pivot on G2 and go Russia or Egypt.
It is the give and take of the first 3 turns of Global.
BUT
The Axis have the upper hand of this give and take exchange between the Allies.
By no means am I saying that German transports in the Baltic are bad, not worth it, whatever negative adjective you want.
A few German transports will, like GHG and Argothair stated previously, provide Germany with flexibility to go for SeaLion or attack Leningrad and/or shuck some troops to Russia, whatever fits. Buying a full transport fleet G2 is more than bluffing, it is showing your hand. If I see Germany go build 8-10 transports on turn 2, I’m gonna max defend London and then laugh when Germany doesn’t go for London because they just wasted a whole bunch of money.
HOW is Germany going to have the production capacity to fully utilize those transports against Russia (shucking troops), and WHY would they want to shuck when they can build fast movers and then use the minors the Russians so kindly give them to build more slow fodder at the front? I don’t want to go off-topic here (this was an Allied strategy thread after all), but to me the fast movers you build in Berlin/W Germany will better serve you in Russia because of their flexibility. PLUS, you’re going to be putting money into your Western defenses, so not every single unit you build in the West is going straight to Russia
Every buck counts in this game and having 70 sitting in the Baltic waiting to be destroyed by some British planes after you choose to not attack London is not using that money effectively.
PainState staggers off to the local pub and gets drunk at this point, muttering to himself about how does Germany take Moscow on G6 again? He is sure that 8-10 TRS in the Baltic is the key to that plan.
I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again-carriers, bombers, destroyers, and transports are not a waste of money for the Americans. Nobody is forcing the the US to buy them for no reason. If Germany doesn’t go Sealion then America did it’s job and they can position their units wherever they deem necessary. They were not going to attack anyone anywhere in the first 3 turns anyway unless Germany puts 10 transports in SZ 110, in which case they are going to sink them. They simply can’t reach anyone else worth attacking before then with enough force to matter on either side of the board. Calling London allows them to put units into place on the first 2 turns that can at least have some influence on what the axis decides to do. Other than that they have no influence on them at all.
Well what if on G3 they go with 20 units into Scotland?
USA is not at war until USA4 which means Germany can reload said TRS and hit London from both Scotland and SZ110 with up to 40 units. Now granted USSR will have some issue with this on USSR4 BUT London has fallen and fallen to the point that the USA might not be able to liberate it.
This goes back the give and take of the first 4 turns of the game. Axis do this and Allies do that.
Well what if on G3 they go with 20 units into Scotland?
USA is not at war until USA4 which means Germany can reload said TRS and hit London from both Scotland and SZ110 with up to 40 units. Now granted USSR will have some issue with this on USSR4 BUT London has fallen and fallen to the point that the USA might not be able to liberate it.
This goes back the give and take of the first 4 turns of the game. Axis do this and Allies do that.
That gives the UK one more turn to build units on London. Sure, Germany would still have their transports and could bring more units over but at that point it costs far too much to assault London. One more turn for the Bear to sharpen his claws too. I had already thought of that and several other ways to assault London besides what you seen in the video. So far I’ve yet to come up with anything that makes Sealion a good idea for Germany if the Allies counter with London Calling. They are far better off faking on turn one and then committing to marching on Moscow.
Once you realize that what a player could do is so much more threatening than what they actually do, the game changes. Why is a stack of bombers so good? Why does the Axis feel so overpowered at the beginning? It’s all about power projection, and to an extent, forcing responses.
As Germany once you commit to a non-mobile force, your power projection plummets. If you drop 70IPCs into TTs G2, the range of moves you can do diminishes greatly. The more Germany can do on its opening turns that threatens both London and Moscow the better. This is why the 2-bomber opening is so good, as are variations where you buy only 1 bomber and save or save everything. Those bombers can either bomb London, or hit the Eastern front. These moves force UK to not play greedy, and still lets every IPC turn around and hit Moscow.
Sounds like to me that PS and GHG should do a two best out of three….
Fun times!!! :x
“As Germany once you commit to a non-mobile force, your power projection plummets.”
This is spot on. You could go further, and say that most of the money Germany spends on anything other than Armor, Mechs, and Bombers should be limited.
Part of my position re: the bluff SL is that used to do the 1 CV/2 TT buy most games, deferring to the 2 SB/1 SUB concept, but not sure either one is the best. Anymore, I don’t add more than 1DD G1-3 to the surface fleet, I just leave it as it is, because even modest purchases (DD, CV) draw down your punch. If UK fleet is weak, and KJF, then I do buy some subs to annoy UK and potentially threaten SZ 91. And of course, a few infantry, as they will be needed to protect Rome, Norway, France etc.
Since Armor and Mechs are slower than bombers, and hitting Russia early is crucial; its probably more logical to buy armor/mechs early then bombers late (G4-6) because they can attack Moscow the turn after they are produced, assuming the invasion is going well.
All this concerns the critical path, as G40 is built, Germany spending money on ANYTHING other than Moscow punch is a recipe for a more stalemated game. To your point about shucking guys to Leningrad, its a 2-step move, and the former USSR factories themselves pumping out tanks is far better, so if I can grab the Ukraine and Leningrad factories as early as possible, that is better than putting 1$ on the water because pouring the tanks (ie money) directly into the fray is best.
GHG, nice way to continue the discussion of why sz 102 has a special rule. It is also worth pointing out that the rules were changed to allow the US to DOW in the event that London is taken, which makes sz102 more significant. There seems to be a good percentage of people, myself included, that like to do some kind of Sea Lion purchase to keep it on the table. Maybe they buy a little navy/bmrs G1, or try to keep the German BB alive etc…. Some might save IPCs to keep the allies guessing. This keeps the UK honest, and if the English falter they could pay a heavy price. Even if the UK does everything right Sea lion could still be pulled off.
London Calling (responsible buys for UK and US staging in sz102, plus bmrs in DC) is a good tool to have in your allied bag of tricks. If the Germans were serious about doing Sea Lion, this combined allied strat may change their minds. It tells Germany that it won’t be easy and there will be costly consequences. I agree w/GHG that US building mostly loaded carriers, destroyers, bmrs in the Atlantic the first couple turns is a good use of its income, and is in no way a waste. In the case of no Sea lion the naval assets will still be used to threaten Germany and get troops to Europe. The bmrs will be hitting German ICs, or sinking the Baltic fleet so its all good.
US can build Europe the first couple turns, then add to your Pac fleet later.
I think the only reason to stage a US fleet in sz 102 (fighters) and bombers in Washington DC (to sink the German Navy) is to try to let the UK get away with not doing a standard 6 /1 UK1 purchase. Because, otherwise what’s the point of doing this SZ 102 thing?
If the UK purchases a standard 6 / 1, and most of their pre-existing fighters are still there (minus maybe 1 that went to Taranto), then at that point SL is pretty much off the table. It’s now at the pyrrhic point. Ok, Germany could still go through with it, but if they lose most of their air and all of the tanks but 1 taking London, so what. Russia is a bear and Germany is way behind. Russia can hold their own for a very long time now. US can hound Japan for about 6-7 rounds spending 90% money and slowly buildup for a round 8-10 liberation.
It remains obscure, to me.
US 1 Purchase a Atl. Carrier. Divert this and 2 fighters that normally go to SZ 10/Hawaii to SZ 101
US 2 Move to SZ 102. Unless you bought a DD, you lack this critical item.G3 - If I have assets positioned near Normandy, or Gibraltar (regardless of ownership) I can hit you.
Sea Lion should be going down, if im doing that. I see the CV, but that fleet cant hit me in SZ 110, where i’ll be at the end of my turn. It cant land forces either, and US cant stage to SZ 106 until im at war. If SL is going to require a second round, that might be worrisome but the US still cannot declare war on me (unless I took London).
If I don’t care about SL, or are bluffing, slowbuidling, etc, I see that it wasn’t that great of a plan with the US in the Atlantic, but im not afraid of 1 CV 1 CA 1DD. I might be mildly afraid of some transports. If UK or USA have grand fleets in the Atlantic, its a source for concern G3-5, but unless they are both going 100% KGF I don’t have to divert resources from KRF yet.
This is when having some german subs and strat bombers ready to strike is pretty sweet because then they have to stack a SZ 91, 109, 110 et al… and if you were lucky and killed the French ships, there wont be a multination navy to cover 91 early game
This leads me to believe that you didn’t watch the video and are incorrectly assuming what is happening in the strategy. There are 2 loaded carriers and a destroyer in 102, and 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, and 3 transports in 101. They also have 4 strat bombers on Eastern US. The Brits have 1 strat bomber, 1 tac bomber, and 1 fighter on Gibraltar. The Med has been cleared of boats so the only way to take out the planes on Gib is with with planes.
This plan isn’t to actively prevent Sealion, it’s to dissuade Germany from doing it. The assets are to be moved to wherever the American player wants them after Germany declines to buy the wack of transports needed to do a G3 Sealion. If the Germans go ahead and do it then all of the US and if necessary the UK planes will destroy everything in 110. London will be liberated asap and Germany will cry in their beer as they get pounded by Russian tanks for the rest of the game. You can’t save 110 if London falls. If it is attempted but doesn’t fall then the UK can hit 110 with 5 planes because the Gib planes can land on London and won’t need the US carrier for a landing spot.
