We played with dice, not low luck.
Can't win a Global game with Sea Lion
-
Can’t hear “Sea Lion” anymore. :-P
Well, it’s fine that Germany has enough economic power to force Sea Lion in G3.
Congratulations! It’s what we dreamed on in the revised or anniversary edition. :roll:
But is Sea Lion really a global match winner?
All the money for planes, transports, etc.
Terrible losses of planes and ground units which you need urgently at the eastern front.
What to do with all the transports? Where are the ground units to fill them? Who defends France? Where is the money for plane rebuilds?
A russian player producing tons of infantry, artillery, tanks and a few planes for 37 IPCs per turn only waiting to kick in the small grey line in Poland an Romania.
An US-player spending every IPC in the northern atlantic to reinforce the UK, invading France and North Africa by the way.
Sea Lion can’t be the solution.
Maybe I’am a too conservative Axis&Allies player, but I see only one way: Kick the Homefleet and then full speed east! :-D
-
An US-player spending every IPC in the northern atlantic to reinforce the UK, invading France and North Africa by the way.
If this is happening, why is Japan not doing anything?
-
I tend to not play an all out Sea Lion for this very reason. However, if the British player pretends that he can perform Taranto and/or not reinforce London with 9 units then I will embarrass them and spend a decent chunk of my 70IPC in turn 2 to take their capital in G3. (Using Italy’s 2 or 3 fighters to clear any blocking ships between the Baltic Sea and London. This way I am able to build a Romanian Major factory on G1 and still cruise into an unsuspecting UK if they do not take the potential threat seriously… If they are smart and defend anyway then roll out the troops from Romania. Hasn’t failed me yet and I only had to embarrass UK once in our group to “encourage” them to never carry out Taranto again.
-
An US-player spending every IPC in the northern atlantic to reinforce the UK, invading France and North Africa by the way.
If this is happening, why is Japan not doing anything?
darned right. Japan needs to look threatening at the very least. I tend to talk a little trash when i play Japan in this version. Something to attract allied attention off Germany.
My Japan was quite explosive in the older versions. Think i am finally up to specs in this one after our last game
-
My Japan was quite explosive in the older versions. Think i am finally up to specs in this one after our last game
Care to give a brief run-down. I, and most here, would have a decent understanding. Someone elsewhere suggested a Jap thread.
-
It has been a day or two now but I can give the generals of my last Japan strategy:
Previous to my turn India took a couple of the DEI. Russian consolidated back a square from me.
J1 Filled all three transports and move them down south unloading in French Indo China and one of the “K” Chinese territories. Conduct the usual offensive moves in China. Built a couple more transports. Since the Russians backed off I walked my guys from Manchuria north into….?Amur? I think it is. My airplanes mostly parked south of Hong Kong. The Navy was split into Japan and FIC fleets.
US 1 they did an odd thing consolidating some land forces and a couple airplanes on Wake like they were teasing me.
Russia2 they sat there.
India2 saw them build an aircraft carrier of all things. Japan’s land units were outnumbered on all fronts so I guess they felt safe. India also took another Island and readied its land forces for retaking the Burma road when they could w/o starting the war. Australia did the usual Island landing.
J2 I took Malaya, landed on the fortified territories east of India with much air support. I took the Philippines also for some reason and sunk the Indian transport fleet. My new transports moved south also dropping in Kwangtung (Hong Kong) and southern China again with minimal naval protection. I took the Burma road square again and one other Chinese territory.
US2, reinforced their Wake Island. It was starting to look pretty intimidating. Like Japan would actually have to concentrate on taking it.
Russia3 they sat there. I think dude sent a couple Inf towards China.
India3, their fleet attacked my FIC fleet. This went poorly for me. Both Navies were annihilated. The Allies were thrilled hooting and hollering, India had to land a couple planes in Java. They built land units, took back a territory in south asia.Japan3 I built a major factory in Malaya. It was only marginally closer to India than Kwangtung but boy did it get ppl’s attention. I also took more of Siberia unopposed.
Australia got their bonus. Moved their planes to the DEI I think it was. My transports noticed all this air power! Both my AC’s and my remaining BB were up in Japan. The US was going Europe heavy but had a reasonable Fleet in or near Hawaii. They accomplished little US3
India4 they took back another territory. built land units.
J4 built my ten ppl in Malaya and marched forward. Also sacrificed a transport to land in Alaska as the US had too many units in the East. This had the desired effect of putting their fleet off Alaska from Hawaii and buying me some breathing room.
You get the idea. The complex in Malaya just seems soo much more threatening. I goofed with my Navy against the Indians stretching them a bit too thin with that Philippines money grab. My Navy off Japan isn’t too strong but China is under control and I have like two transports up there replacing lost units in China and more or less gaining ground on the Soviets.
-
I’ve seen Sea Lion two or three times and Axis have never won the game when it happens. Sure Germany gets a huge IPC boost, but Germany has a fleet of useless transports and is forced to defend UK, France, West Germany, and the Eastern front. Impossible. Germany needs to destroy UK’s fleet, have enough subs and air that US and UK wait a few turns building a navy before attempting landings, and crush Russia. The key to this game is Moscow, as in all AA games. Taking UK is cool but in all the games I’ve seen it makes Germany weaker not stronger.
-
I have seen it go both ways. On one hand, Germany does have to commit a lot of resources for Sealion which leaves them weak in other areas. On the other hand, a successful Sealion deprives USA of an airbase for attacking Germany. If Axis is able to protect Gibralter, USA has no place to base operations unless they attack neutral Spain, thus making all other neutrals pro-Axis.
It really depends on how players build in their respective countries and on naval victories. One key I have found for a successful Sealion is for Germany to build an aircraft carrier with 2 fighters to protect their transport fleet. If UK tries building expensive planes and warships to try and rebuild the RAF and Royal Navy, Sealion can be successful with somewhat limited units by Germany. However, if UK just plops a bunch of infantry there, Germany has to commit a lot more land units of it’s own which could keep dragging it out.
Another thing I have noticed is that Sealion really needs to happen G2 for Germany to be able to still build up a decent force for Barbarossa and protect against USA. In our first game of Global, Sealion wasn’t successful until G3 and so weakened Germany on other fronts that Barbarossa ended up being a failure. Germany kept having to pour so many units to keep at Russia that USA landed in Europe, liberated France and destroyed Italy. After that, it was just a matter of a couple of more rounds and Germany was finished.
In our second game, UK did a little poor planning and Germany pulled off Sealion in G2. As a result, they had plenty of force for Barbarossa and smashed the Soviets. Soviet counterattacks failed and the Germans pushed onward. By the time USA could get to Europe, Germany had too much defense and the US even had trouble fighting Italy.
-
I tried Sealion against Calvin in my current G40 game first of all I didn’t capture France (Bad dice) and the my Sealion fleet go smashed by British air and sea units by Gib. I think sealion could work but then Soviets become to strong
-
Yes, it’s works, but does not win the war.
-
I just participated in a few global games, both that had a sucessfult sealion G2. I played Japan in one, and watched the other game.
UK was undaunted by a single German transport in my game, and the German airforce plus a bombardment from a battleship and cruiser were enough to take the UK on G2. A single German tank and 1 bomber survived. In the other game, the situation was similar, though the UK player had less defending England at the time.
The results went both ways:
In my game, the German player left the tank defending England, knowing that the U.S. would be able to retake London no matter what he put there. Of course he could slow the U.S. by fortifying, but the IPC gain from the UK, plus the IPC loss from England collecting no money until round 4 he considered enough of a victory to be content losing England, instead spending his money on rebuilding his airforce, and submarines (along with some Italian naval power) to help control the Atlantic, as well as ground forces to invade Russia.
In the other game, Germany heavily defending London… by the time America was in the war, Germany had nearly 20 infantry in England, as well as other troops.
The reults? Well, in my game, Tthe U.S. completely ignored my Japanese, allowing me to fight the pacific battle unopposed. UK Pac did a fine job trying to liberate China, but it was only a matter of time before I overpowered them. The U.S. was ready and able to retake London, but not before the superior German numbers were standing on Moscow’s door. The game was eventually called in favor of the Axis after the fall of Africa and all but Moscow. The U.S. fleet was hammered by about 8 submarines (all lost) and many aircraft (all survived).
The other game - the U.S. committed heavily to both theaters, challenging the Jap fleet in the Pacfic, and building a sizable landing force in Europe. The Atlantic force was quite patient, allowing Germany to build in the UK. What do they do? Go straight for France and Berlin, ignoring London. The Russians were able to push forward as well, as the Germans spent too much in trying to hold London itself. This game ended with an Allied victory.
-
As a few posts have said, a G2 sealion is, in my opinion, a better bet (if it can be done). No money lost on transports, UK money can go towards rebuilding that airforce, and Germany can allocate all G2 funds, as well as future turns, to Russia. UK collects no income, Africa falls to any competent Italian player. The inability for the UK to produce in South Africa is extreme. Two turns or more of lost UK income seems worthwhile for ~60 ipcs of German aircraft. It just seems defending London, especially at less than 10 ipc territory value, just isn’t worth it, when you know the Americans can snatch it back.
-
UK was undaunted by a single German transport in my game, and the German airforce plus a bombardment from a battleship and cruiser were enough to take the UK on G2. A single German tank and 1 bomber survived. In the other game, the situation was similar, though the UK player had less defending England at the time.
Lucky shot and bad defense.
Leaving only 2 infs in England at the end of UK1 is abig mistake…
-
You may well be right, sea lion might not be a game winner. But it still warrants discussion and refining. Here are reasons to study and refine sea lion:
-
If UK under prepares, in the face of a CV & 2TT build, they may allow Germany to beat them too efficiently. If the costs are reduced, post sea lion is looking much better for the Axis.
-
Japans role has not been refined. Japan is very powerful, and can still get India (and very big) by turn four at latest. They can be well into Northern Russia and mostly through China, with a major IC churning out mechs in Manchuria. Perhaps Japan can pressure US enough to force them West? This is rough for Japan but the Germany holds UK and i kicking can. This deserves more thought and testing in so new and so huge a game I think.
-
Do we know that Barbarossa can win the game? If the axis are at a disadvantage, then the problem might be imbalance - not sea lion being wrong. If a balancer is needed, post sea lion is obviously looking better; perhaps even best.
The first reason is the perhaps most significant. I played the other day and my opponent under defended UK. He spent 7 IPCs turn one and two in South Africa, and he pulled his tactical bomber into the Mediterranean. I was able to take UK too easily and with less naval building. I also declared war J3 (and collected sixty some Yen) because USA was not in position to retake UK that turn (and I’m not sure that they could be).
So yeah, sea lion might not win global, but we shouldn’t rule it out just yet. Also, a good player needs to decide how much (if any) they can skimp on homeland defense before they offer too good a deal.
As a few posts have said, a G2 sealion is, in my opinion, a better bet (if it can be done).
Without a G1 cv build, you can’t protect a fleet in sz112, and if you stay in sz113, sea lion is blocked. If you do buy the cv, you don’t have enough transports.
-
-
Can’t hear “Sea Lion” anymore. :-P
…Maybe I’am a too conservative Axis&Allies player, but I see only one way: Kick the Homefleet and then full speed east! :-D
That’s what happened in our game. I called Sea Lion off because I thought it was risky and didn’t want to lose planes. Overwhelmed Russia on turn 7 (took Leningrad turn 5 with forces from Vyborg and Karelia -taken turn 4) via the northern route (Byelorus).
We played three games in a row, game 1 Sea Lion worked and axis won because of also taking India, game 2 Axis lost because of atrocious losses in Sea Lion and Japan got stuck in Russia, and game 3 was a very close fought Axis victory after Moscow fell, Japan was struggling but not doing bad enough to let the allies in for the win.
-
Without a G1 cv build, you can’t protect a fleet in sz112, and if you stay in sz113, sea lion is blocked. If you do buy the cv, you don’t have enough transports.
And even unblocked in SZ113, undefended transports can and will be sunk.
-
I have had people attempt sea lion in several of our games. The fact seems to be that if UK plays smart and anticipates a Sea Lion strategy from the beginning no matter what Germany does then they can either fend off the German assault or make it so expensive that Russia then rolls over them on the eastern front.
Sea Lion is only a viable strategy from what I have seen if UK does not take the threat seriously and does not therefor defend its capital with enough and does not bring the carrier and destroyer from Morocco back to the North Atlantic.
-
Sea Lion is only a viable strategy from what I have seen if UK does not take the threat seriously and does not therefor defend its capital with enough and does not bring the carrier and destroyer from Morocco back to the North Atlantic.
Or perhaps if USA is busy in the Pacific?
-
Sea Lion is only a viable strategy from what I have seen if UK does not take the threat seriously and does not therefor defend its capital with enough and does not bring the carrier and destroyer from Morocco back to the North Atlantic.
Or perhaps if USA is busy in the Pacific?
True, but then you have the game already because you are playing allies who are unsure of how to keep the grand strategy in mind.
-
Sea Lion is only a viable strategy from what I have seen if UK does not take the threat seriously and does not therefor defend its capital with enough and does not bring the carrier and destroyer from Morocco back to the North Atlantic.
Or perhaps if USA is busy in the Pacific?
True, but then you have the game already because you are playing allies who are unsure of how to keep the grand strategy in mind.
If Japan could force America into the Pacific, do you thing Germany and Italy could hold out against just Russia and colonial UK post Sea Lion?
Suggested Topics
