Sealion Version 1.0

[spectre_04]

I also suppose you could use that cruiser as an attaker/casualty in attacking the British and French Cruisers in that sea zone as well, might save you a plane.

[taishan]

@spectre_04:

I also suppose you could use that cruiser as an attaker/casualty in attacking the British and French Cruisers in that sea zone as well, might save you a plane.

But I need to attack the french and UK cruisers on G1, then I cant hide behind Denmark, and I canät use my newly bought CV in any attack…

[taishan]

@Van_Trump:

There was a rule clarification on newly built aircraft carriers (CV).

If you end fighter movement in the sea zone the CV is being built, the fighters can land on the newly built CV.

Thx. Were was the rule clarfífication made? Is there an authority to ask or are we just interpreting the rulebook?
Another rule question for you. Can you ship troops to Finland in G1 without declaring war on Russia? i.e. acting as if there was no russian fleet.

cheers!

[spectre_04]

Thx. Were was the rule clarfífication made?

When I was playing a game of Pacific about a month ago, my friend (Japan) pulled this one on me.  He attacked my fleet at Midway, which I thought was safe, with a bunch of Airpower I thought was out of range from the Carolines.  It turns out he bought 3 carriers in the sea of Japan and landed them there, I didn’t know about that, I disputed it, we looked in the Pacific 1940 Rulebook and its all there.  You can buy a new carrier, end the fighters movement (combat or non combat) on a sea zone adjacent to the factory where you buy the carrier, and land the fighters on the newly built carrier.  Essentially this gives you 1 more space of range on your fighters and Tacs, and allows you to pull a bit of a K4-2 square trick on your enemy.  Deception is part of the battle, I know better now.

[JamesAleman]

@taishan:

@Van_Trump:

There was a rule clarification on newly built aircraft carriers (CV).

If you end fighter movement in the sea zone the CV is being built, the fighters can land on the newly built CV.

Thx. Were was the rule clarfífication made? Is there an authority to ask or are we just interpreting the rulebook?
Another rule question for you. Can you ship troops to Finland in G1 without declaring war on Russia? i.e. acting as if there was no russian fleet.

Yes, its not an enemy fleet and does not affect your actions while they are neutral.

cheers!

[Van_Trump]

Ok played 2 more games.

First one I played the allies. Sealion such an abysmal failure that the Axis resigned and we immediately started another game. In a nutshell, Germany did not exclusively buy transports and stuff to put on them. He also did not attack G3, instead invading Scotland (intending to have a dble attack on London next turn.) I strafed Scotland, eliminating two thirds of German force plus built 10 more inf on London.

2nd game I played the Axis.
I took France but crapped out on one of the sea battles. 2 fighters, 1 Tac, 2 subs vs 1 BB, 1 CA. Both UK ships survived. UK chose not to destroy German fleet (G1 buy: CV, DD, SS). Instead he used Gibral fleet to sink half the Italian navy.
He did Infantry stack buy in part because I warned him about my intention to Sealion.
Surviving Royal Navy linked up with Canadian DD and TT in the sea zone between Ireland and uk. (These ships sunk on G2 with minimal loss for Germans)
UK2 saw another 10 inf built in London.
Set up interesting situation G3. I judged the G3 Sealion attack about a 50-50 chance. I set up to repeat an almost identical attack G4 so I proceeded, retreating 2 planes after final round of combat. Eliminated 75% of UK defense.
G4 Sealion (Porky’s 2, the next day) was no contest. USA was not in the war so could not reinforce London US3 with planes. UK falls.

Meanwhile, USSR had a considerable stack in East Poland and waltzed into Poland on R4.
G5 saw Germany mounting a hasty defense in Berlin (bringing back all surviving Armor from London). Germany upgraded Berlin IC to major AND had the money to buy 23 inf (10 in London, 10 in West Germany, 3 in Berlin.)
Cairo had also fallen so Axis needed only 2 more cities. UK had no more builds in South Africa so the Italians were mopping up. Also Italy build IC on Iraq to help threaten Russia.

Americans were off the coast of Europe in force by US6 with an unassailable fleet (8 loaded TTs)-they were intimidated by German fleet and had delayed coming over for a turn.

G6 Germany used TT’s to move Infantry stack to Poland (together with everything in Berlin) and USSR was on the defensive.

At that point we had to call the Game because of time but I feel the Axis had the win: US takes 2 turns to ferry stuff to the front while Germany can build directly on London (or Paris) as needed.

Sealion was not a sure fire strategy for Axis win. Pushing Russians back on broad front starting G4 seems safer (putting IC in Romania instead of TT build).
but

[special forces]

but?

[Van_Trump]

…but (last post was done late at night) concentrating on Russia and not taking London gives the Americans time to effectively “Torch” Africa. Not clear that Axis can hold Cairo if USA makes it a priority. UK can build stuff in South Africa to hold off Italians until USA arrives.
American fleet having the run of the Med causes all kinds of defensive problems for the Axis, landing forces behind the lines, etc…
Italy will be back down to 10 IPC production before you know it. Axis could be at 7 victory cities for a loooong time.

In this extremely long game scenario it may be necessary for the Axis to take Turkey to give themselves a short cut to Africa.

[spectre_04]

I have thought about the Turkey idea, but I still haven’t had a chance to pull it off.

Van Trump, had an interesting time reading about your game.
However:

Germany upgraded Berlin IC to major AND had the money to buy 23 inf (10 in London,

How were you able to buy 10 INF in London?  Did you upgrade to a Major IC in London, because when you take a major IC, it immediately becomes a minor IC as stated in the rulebook.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@spectre_04:

I have thought about the Turkey idea, but I still haven’t had a chance to pull it off.

Van Trump, had an interesting time reading about your game.
However:

Germany upgraded Berlin IC to major AND had the money to buy 23 inf (10 in London,

How were you able to buy 10 INF in London?  Did you upgrade to a Major IC in London, because when you take a major IC, it immediately becomes a minor IC as stated in the rulebook.

This is the E40 thread, and in E40, the major stays a major

[Van_Trump]

Whoa, did not know about reduction of captured IC.

Have to read Global rules carefully before trying it.

To be frank, people I am playing against are not strong players.
The only game balance I give them is I play my turns extremely quickly, making the odd mistake from time to time. Also try to give them advice about my intentions.

[spectre_04]

Well Van, you can always declare war on the USA on Germany1 and Italy1 to give em more cash!!!

[cts17]

It is also possible for a British opening that doesn’t involve a Taranto attack, as it almost certainly opens up a German Sealion.

A tactic I’m working up involves placing the British CV/DD SZ91 to SZ92, replacing the tac with 2 fig from Eng/Alx. CA from SZ98 to SZ92 makes it difficult for Italian naval attack, who would prob solidify in SZ95 or attack French fleet. A purchase of nothing might tempt a G2 sealion, so perhaps some infantry would mark for a standard buy.

Gbr 2 sees 2 CV’s (2 DD’s built on top of that, preferably) built, fleet in SZ92 moved to SZ110 ensures that no Sealion can happen Turn 3. Should the Germans have taken the precaution to building a larger fleet on G2 instead of transports, they’ll still need those planes to take out your fleet, so build land units instead.

Not that they’d prep for that anyways.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@cts17:

It is also possible for a British opening that doesn’t involve a Taranto attack, as it almost certainly opens up a German Sealion.

A tactic I’m working up involves placing the British CV/DD SZ91 to SZ92, replacing the tac with 2 fig from Eng/Alx. CA from SZ98 to SZ92 makes it difficult for Italian naval attack, who would prob solidify in SZ95 or attack French fleet. A purchase of nothing might tempt a G2 sealion, so perhaps some infantry would mark for a standard buy.

Gbr 2 sees 2 CV’s (2 DD’s built on top of that, preferably) built, fleet in SZ92 moved to SZ110 ensures that no Sealion can happen Turn 3. Should the Germans have taken the precaution to building a larger fleet on G2 instead of transports, they’ll still need those planes to take out your fleet, so build land units instead.

Not that they’d prep for that anyways.

A few problems:
UK can’t build 2 CV 2 DD on UK2 unless they save some money from UK1(is this what you’re doing)?

If Germany’s fleet is in Z112, it goes around the island and invades from Z109

[spectre_04]

I still think an infantry/armor build, and moving the Canadian forces to the home islands is the better deterrent to Sea lion.  I also try and reinforce Gibraltar as fast as I can and pull the fleets back.  I don’t enjoy playing so defensively, believe me, but The Luftwaffe will smash your fleet if you don’t get it somewhere safe (like Newfoundland) and build it up first(that is if Germany is going for Sea Lion Strategy).  This is especially hard if they (GER) builds heavily on subs and airpower.  I think it is actually better for the German player to hit the Soviets and not get involved int he pipe dream that is sea lion.

[94Canuck]

New guy question, so sorry in advance.

I’ve just read all 8 pages, taking it in.  Would someone mind explaining the short hand of the units, I don’t know what CV, SS, DD etc.  The Inf, Mech is good, just the others. I would be guessing at them which I don’t want to do.

Thanks.

[Van_Trump]

DD = destroyer
SS = sub
TT = transport
CV = carrier
BB = battleship
CA = Cruiser

[94Canuck]

Thanks.

AP??

[calvinhobbesliker]

@94Canuck:

Thanks.

AP??

Another way of saying transport

[spectre_04]

Discovered that an All Naval build for Russia (provided that they aren’t at war yet) is a great deterrent to sea lion.