Most common T1 Axis buys

[rocknroll]

@edfactor:

so nobody just sets down infantry for Germany?

i would!

i am not convinced that building up a german navy is a wise decision. sealion is a dead end! once planned and bought this way, germany is doomed to loose the game.  i would suggest 3 artillery, 3 mech, 1 sub.

italy has two options which depend on whether the Uk does a taranto-raid or not. in the first case, maybe a sub, rest saved. in the second case, two mech for supporting germany on the eastern front.

japan is more free, i guess. three options seem worth to be tried:
a) 3 transports, rest saved
b) 2 transports, 2 subs
c) 1 naval base (Hainan) and a transport, rest saved.

[Xandax]

@rock`n:

i am not convinced that building up a german navy is a wise decision. sealion is a dead end! once planned and bought this way, germany is doomed to loose the game.  i would suggest 3 artillery, 3 mech, 1 sub.

Sealion most definitely is not a dead end.

[rocknroll]

okay, opinion accepted.  :-)

but can you do me a favor, please? can you outline why it is “most definitely not a dead end?”

without this it is just a lone shout in a dark forest anywhere… ;)

[Xandax]

@rock`n:

okay, opinion accepted.  :-)

but can you do me a favor, please? can you outline why it is “most definitely not a dead end?”

without this it is just a lone shout in a dark forest anywhere… ;)

I’d much rather why you claim it is a dead end and then back that up, as it is you making claims.

However, I say it isn’t a dead end, because taking London does not cause you to loose the game.

[rocknroll]

i think it is a dead end, because of way too much ipcs invested in effectively  - economically spoken - no gain. well, uk can be cut out from game for two rounds, that is a good thing. no way to argue. but meanwhile russia gets too big to be conquered. (as russia i would not suggest attacking any german territory in range of the sealion-fleet.) in the long distance, imho, sealion is no game-winner. only with lucky dices…

it takes germany at minimum three rounds to fulfill an operation sealion. 111 ipcs for russia to spend with no risk of loosing, positioning well etc. even if japan attacks on the other side…who cares?

and : a sealion forces the US to take action in the european part of the game, but with its huge income it is no problem for them to deal with this, isn´t it?

now it is your turn… ;)

[Xandax]

@rock`n:

i think it is a dead end, because of way too much ipcs invested in effectively  - economically spoken - no gain. well, uk can be cut out from game for two rounds, that is a good thing. no way to argue. but meanwhile russia gets too big to be conquered. (as russia i would not suggest attacking any german territory in range of the sealion-fleet.) in the long distance, imho, sealion is no game-winner. only with lucky dices…

it takes germany at minimum three rounds to fulfill an operation sealion. 111 ipcs for russia to spend with no risk of loosing, positioning well etc. even if japan attacks on the other side…who cares?

and : a sealion forces the US to take action in the european part of the game, but with its huge income it is no problem for them to deal with this, isn´t it?

now it is your turn… ;)

If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.
And if you can only hold England for 2 rounds, USA will land somewhere else after the 2 rounds, and with your troops in Russia, they’ll should do so easily.
And if you can dedicate enough resources to keep England at bay, you should be able to dedicate enough resources to keep Russia at bay.

Resources used on taking England are resources which can now be used against Russia, after all transports can be used for assaults on Russia as well, so you can strike over a broader fronts. Or you can use the resources to threaten the USA fast.

Resources that US must now dedicate to Europe are less resources they can use to go after Japan giving them some space. Japan can then grow big and powerful. Possible even allowing Japan to move deep into Russia or participate with Germany on threatening USA, so they’ll care.
Having USA splitting income in turn 3 or 4 between Europe and Pacific is a golden opportunity for the Axis.

[rocknroll]

i understand your point. i - some time ago - thought for myself the same way, but i realized the following mistake in thinking you clearly stated:

@Xandax:

If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.

thanx for that, by the way.
it is a kind of a logical error which you proposed. the logic seams right, but only in logical thinking, not in fact. it is not germany alone who keeps the uk at bay. it is the axis, italy AND germany. it is this very special task for italy to do so.

as germany it is well more possible to have troops on land against russia and winning this european theater, than having a navy which cannot be defended well against a determined allied force and used only once after britain fell. more than 90 IPCs wasted to gain 30, if lucky 60??? nothing for me…

another important point is: TIME!
you just do not have sufficient time as germany to do sealion AND barbarossa! calculate 3 rounds for sealion - optimistic version - two turns to get all material from the UK to russia plus minimum 4 more turns to conquer russia - this time heavily fortified. you need to hold 8 VCs for one turn (london will fall to the USA, so you have to go moscow anyway :D), which in this phase of the game is nearly not possible, only due to lucky dices. summa summarum already 9/10 turns.

and even if sealion will be staged, the USA can afford to invest fully in the pacific for two rounds just for keeping up the pace with japan. turn three and four investing mostly in europe won´t stall this process. it is the AXIS who has to CONQUER territory and the ALLIES to DEFEND!

[Young Grasshopper]

3 turns for sea lion is standard and very possible, if done right it is more than just “optimistic”. I would never try to move all my units from the UK after I take it, I would leave them there to defend against a liberation force and even build on my new London minor IC. This way I can hold off the US because there are zero units being built by the UK, meaning Italy can take Africa and the southern IC (which would be difficult if the UK were building 3 tanks there every round).

All Germany needs to do is Hammer the first 4 buffer zones on the eastern front by taking 2 of the Russian ICs closest to Germany and than wait for the help of a powerful and rich Italy to defend against any American operations like torch or D-day before Germany mops up the rest of the Soviet Union. You say that sea lion takes time and I say sea lion buys time. besides, its not so much the money and time spent taking London but rather the British units you keep off the board by holding their capital.

[Xandax]

@rock`n:

i understand your point. i - some time ago - thought for myself the same way, but i realized the following mistake in thinking you clearly stated:

@Xandax:

If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.

thanx for that, by the way.
it is a kind of a logical error which you proposed. the logic seams right, but only in logical thinking, not in fact. it is not germany alone who keeps the uk at bay. it is the axis, italy AND germany. it is this very special task for italy to do so.

It’s also the Axis keeping Russia at bay. The Italians can play a part, and Japan can play a part. Especially if USA is kept busy by Germany.

@rock`n:

as germany it is well more possible to have troops on land against russia and winning this european theater, than having a navy which cannot be defended well against a determined allied force and used only once after britain fell. more than 90 IPCs wasted to gain 30, if lucky 60??? nothing for me…

another important point is: TIME!
you just do not have sufficient time as germany to do sealion AND barbarossa! calculate 3 rounds for sealion - optimistic version - two turns to get all material from the UK to russia plus minimum 4 more turns to conquer russia - this time heavily fortified. you need to hold 8 VCs for one turn (london will fall to the USA, so you have to go moscow anyway :D), which in this phase of the game is nearly not possible, only due to lucky dices. summa summarum already 9/10 turns.

And when Russia turtles as you say England does, you can easily face the same situation and being bogged down outside Moscow while England and USA pounds on France and/or taking Africa away from Italy.

@rock`n:

and even if sealion will be staged, the USA can afford to invest fully in the pacific for two rounds just for keeping up the pace with japan. turn three and four investing mostly in europe won´t stall this process. it is the AXIS who has to CONQUER territory and the ALLIES to DEFEND!

When I play Japan I would love for the USA to only spend fully in pacific for 2 rounds.
That basically allows for taking India/China and possible Anzac pretty fast. Or allows you to push into Russia to keep pressure off the Germans. Or even stage an invasion of mainland USA.
The navy the US puts up in 2 rounds can’t pressure Japan mainland enough to divert many resources away from India/Anzac/China.

Now, I’m not saying you can’t win without doing sealion or that you must do it - but it is far form an insta-loss as you seem to indicate. It is a very viable strategy - especially if playing bold with Axis and not just doing a Moscow rush.

[rocknroll]

@xandax:
russia will turtle anyway. the point is, how much time you give her! i´d say as less as possible…

but could you please outline your “viable strategy”? all i have read is virtually “sealion then barbarossa”, without any details! (where you go with what? in which turn you want to achieve which conquest etc. maybe with some estimated numbers of units you throw in there etc. …)

another thing: it is even not doubted that the UK and the USA will be able to take away some african possessions or even get into the normandy etc. the point is, how to deal with it. is it possible to delay that or to deny the allies any advantages out of that like the ability of producing etc.

@ grasshopper:
leaving german units in london helps russia even more! taking london is without any doubt a cool maneuver, but, imho, does not help winning this game, which is done holding 8 VCs in Europe OR 6 in the pacific. the latter is more difficult to achieve, i think.

and did you realize, that africa is huge? you cannot get it in just three or four turns! i have never seen an allied-free africa in any game! or italy even taking south africa…and therefor you don´t have to buy three tanks a turn as the british, two inf minimum already can do.

what countries do you mean by “buffer zones” to be hammered? and when i am not mistaken, all russian ICs are minimum two steps from germany´s border away.

@both: did you ever win with sealion and etc.? ;)

edit: i refer myself to this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0
originally made for OOB, but still valuable for alpha 2+ since germany and italy have more units than before. please countercheck it first, then post answers. there you will see my “evolution” in german buys…

[Young Grasshopper]

@rock`n:

@xandax:
russia will turtle anyway. the point is, how much time you give her! i´d say as less as possible…

but could you please outline your “viable strategy”? all i have read is virtually “sealion then barbarossa”, without any details! (where you go with what? in which turn you want to achieve which conquest etc. maybe with some estimated numbers of units you throw in there etc. …)

another thing: it is even not doubted that the UK and the USA will be able to take away some african possessions or even get into the normandy etc. the point is, how to deal with it. is it possible to delay that or to deny the allies any advantages out of that like the ability of producing etc.

@ grasshopper:
leaving german units in london helps russia even more! taking london is without any doubt a cool maneuver, but, imho, does not help winning this game, which is done holding 8 VCs in Europe OR 6 in the pacific. the latter is more difficult to achieve, i think.

and did you realize, that africa is huge? you cannot get it in just three or four turns! i have never seen an allied-free africa in any game! or italy even taking south africa…and therefor you don´t have to buy three tanks a turn as the british, two inf minimum already can do.

what countries do you mean by “buffer zones” to be hammered? and when i am not mistaken, all russian ICs are minimum two steps from germany´s border away.

@both: this game is won by taking and holding VCs, not by cool maneuvers. sorry for that. ;)

When I take London, I do so with the satisfaction that I will confiscate over $25 from my enemy and I hold London with the satisfaction that my enemy will never again place units on the board. You can understand that advantage alone. I get the whole 8 VC thing but our group games last 12 hours and most times we are no where close to the end game outlined in the rule book, therefore we accept and offer surrenders.

Yes Africa is huge and I have seen Italy take it all in three games and have heard stories of other games where the same thing happened. In one case Italy (with income & bonuses) was the richest power in the game, but I’m not saying its easy or won’t take a lot of turns. I’m just saying that its more than possible.

As for Russia, I know I said 4 buffer zones but now that I think about it, I can easily take and hold Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Western Ukraine, and Bessarabia, and with my 10 transports (11 including my startup) I can take Leningrad in one well planned attack. As for the Ukraine IC, it will only be a matter of time especially if I strategic bomb it. I can do all this because of the boat load of money I am making each turn ($10 for Britain and Scottland + $5 NO for holding London).

By this time (2 am) the UK is out of the mix and the US can’t land because of a strong Italian military and if they do there is no support from the UK and their supply line is way to long. even if the Japs are pinned to their Island, the Axis are in a strong position to get a surrender even without Moscow.

Conversely, if I don’t attempt operation sea lion, I stand to lose a lot of money including my NO for holding london, Britain will continue to build and could easily take away my Denmark NO and collect their no submarines NO in due time. I would be so spread thin by trying to take Moscow that a back door invasion would be all to threatening.

With Sea lion being such a standard no brainer for Germany, I have a strategy to get it back at all cost when I play the allies or the UK, because I understand how devastating it is to my war effort if I don’t, and the players I play against also see the advantages of sea lion when they play germany.

you see sea lion is a whole lot more than just a cool maneuver, but I am interested to hear in detail how a Barbarossa operation instead of sea lion plays out. Do you still wipe out france and what happens to your west coast after you head east, how much money are you collecting from turn to turn, and more in line with the topic of this thread…… what are you buying?

[Xandax]

@rock`n:

@xandax:
russia will turtle anyway. the point is, how much time you give her! i´d say as less as possible…

but could you please outline your “viable strategy”? all i have read is virtually “sealion then barbarossa”, without any details! (where you go with what? in which turn you want to achieve which conquest etc. maybe with some estimated numbers of units you throw in there etc. …)

another thing: it is even not doubted that the UK and the USA will be able to take away some african possessions or even get into the normandy etc. the point is, how to deal with it. is it possible to delay that or to deny the allies any advantages out of that like the ability of producing etc.

It’s as much a “viable strategy” as saying Barbarossa, but it isn’t as such a “play-by-play” strategy, but more opening up different possibilities and then capitalizing on the opportunities as they arise. You’re also much more able to pressure the Allies into making tactical mistakes if you do not go one route only.
If you only open up for Barbarossa, England is “safe” and will build accordingly - if you make a move which indicates both, you force the Allies to plan accordingly and open up for the tactical blunders.

So I generally do the pretty standard opening with Germany aka kill off as much navy as possible and all that, and I do buy 2 transports. Then if England opens herself up I can move for a quick Sealion in G2 or G3 or use the transports to hit Russia or …. and so on. 
And if you get London - Italy will have a much easier time in Africa (until the US potentially comes along) and you can then use Italy to push Syria -> South USSR or even push Persia -> India.
Heck - my last game, I had Italy landing troops in central America, just to goat the US into the European theater as they were pounding hard on Japan and Japan was about to crumble. It worked.

So as said - it’s more about not closing yourself off too fast. If showing your hand in turn 1, you can effectively plan the entire game, baring dice luck.

Sealion works as well as Barbaross and I have seen nothing to indicate that it is a “dead end”. In fact, it looks to open up the game so much more.

[KillOFzee]

I keep hearing that sea lion takes 3 turns to complete, but i’ve done it in 2 turns. If the British navy is completely destroyed in the North Atlantic, then on Germany’s second turn, it can invade england with 4-10 ground units, along with 4 fighter, 3 tac Bombers, and a Strat bomber, PLUS naval bombardment. And during that time you can move soldiers into Russia to invade on turn 2!

So the total benfits:
-GETS RID OF AN ALLIED PLAYER (DURR)
-Receive Englands unspent IPCs (30 or so)
-Neutralize English factories in Canada and, more importantly, Africa
-Allow for a another naval stike into Russia the next turn
-Keeps US busy for several more turns
-Allow for naval stirkes as far as Canada and the US

[Xandax]

@KillOFzee:

I keep hearing that sea lion takes 3 turns to complete, but i’ve done it in 2 turns. If the British navy is completely destroyed in the North Atlantic, then on Germany’s second turn, it can invade england with 4-10 ground units, along with 4 fighter, 3 tac Bombers, and a Strat bomber, PLUS naval bombardment. And during that time you can move soldiers into Russia to invade on turn 2!

So the total benfits:
-GETS RID OF AN ALLIED PLAYER (DURR)
-Receive Englands unspent IPCs (30 or so)
-Neutralize English factories in Canada and, more importantly, Africa
-Allow for a another naval stike into Russia the next turn
-Keeps US busy for several more turns
-Allow for naval stirkes as far as Canada and the US

You can do a G2 Sealion indeed, I’ve done it as well (with one art as surviving land unit :D) - but it takes a bit more luck with the first move removing the enemy navy and leaves a lot up to how England moves their first turn.
If England leaves themselves open for it, IMO it is very much worth the risk trying a G2 Sealion, especially because it doesn’t remove the G3 Sealion if G2 fails - but also  because that means you could do a G3 (or potentially even G2) Barbarossa afterwards/instead.

3 turns, or even 4, is however the easier one to actually plan for as it leaves less up to England’s move.  But that’s why I usually do buy 2 transports in G1, just to have the off chance of an invasion G2.

[KillOFzee]

@Xandax:

@KillOFzee:

I keep hearing that sea lion takes 3 turns to complete, but i’ve done it in 2 turns. If the British navy is completely destroyed in the North Atlantic, then on Germany’s second turn, it can invade england with 4-10 ground units, along with 4 fighter, 3 tac Bombers, and a Strat bomber, PLUS naval bombardment. And during that time you can move soldiers into Russia to invade on turn 2!

So the total benfits:
-GETS RID OF AN ALLIED PLAYER (DURR)
-Receive Englands unspent IPCs (30 or so)
-Neutralize English factories in Canada and, more importantly, Africa
-Allow for a another naval stike into Russia the next turn
-Keeps US busy for several more turns
-Allow for naval stirkes as far as Canada and the US

You can do a G2 Sealion indeed, I’ve done it as well (with one art as surviving land unit :D) - but it takes a bit more luck with the first move removing the enemy navy and leaves a lot up to how England moves their first turn.
If England leaves themselves open for it, IMO it is very much worth the risk trying a G2 Sealion, especially because it doesn’t remove the G3 Sealion if G2 fails - but also  because that means you could do a G3 (or potentially even G2) Barbarossa afterwards/instead.

3 turns, or even 4, is however the easier one to actually plan for as it leaves less up to England’s move.  But that’s why I usually do buy 2 transports in G1, just to have the off chance of an invasion G2.

My problem with invading England on turn 3 is that it gives the English 2 turns to buy 10 inf and stock them up in England. That means by G3 you’ll be fighting 20 inf and 3 fighters. And G2 purchases need to be used for Russia, most importantly, a Major IC in Romania, which alone is 30 IPCs.

[Xandax]

@KillOFzee:

@Xandax:

@KillOFzee:

I keep hearing that sea lion takes 3 turns to complete, but i’ve done it in 2 turns. If the British navy is completely destroyed in the North Atlantic, then on Germany’s second turn, it can invade england with 4-10 ground units, along with 4 fighter, 3 tac Bombers, and a Strat bomber, PLUS naval bombardment. And during that time you can move soldiers into Russia to invade on turn 2!

So the total benfits:
-GETS RID OF AN ALLIED PLAYER (DURR)
-Receive Englands unspent IPCs (30 or so)
-Neutralize English factories in Canada and, more importantly, Africa
-Allow for a another naval stike into Russia the next turn
-Keeps US busy for several more turns
-Allow for naval stirkes as far as Canada and the US

You can do a G2 Sealion indeed, I’ve done it as well (with one art as surviving land unit :D) - but it takes a bit more luck with the first move removing the enemy navy and leaves a lot up to how England moves their first turn.
If England leaves themselves open for it, IMO it is very much worth the risk trying a G2 Sealion, especially because it doesn’t remove the G3 Sealion if G2 fails - but also  because that means you could do a G3 (or potentially even G2) Barbarossa afterwards/instead.

3 turns, or even 4, is however the easier one to actually plan for as it leaves less up to England’s move.  But that’s why I usually do buy 2 transports in G1, just to have the off chance of an invasion G2.

My problem with invading England on turn 3 is that it gives the English 2 turns to buy 10 inf and stock them up in England. That means by G3 you’ll be fighting 20 inf and 3 fighters. And G2 purchases need to be used for Russia, most importantly, a Major IC in Romania, which alone is 30 IPCs.

At turn 3 you can present a similar force, and I’m not in the “major IC in Romaina” camp - I see that as a waste of money better used elsewhere.
As said - G2 is possible, but it is very much up to what England does and how G1 turns out - to make that possible. G3 is more “in your hands” so to speak.

[rocknroll]

@Young:

When I take London, I do so with the satisfaction that I will confiscate over $25 from my enemy and I hold London with the satisfaction that my enemy will never again place units on the board. You can understand that advantage alone. I get the whole 8 VC thing but our group games last 12 hours and most times we are no where close to the end game outlined in the rule book, therefore we accept and offer surrenders.

that is one point. a game doenst need to last 12 hours equaling 12 rounds. you can get it done in 7! ;) by the way, without sealion… pressuring the allies, speeding up the game with the axis. it has an interessting effect on allied buys. :)

@Young:

Yes Africa is huge and I have seen Italy take it all in three games and have heard stories of other games where the same thing happened. In one case Italy (with income & bonuses) was the richest power in the game, but I’m not saying its easy or won’t take a lot of turns. I’m just saying that its more than possible.

i have to admit, i can not imagine this! it is unlikely that this happens, not impossible, though, but a good allied player gets italy contained.

@Young:

As for Russia, I know I said 4 buffer zones but now that I think about it, I can easily take and hold Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Western Ukraine, and Bessarabia, and with my 10 transports (11 including my startup) I can take Leningrad in one well planned attack. As for the Ukraine IC, it will only be a matter of time especially if I strategic bomb it. I can do all this because of the boat load of money I am making each turn ($10 for Britain and Scottland + $5 NO for holding London).

for how many turns? you know that taking denmark an uk in the same turn, denies a retaking-manuever by germany? for two turns at maximum then…which means, 90 IPCs invested to gain 45 IPCs…

@Young:

By this time (2 am) the UK is out of the mix and the US can’t land because of a strong Italian military and if they do there is no support from the UK and their supply line is way to long. even if the Japs are pinned to their Island, the Axis are in a strong position to get a surrender even without Moscow.

about which round you are talking?

@Young:

Conversely, if I don’t attempt operation sea lion, I stand to lose a lot of money including my NO for holding london, Britain will continue to build and could easily take away my Denmark NO and collect their no submarines NO in due time. I would be so spread thin by trying to take Moscow that a back door invasion would be all to threatening.

actually you don´t loose in a manner. and britain taking “easily” anything, who said that? not me… ;)
and back door invasion? hmmm-…actually everbody awaits an invasion. it is a matter of time only

@Young:

With Sea lion being such a standard no brainer for Germany, I have a strategy to get it back at all cost when I play the allies or the UK, because I understand how devastating it is to my war effort if I don’t, and the players I play against also see the advantages of sea lion when they play germany.

no problem with that.

@Young:

you see sea lion is a whole lot more than just a cool maneuver, but I am interested to hear in detail how a Barbarossa operation instead of sea lion plays out. Do you still wipe out france and what happens to your west coast after you head east, how much money are you collecting from turn to turn, and more in line with the topic of this thread…… what are you buying?

pleas check out here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0 from reply #10 on…

it began as oob-variant, but can adapted to alpha 2+ without any problems, since germany has more troops availabe. italy as well. britain gets pressured, russia, too. russia in a fast game very soon, G2.

in this play, britain is too slow to stop a german advance into russia, a “backdoor”-invasion is welcome, as this helps italy getting valuable places in n.africa and the middle east

please read it first, than lets discuss more on.

but i have some questions: how many games did you play? how many with sealion? how many you won with that?

greetings

rock`n roll

[rocknroll]

@Xandax:

It’s as much a “viable strategy” as saying Barbarossa, but it isn’t as such a “play-by-play” strategy, but more opening up different possibilities and then capitalizing on the opportunities as they arise.

what do you mean by play-by-play? i do not understand it clearly…

@Xandax:

You’re also much more able to pressure the Allies into making tactical mistakes if you do not go one route only. If you only open up for Barbarossa, England is “safe” and will build accordingly - if you make a move which indicates both, you force the Allies to plan accordingly and open up for the tactical blunders.

i understand this point, but it is too costly in this game to poker, i think. time is the answer, IF having two more rounds being able to “blunder” - yeah - come on sealion! . but as it is, it is not the case…so i prefer the safer way…going directly with fast units, just crushing in. check put here, post #10: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0

@Xandax:

So I generally do the pretty standard opening with Germany aka kill off as much navy as possible and all that, and I do buy 2 transports. Then if England opens herself up I can move for a quick Sealion in G2 or G3 or use the transports to hit Russia or …. and so on. 
And if you get London - Italy will have a much easier time in Africa (until the US potentially comes along) and you can then use Italy to push Syria -> South USSR or even push Persia -> India.
Heck - my last game, I had Italy landing troops in central America, just to goat the US into the European theater as they were pounding hard on Japan and Japan was about to crumble. It worked.

well too many “IFs” in here. as UK you have always to prepare against a german landing. so there is no G2-landing-option. if G3, then italy is mostly in vain trying to get out of 10+x ipc-area. but then the us can get in the game. and well, if you “push” against persia, then africa is free from italian soldiers. you cannot have both, except the british player does not see, what is coming.

@Xandax:

So as said - it’s more about not closing yourself off too fast. If showing your hand in turn 1, you can effectively plan the entire game, baring dice luck.

this is no poker-game here…!  8-) :-D

@Xandax:

Sealion works as well as Barbaross and I have seen nothing to indicate that it is a “dead end”. In fact, it looks to open up the game so much more.

i do not agree, as you know already. never seen sealion work AND the axis winning afterwards. that sealion works, no doubt, but only with the price of loosing the european board.

so…same questions to you:
how many games did you play? how many with sealion? how many did you win?

[KillOFzee]

No matter what happens, Germany should always prepare for a Sealion at the beginning of its turn. I buy 3 TTs, one Sub, and an inf. At then end of my first turn I will have a massive force on the Eastern front, and be ready to invade East poland, the Baltics, and Bessarbia. To prevent a G2 sealion England can only do one thing - build 10 inf (making Africa vulnerable). They also most likely abandon Taranto to cope with Sealion. In the event this happens, Italy will have a much easier time in the Africa and the Med, and can begin to support ther Germans in Russia sooner. ALSO, if Germany knows that sealion is no longer possible in G2, it can immediatly invade Lenningrad, and most likely take it.

So total benefits of a planned G2 Sealion
-Forces England to spend IPCs on England, not Africa
-Reduces the chances of a taranto happening
-Allows for the Germans to invade Lenningrad on G2, for a one-two punch into Russia
-Allows the Italians to roam free in the Med, Middle East, and Africa
-Still allows for a possible Sealion later on in the game.

[Xandax]

@rock`n:

<snip>i do not agree, as you know already. never seen sealion work AND the axis winning afterwards. that sealion works, no doubt, but only with the price of loosing the european board.</snip>

That you’ve not seen it happen is not the same as it a) can’t happen and b) can’t win the game.
The only time I’ve won OOB as Axis was with Sealion. In that game, removing England caused Italy to become very powerful, very fast - even to the point where it was throwing tanks into Calcuatta, had taken South Russia, the entire Africa and was playing catch with the USA.
Sure, the game might have looked different if I got diced on Sealion, but well …. you can plan with the dice, but you can’t control them.

I’m sure you can win the game without, but well - that’s not really the issue and frankly, I do not care that people win doing only Barbarossa. The issue is that you claim it is a “dead end” and will cause you to loose the game. Well, others disagree, not just me, and use the tactic to great advantage.

And no, the game isn’t poker, but that does not change the fact that if you’re a one trick pony, and always visible go for Russia, it’s much much easier to counter, than if the enemy doesn’t know which direction you go and must plan accordingly. And heck - I’d find it a very dull game if it was always a rush for Russia. Doubt I’d even play it much then.
So I’m glad Sealion is a viable alternative for me.