Is Sealion worth it?

[FastHeinz]

I’m sure this has been posted, but I am right in the middle of a game and I would like to hear some players thoughts. So I was able to capture London on round 2, which was great, I’ve never attempted Sealion, but it brought Russia and the US into the war, the game is at about round 8 now and it’s been tough going for Germany especially in Russia. Having tried Sealion I don’t think it’s worth it. Not when you bring the Russians into the war, (which I think is a ridiculous rule, for the sake of the game balance I understand America joining the war, but Russia makes no sense, especially when you have a political situation that has a non aggression pact with Germany. The rule book basically gives the British player insurance that they won’t be attacked early which seems a little silly and counter to the history the game is based on)

[Karl7]

Sealion is a mixed bag.  Much depends on luck, i.e. how much stuff Germany comes out with at the end of the invasion.  If it’s like taking London with 1 tank and 2 bombers, then yeah, it’s a disaster.

The problem is you have to stabilize the eastern front while also keeping the USA away.  You need to build up the German navy defense first to block the US from retaking the UK, then move those transports into the Baltic to threaten the Soviets. Very tricky.

Also Italy needs to pick up the opening with the UK income gone.  Hard to do as usually the Italy Navy is decimated round 1 and then needs to go on defense once the US parks off Gibraltar.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@FastHeinz:

I’m sure this has been posted, but I am right in the middle of a game and I would like to hear some players thoughts. So I was able to capture London on round 2, which was great, I’ve never attempted Sealion, but it brought Russia and the US into the war, the game is at about round 8 now and it’s been tough going for Germany especially in Russia. Having tried Sealion I don’t think it’s worth it. Not when you bring the Russians into the war, (which I think is a ridiculous rule, for the sake of the game balance I understand America joining the war, but Russia makes no sense, especially when you have a political situation that has a non aggression pact with Germany. The rule book basically gives the British player insurance that they won’t be attacked early which seems a little silly and counter to the history the game is based on)

What’s really counter to history is the fact that Germany annihilates the entire British Home Fleet every time and the fact that Sealion is at all possible, let alone likely to succeed if you go all out.

[Midnight_Reaper]

I think that Sealion is better as a part of the meta-game with an established play group than it is as a regular play in a normal game. By showing willingness to invade the UK if you think the conditions are right, you keep the UK honest - which helps you in other areas of the board. A UK purchase of 9 infantry or 6 infantry and a fighter is not a UK purchase of an Egyptian factory or some other “get UK into the fight sooner” nonsense.

But that only works if you routinely play with the same opponent(s). If you do, though, you can certainly invade one game to keep them “honest” in the future…

-Midnight_Reaper

[LincolnsTopHat]

Just played my first Sea Lion as Germany the other day. Basically went the same as yours did, caught the British napping and took London T2. Definitely not as easy as going all in with Russia. The UK went heavy into Africa Turn 1 (hence the sea lion), and between the residual British and French, Taranto, and the US coming in a turn early, Rome was taken by the time I reached Moscow (with better Russian play, it wouldn’t have been nearly as fast). I agree that Sea Lion bringing in Russia doesn’t make a lot of sense. Honestly, I wish there was a 10-15 ipc National Objective for Germany taking London, there’s no point in starting the game in 1940 if you’re basically punished for pulling off Sea Lion.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@LincolnsTopHat:

Just played my first Sea Lion as Germany the other day. Basically went the same as yours did, caught the British napping and took London T2. Definitely not as easy as going all in with Russia. The UK went heavy into Africa Turn 1 (hence the sea lion), and between the residual British and French, Taranto, and the US coming in a turn early, Rome was taken by the time I reached Moscow (with better Russian play, it wouldn’t have been nearly as fast). I agree that Sea Lion bringing in Russia doesn’t make a lot of sense. Honestly, I wish there was a 10-15 ipc National Objective for Germany taking London, there’s no point in starting the game in 1940 if you’re basically punished for pulling off Sea Lion.

Germany already gets 5 IPC’s for London, and Britain’s treasury. Is that not enough reward for executing an operation that was historically impossible? If doing it in game is disadvantageous for seemingly silly reasons, perhaps it’s a good thing that a historically impossible invasion, if it can’t be made impossible in-game, can at least be made unwise.

[LincolnsTopHat]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LincolnsTopHat:

Just played my first Sea Lion as Germany the other day. Basically went the same as yours did, caught the British napping and took London T2. Definitely not as easy as going all in with Russia. The UK went heavy into Africa Turn 1 (hence the sea lion), and between the residual British and French, Taranto, and the US coming in a turn early, Rome was taken by the time I reached Moscow (with better Russian play, it wouldn’t have been nearly as fast). I agree that Sea Lion bringing in Russia doesn’t make a lot of sense. Honestly, I wish there was a 10-15 ipc National Objective for Germany taking London, there’s no point in starting the game in 1940 if you’re basically punished for pulling off Sea Lion.

Germany already gets 5 IPC’s for London, and Britain’s treasury. Is that not enough reward for executing an operation that was historically impossible? If doing it in game is disadvantageous for seemingly silly reasons, perhaps it’s a good thing that a historically impossible invasion, if it can’t be made impossible in-game, can at least be made unwise.

Here’s a quote from the Designer Notes in the Europe 40 rulebook:

With the fall of France, the possibility of Operation Sea Lion�Germany�s plan to invade England�had to present itself. If it�s going to happen, it has to start on turn 2. The Brits can�t be given time to recover. Turn 3 was when Pearl Harbor would have to occur, but not before Operation Barbarossa�Germany�s invasion of the Soviet Union. This would be especially true if Sea Lion was called off.

So it’s obvious that Sea Lion is suppose to be a possibility in game. I mean, if we’re going for historical accuracy, then the Germany’s occupation of Russia should not be as easy as it is either. Besides, Sea Lion makes the game much more interesting than the regular rush to Moscow. And if it’s clearly off the table, then there’s no reason why England can’t go 100% into Africa and crush Italy, which is also historically inaccurate (the primary reason Sea Lion wasn’t going to happen was because the British focused so much on defending the Island, while in game they can basically strip the Island and rely on Russia/US aid to keep Germany away).

[FastHeinz]

So the game ending in an Axis victory due to some conservative Russian play and negligence in the Pacific by the US, allowing the Japanese to dominate the Pacific. I still am not convinced that Sealion is worth it, especially when it brings the Americans and USSR into the war, if it’s attempted later in the game then it wouldn’t be so bad, but it would also require alot more IPC’s to attempt. I did learn some valuable lessons in this game though.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@LincolnsTopHat:

So it’s obvious that Sea Lion is suppose to be a possibility in game. I mean, if we’re going for historical accuracy, then the Germany’s occupation of Russia should not be as easy as it is either. Besides, Sea Lion makes the game much more interesting than the regular rush to Moscow. And if it’s clearly off the table, then there’s no reason why England can’t go 100% into Africa and crush Italy, which is also historically inaccurate (the primary reason Sea Lion wasn’t going to happen was because the British focused so much on defending the Island, while in game they can basically strip the Island and rely on Russia/US aid to keep Germany away).

Yes, it’s totally horrible that the UK can ahistorically crush Italy by spending everything in Africa. The ahistorical ability of the Axis to conquer London, Cairo, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, and China are fine though. After all, we can’t give the historical victors a chance to win the game.

[LincolnsTopHat]

@calvinhobbesliker:

@LincolnsTopHat:

So it’s obvious that Sea Lion is suppose to be a possibility in game. I mean, if we’re going for historical accuracy, then the Germany’s occupation of Russia should not be as easy as it is either. Besides, Sea Lion makes the game much more interesting than the regular rush to Moscow. And if it’s clearly off the table, then there’s no reason why England can’t go 100% into Africa and crush Italy, which is also historically inaccurate (the primary reason Sea Lion wasn’t going to happen was because the British focused so much on defending the Island, while in game they can basically strip the Island and rely on Russia/US aid to keep Germany away).

Yes, it’s totally horrible that the UK can ahistorically crush Italy by spending everything in Africa. The ahistorical ability of the Axis to conquer London, Cairo, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, Calcutta, and China are fine though. After all, we can’t give the historical victors a chance to win the game.

Let me get this straight, Sea Lion shouldn’t be an option because it’s ahistorical, but UK can ignore Germany and go all in on Italy because there’s plenty of ahistorical elements in the game already? Also, Europe 1940 is balanced in favor of the Allies, primarily because England can go for the kill shot on Italy early without any repercussions.

[weddingsinger]

Along with getting their money, which is nice, you take out an entire economy early in game?  Yeah, worth it.  Russia will kick your butt for a bit, but Italy should do better since UK won’t be replacing anything.

[AxisAndAllies1940]

I wrote something on Sealion tactics, and as I said there, Sealion isn’t worth it. If you’re going for London on G2, then UK will have lots of men in Egypt to crush Libya left over, and that’s always a hard battle for Italy. Plus, you’ve probably been neglecting the East, so a better-prepared Russia can slam into you. Then, there’s the US, which can now strike in either London or France, so you’ve got to protect both.