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?
No question about it, if UK is out of the game and the US is forced to focus on the pacific, the axis will win. I think the objective of a good axis player is to take Africa with Italy, push carefully into Russia with Germany and force the US to focus on the Pacific first with Japan. How you go about that is up to you, but it is a race against time for the axis, if Germany can take Russia before the US can land in Europe then the axis should be well on their way to a win.
No question about it, if UK is out of the game and the US is forced to focus on the pacific, the axis will win. I think the objective of a good axis player is to take Africa with Italy, push carefully into Russia with Germany and force the US to focus on the Pacific first with Japan. How you go about that is up to you, but it is a race against time for the axis, if Germany can take Russia before the US can land in Europe then the axis should be well on their way to a win.
I think if sea lion is pulled off turn 2 because the UK player did not prepare on defense then it is worth it. Otherwise too many resources are required to take UK and Russia will be knocking on Europe’s door. If the US is in position it can normally get UK back when it enters the war with little resources.
Also is US aloud to put a fleet off the coast of New Brunswick before it is in the war? If so that means it could retake UK the turn it falls by useing the naval base. Or if US is aloud to be in New Brunswick can it not use the naval base there since UK and US are not actually allies at that point?
I think the US is not allowed in any territory other than it’s own until a DOW has been made against it, or the turn limit expires.
I meant just being in the sea zone that borders the naval base. Not actually entering the terriotory. I know they can’t go off the coast of Africa but I am not sure about Cananda.
I don’t think they would be allowed to use the powers of the base because it isn’t theirs.
Ok that makes sense. They would not be able to use it until they become allies with UK.
the US could position troops on TR off Canada. As soon as they are at war they will be able to use the Naval base
