@Private-Mike Np. If you ever want to play test anything on triple A, shoot me a message!
Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?
-
I agree with Cyanight about the RAF. Once flown in to kill Italy, they won’t be back on time. However, the UK can base its med-air in Gibraltar without attacking Italy -yet. UK can, just as much as Germany can, hold the options open.
As GE I wouldn’t worry about possible UK blockers in 112 if the UK went agressively into the med. Because after GE1 all the UK has left to block should be 1 destroyer in SZ109 + 1 CA in SZ91. And they are facing (on average) a German BB + sub + the entire luftwaffe. And UK cannot place new ships around GB those first few rounds because of Obvious reasons.
Italy should indeed bomb the British AB to make sure no scrambler can pop out of it. An action with a little risk involved, because the AB has a built-in AAA which has a 1/6 chance to kill the Italian STR. GE moves first so it has to buy its 10TRS and then wait and see if Italy can get the job done. If Italy fails, those 10TRS are almost bought for nothing. Not completely because they can… just for 1 turn… but that’s another story ;-).
Assuming the Brits built the safe 6inf + 1ftr, London has 3 interceptors max (they did Taranto, which is the whole point of buying 10TRS GE2), leaving it only up to the AAA fire of the AB itself. If the UK looses valuable Spitfires versus the Italians in a dogfight, this is even better for GE. Less FTR to fight over London. On top of that, what are the odds of 3 spitfires hitting 3 times @1 (in order to hit the Italian bomber they must score 3 hits). Even with 6 Spitfires this is unlikely enough to even not take it into account…IMHO Germany (as well as the UK!) should make a calculation every turn: if GE can take London with 15 survivors -meaning all of its Luftwaffe (survivors of the British AAA-fire) plus 5 to 6 ARM- then it is worth attacking for Germany. Surviving the battle for London with less than 15 units will result in the US liberating London US4/5, making it pointless to take… except in those cases where Japan can force the US to spend more in the Pacific, leaving the US less investments for Europe. Germany can take London in such a case with, say 13 or even 11 survivors…
For Germany, having a strong naval defense against the approaching US, preventing it from retaking London is also pointless because this means GE has spent too much IPCs on naval units to also ward off the Russians. -
Very good observations. You can land the Italian fighters in France to escort the bomber. I usually send a sub, 2 fighters and the s.bomber at the French fleet off southern France. So yes you can bring the fighters with the bomber and I agree if UK tries to intercept they are only hurting themselves. If they lose their planes there is almost no reason to bomb the AB, lol.
Germany at first was winning the war over Britain by not bombing their factories but by getting their fighters to intercept and bombing air fields. The Germans would send a bombing raid with lots of escorts designed to take out their planes. Proper organization of the anti-air defence and the high quality of the British fighter planes contributed to the Luftwaffe’s losses so much that the Germans abandoned the idea of destroying the British air forces. They switched to bombing of the ports, as well as industrial, political and administrative centers. Göring hoped that a victory in the air would be enough to force peace without an invasion. The campaign failed, and Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940.
As for the cost of the sealion.
Round 1:
CV + 2TT = 30ipcRound 2:
CV + 4TT = (44) ipc vs 10TT = 70ipc
So you see the Carrier approach is cheaper than the 10TT and you can use them in multiple situations when the 10TT are built for one purpose. -
Uhmmmm, Cyan, 30ipc + 44ipc =74ipc. This is not cheaper than 70 :-P.
Well, those 4 ipc are not worth mentioning anyway. I agree though, I’d prefer the 2-step approach over just buying 10TRS at once for the reason you mentioned.
The difference remains:
the 2 step approach telegraphs your itentions as a huge disadvantage but with the advantage that you’ll have (and keep) a real multi-purpose fleet should you decide not to Sea Lion.
Buying 10TRS at once has indeed the huge disadvantage that it is more likely than not one use, one shot only but with the advantage that you can surprise the UK without weakening your position against Russia GE1.I think it comes down to what you prefer; both cases see the German position against Russia equally weakened but with different options in the process and the aftermath (of either attacking or not attacking London).
-
I haven’t seen anyone mention -
Can’t you surprise Russia with a Sealion fleet? Land tons of units right on Leningrad? And some more shucking after that?Yes you’re telegraphing Sealion with 2 transports on G1, but you are also gonna scare a lot of opponents off of attacking the Italians in the Mediterranean, without following through on Sealion plans
-
Uhmmmm, Cyan, 30ipc + 44ipc =74ipc. This is not cheaper than 70Â :-P.
Well, those 4 ipc are not worth mentioning anyway. I agree though, I’d prefer the 2-step approach over just buying 10TRS at once for the reason you mentioned.
The difference remains:
the 2 step approach telegraphs your itentions as a huge disadvantage but with the advantage that you’ll have (and keep) a real multi-purpose fleet should you decide not to Sea Lion.
 Buying 10TRS at once has indeed the huge disadvantage that it is more likely than not one use, one shot only but with the advantage that you can surprise the UK without weakening your position against Russia GE1.I think it comes down to what you prefer; both cases see the German position against Russia equally weakened but with different options in the process and the aftermath (of either attacking or not attacking London).
Very good point! I forgot to add in the first round buy. You are correct it is a bit more expensive but I do believe its more useful than 10 TR.
-
I haven’t seen anyone mention -
Can’t you surprise Russia with a Sealion fleet?  Land tons of units right on Leningrad? And some more shucking after that?Yes you’re telegraphing Sealion with 2 transports on G1, but you are also gonna scare a lot of opponents off of attacking the Italians in the Mediterranean, without following through on Sealion plans
I have no experience with this but I’d say it should be possible. Although I doubt Leningrad is the preferred target of such a surprise, because Germany can only get 25-30 units into Leningrad (#TRS*2+ARM+MECH), but Russia starts the game with 41 units and has 2 turns of production backing that up. So it depends a big deal on what your opponent does (i.e. how much force he has in Belarus for a counterattack).
Last time I played as Japan, I observed the possibility to surprise the Russians for my German buddy who was set-up for Sea Lion. The Red army positioned themselves too far forward so GE could have destroyed the Russian army in Eastern Poland, blitz with just 1 ARM into Leningrad and unload all his TRS there. Invading Leningrad is Always a little risky because of the Russian subs, unless GE buys a DD.
Ofc my buddy attacked London and who can blame him with a predicted (and achieved!) win with 19 survivors ;-). Left me only with the question “what if…”. -
Very good observations. You can land the Italian fighters in France to escort the bomber. I usually send a sub, 2 fighters and the s.bomber at the French fleet off southern France. So yes you can bring the fighters with the bomber and I agree if UK tries to intercept they are only hurting themselves. If they lose their planes there is almost no reason to bomb the AB, lol.
Germany at first was winning the war over Britain by not bombing their factories but by getting their fighters to intercept and bombing air fields. The Germans would send a bombing raid with lots of escorts designed to take out their planes. Proper organization of the anti-air defence and the high quality of the British fighter planes contributed to the Luftwaffe’s losses so much that the Germans abandoned the idea of destroying the British air forces. They switched to bombing of the ports, as well as industrial, political and administrative centers. Göring hoped that a victory in the air would be enough to force peace without an invasion. The campaign failed, and Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940.
As for the cost of the sealion.
Round 1:
CV + 2TT = 30ipcRound 2:
CV + 4TT = (44) ipc vs 10TT = 70ipc
So you see the Carrier approach is cheaper than the 10TT and you can use them in multiple situations when the 10TT are built for one purpose.That’s an interesting idea I hadn’t thought of. So you would end up with only 7 transports total instead of 11, but you would also have 2 carriers protecting them. It’s unlikely anyone would be able to sink them. And it is a little more flexible.
If UK goes heavy defense, you could use them on Leningrad.
Or, if that doesn’t seem good, you could even send them down and take Gibraltar, maybe even do some stuff in the Med.
It does seem to give Germany a few more options. -
By the way, Germany taking London with not very many units left, assuming they still manage to keep at least most of the Luftwaffe, may not be quite so bad if Germany has enough on the Eastern Front to keep the Russians from going hog wild.
The US will take at least 2 turns to get over there and liberate London. Then it will take another couple of turns for UK to collect money, buy new units and deploy them. That may be enough time for Italy to get ahead in Africa and/or the Middle East. By the time UK can get anything down there to confront them, Italy may have rolled up enough territory to be making some good money. -
Been there, done that. Germany winning London with a handfull of units aint going to cut it for the axis. UK should know this and play on it. Loosing London isn’t the killer some people think it is, as long as GE bleeds for it.
Admitted, first time it happened to me I handled it wrongly with the allies, allowing Germany to have London for a full turn longer, loosing 3 US STR before even liberating it and letting Italy take Egypt strongly (which the Indian RAF could have prevented). Even after those mistakes I managed to wrest Africa from Italy with the liberated UK. Russia made mistakes as well and was forced to retreat but once in Bryansk/Smolensk, much closer to its own major IC, forced the Germans to retreat once more, while at the same time liberating China (they were that much stronger)!
You see, 1 of the serious problems with Sea Lion is that Russia  will have an income of 60 or even 70 IPCs per turn for a turn or 3 (or longer if GE bought more ships) and never dropping below 50. Germany on the other hand will have problems to even get above 40IPCs a turn for that same amount of time. After they take London (and loot it) they will briefly enjoy 56IPCs income, then quickly drop to 38IPCs once Norway, Finland, London and Scotland permanently fall into allied hands. Taking London does not grant them new conquests every turn.
Driving back Russia for a couple of turns later (if at all!) only gets Germany on the same level as the Russia again (but only briefly).All this with the US only spending on the European map the 2 starting turns. Now if the US cannot liberate London because the German Garrison there is too strong, things might go the other way but Germany must not be forced to spend more IPCs than the extra ones from Scotland + London on their fleet or the Garrison to achieve that. They need every DMark to fight the Russians…
-
Been there, done that. Germany winning London with a handfull of units aint going to cut it for the axis. UK should know this and play on it. Loosing London isn’t the killer some people think it is, as long as GE bleeds for it.
Totally agree with this. Be careful what you wish for, Germany
I put the 5 NO for London back in, in my houseruled game :-)
-
Yeah, now that I think about it, you are right. Even if Italy manages to spread out in Africa, the most they will be making is around 35-40 IPCs and that won’t mean a lot if their big brother Germany gets pounded by the Allies. I have even seen a couple of games where Germany got beat first then the Allies turned on Italy. It wasn’t pretty for Italy then.
-
If London falls then it will be turn 5 or 6 before its liberated. It could actually be round 7 or 8 if Germany or Italy uses DD for blockers. It works better for Italy to use blockers since Germany is tapped out on round 2 buying TRs. Italy can block SZ 106 and 102 unless USA is sitting in 102. This buys you 1 more round. If the block is successful then Germany can put up another block on SZ 107 and 103 now you just bought another turn.
If Japan does not have India by then, I guess they are chasing the Chinese. If India falls on turn 5 and London has still not been liberated then India is done and the middle east will fall to Japan and Italy. There is no perfect strategy for the game and that is great otherwise it would be no fun. But if the allies show weakness like sending too much to the med from London then you can act on it. A successful Sealion requires all the axis to be on the same page.
-
Wholehartedly agreed about the need for being on the same page!
US4 should see the liberation of London already. Remember the fall of London is a casus bellum for the USA so it can start making combat moves US3 regardless of what Japan does or does not. US4 can reach SZ109 with 3CV[5ftr, 1tac]+1BB+3CA+2DD+1sub+3STR+7TRS[7inf, 1arm, 2art, 4mech]. With blockers the axis can delay this force taking London for 1 turn to US5 at best.
Note that the GE1 buys should have alarmed the UK into blocking off and reinforcing the rock UK1 (only to jump into London OR Africa UK2, depending on the GE2 buys) so IT won’t be able to get their hand on Gibraltar on time. -
Been there, done that. Germany winning London with a handfull of units aint going to cut it for the axis. UK should know this and play on it. Loosing London isn’t the killer some people think it is, as long as GE bleeds for it.
Totally agree with this. Be careful what you wish for, Germany
I put the 5 NO for London back in, in my houseruled game :-)
I realize this isn’t the place for “house rules” but this came to mind as I was reading through what if……
A while back (between Alpha+2 & Alpha+3) I had suggested to Larry that all VCs be worth 5 IPCs per round to whomever captured them (must be enemy controlled). To add to that I also suggested a 1 time 5 IPC bonus to liberate a VC back to your side (to offset or give incentive). This was when the community/Larry was looking to have an NO incentive for the US/UK to liberate Paris (rarely does this happen in the game even now). I believe London was an NO for Germany at this time too. This idea got a lot of positive response from the community, and Larry even made a comment that was encouraging at the time, but didn’t make the cut for Alpha+3 (maybe there just wasn’t enough time to play test this theory).
Most of the VCs are part of the Axis NO’s anyway (Russian cities, Japanese targets), and others are linked to Allied NO’s if they keep them (like Phil, or Hawaii, now Paris). I just figured it would be easier to explain the NO’s to newer players because many of them would be marked in Red on the map. You would have a handful of others to explain, like the Ita Med NO, but the list wouldn’t be quite as long as we have now. Now some of the VC are bonuses to the axis, but only if certain axis powers take them. I find it funny that if Italy or Japan takes Stalingrad, that axis (Germany) don’t get paid extra, but if Germany/Italy manages to take Calcutta then the Japanese get 5 IPCs?
You would need to re-draft the currant NO’s to accommodate, removing some and tweaking others. Japan would even start the game with one enemy VC (Shanghai), and some others would be easy conquests for the axis (Paris, Kwangtung). This would ratchet up the axis income base, so some of the fluff NO’s could be reduced, or eliminated (like the 10 IPC Japan gets not to take FIC could be reduced to 5 IPCs etc…). We have played a couple games with this in the past, but haven’t played enough to really see what it would offer. This idea kind died, but I think it could still make for a very cool variant if tested properly.
-
Couple thoughts in response
I don’t “rarely” take France. I have liberated France on numerous occasions in 2nd edition G40, and have liberated it in the league championship game that is going on right now (waiting for J7). (Yes he will probably get Paris back, but not before I spend 15 IPC’s as France)
2nd, you are apparently unaware of my house-ruled game that I am developing for league play
Ruleset is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhOB4pSke42ydGh6d2NwRDJRRzBteEsyU1EtNGhXVUE#gid=7
And there is a stickied thread for discussing it.One of the major changes I made is eliminating ANZAC and France as separate playable powers. So when France is liberated, the liberator controls France and the minor IC. I have made some changes to NO’s, like re-instating the no German subs in the Atlantic NO for UK (and taking away the original territories one).
As far as the inconsistent NO’s, I think the idea is that getting Russian territory was a really big deal to the Germans but not to Italy (and of course IRL Japan was not going to take any European territory whatsoever)
-
Wholehartedly agreed about the need for being on the same page!
US4 should see the liberation of London already. Remember the fall of London is a casus bellum for the USA so it can start making combat moves US3 regardless of what Japan does or does not. US4 can reach SZ109 with 3CV[5ftr, 1tac]+1BB+3CA+2DD+1sub+3STR+7TRS[7inf, 1arm, 2art, 4mech]. With blockers the axis can delay this force taking London for 1 turn to US5 at best.
Note that the GE1 buys should have alarmed the UK into blocking off and reinforcing the rock UK1 (only to jump into London OR Africa UK2, depending on the GE2 buys) so IT won’t be able to get their hand on Gibraltar on time.I just don’t see it. To many variables to count England has 0 transports if played right after England round 2. That tells me Italy can take it with little it no fight are you gonna leave a fighter there by it self? Italy’s navy in my opinion is expendable as long as the med is clear I still get the NO correct? Also what’s stoping me round 2 -3 setting up Italian blockers also to slow America down
Also say round 3 I take England falls fine and dandy let’s be modest day out of 20 units 10 make it I’ll even make it easyer 10 Infantry now it’s Americas turn if your blocked from Gibralter you gonna fight to take it back or go right for England? It takes 2 turns any which way to get there.
Now it’s turn 4 were ever you are I already anticipate where your going and England isn’t there to help anymore. I still get to buy 3 more units 3 infantry more which is now what 13 total there and i stage all my fighters so 5 Fighters (which I choose when the time comes not to scramble) since I have a ship off the coast of England all your shore bombardments are gone and moot when the time comes.
You crunch the numbers with no shore bombardments and allmost all your landing party is what rolling 1’s with a handful of planes I just don’t see itAlso you spent 2 soild turns building your fleet in the Atlantic and nothing in the Pacific Japan turn 1-2 builds transports so what’s that add up to 8 transports with 3 carriers 2 battleships and how ever
Many support ships taken over Sanfransisco Turn 4 cause after you spent allyour money in America your gonna need a follow up party if you fail to take back England and no I don’t need to spend a lot to hold England 9 Ipcs for 3 men each turn until I have 20 should prevent it from fallingBasicaly even if all the worse case senerios happin to Germany and everything crumbles Japan is left to long out of check Japan will win the pacific.
But in my honest opinion I just don’t see America retaken back England which a bunch of ones. Even if I stall America till round 5 to attempt to take it back that still gives me 3 more men in England and I should mention that the 2 fighters from Italy can also land in England which brings the total to what 7 fighters on defense with 16 men now? Not gonna happin
-
Germany can’t afford to leave a lot of ground troops/tanks on the UK
Russia should be on the rampage after Sealion -
Again if And it’s the one word I hate in this world is IF Germany and Italy plays smart between the amount of cash you just off England’s demise and the tactical retreat with your units exsisting units you wait for the American force to fall short and hard swap to Russia.
Because by round 4-5 Japan has the west coast and America can’t afford to try again to take back England and that makes it easy for Germany to hard swap all it’s units and Possably lad behind Russia’s lines or just massively overwhelm them
It’s all situational remember that!
-
@Whitshadw (hope I spelled the name correctly ;-)):
With the ‘bring the boys home’ approach, the UK should even survive on its own, with 0-15 units surviving (depending on the number of GE TRS). So without the need of being liberated (according to LowLuck, that is). At best it is a cripling victory for Germany if we forget about lucky dice rolls. Yes this leaves Egypt vulnerable but not a walkover (Italy still needs serious effort to take it).
UK1 kills the IT ‘fleet’ in SZ96 and blocks SZ94. Together with the French in SZ93, Gibraltar is blocked off. The rock cannot be taken round 1, so no Italian blockers in the atlantic round 2. UK can even bring into SZ92 a total of 1CV+2FTR+2CA+1DD. Probably minus 1CA/DD as cannon fodder for taking out German ships/subs still around Britain.Furthermore, I guess you are correct about Japan threatening the US west coast. I said so myself that this might be the only thing stopping the US from liberating the UK (if it needs to be) with ease.
However, speaking about situational, for Japan this means India, China and ANZAC are getting rich and this is bad news for Tokyo.The way I see it, the US has 2 valid options if Japan puts a priority on SF while GEIT are trying to get into London:
1. Prepare the liberation of London whether that is needed or not. Japan cannot be offensive the first 2 rounds because that will bring the US in the war too early and will ruin any SL attempt.
As long as the US realises it must return spending 100% (or a bit less, depending on how serious the threat on the west coast is) in the pacific from turn 3 and on. Russia can perfectly fight GEIT while London Recovers for the killing of GEIT. The US keeps on near 100% in the Pac and will be a perfect match for Japan together with ANZAC/China/India.2. Forfeit liberating London and go straight into KJF with ANZAC/China/UK (Russia btw can keep its 18 Siberians in the east to close in on Japan as well). The USA can take its time in the PAC, overpowering Japan without the urge to return to Europe fast because Russia is in danger. Russia can fight GEIT almost indefinately in this situation. That is what SL does to Russia:Germany.
-
@Whitshadw (hope I spelled the name correctly ;-)):
With the ‘bring the boys home’ approach, the UK should even survive on its own, with 0-15 units surviving (depending on the number of GE TRS). So without the need of being liberated (according to LowLuck, that is). At best it is a cripling victory for Germany if we forget about lucky dice rolls. Yes this leaves Egypt vulnerable but not a walkover (Italy still needs serious effort to take it).
UK1 kills the IT ‘fleet’ in SZ96 and blocks SZ94. Together with the French in SZ93, Gibraltar is blocked off. The rock cannot be taken round 1, so no Italian blockers in the atlantic round 2. UK can even bring into SZ92 a total of 1CV+2FTR+2CA+1DD. Probably minus 1CA/DD as cannon fodder for taking out German ships/subs still around Britain.Furthermore, I guess you are correct about Japan threatening the US west coast. I said so myself that this might be the only thing stopping the US from liberating the UK (if it needs to be) with ease.
However, speaking about situational, for Japan this means India, China and ANZAC are getting rich and this is bad news for Tokyo.The way I see it, the US has 2 valid options if Japan puts a priority on SF while GEIT are trying to get into London:
1. Prepare the liberation of London whether that is needed or not. Japan cannot be offensive the first 2 rounds because that will bring the US in the war too early and will ruin any SL attempt.
As long as the US realises it must return spending 100% (or a bit less, depending on how serious the threat on the west coast is) in the pacific from turn 3 and on. Russia can perfectly fight GEIT while London Recovers for the killing of GEIT. The US keeps on near 100% in the Pac and will be a perfect match for Japan together with ANZAC/China/India.2. Forfeit liberating London and go straight into KJF with ANZAC/China/UK (Russia btw can keep its 18 Siberians in the east to close in on Japan as well). The USA can take its time in the PAC, overpowering Japan without the urge to return to Europe fast because Russia is in danger. Russia can fight GEIT almost indefinately in this situation. That is what SL does to Russia:Germany.
Don’t take this as a direct attack on you Whitshadw, but I agree with what ItIsILeClerc said, and have posted very similar issues, and counters showing that your SL plan isn’t as cut and dry as you might think. Especially the aftermath threatening North America? Sounds more like some chest pounding because the Germans normally attempt to save their SL fleet by retreating, or adding an AB to the Chanel after the assault on London (not heading to the America’s LOL). With that said, your orig thoughts on SL are very viable if the UK player doesn’t take the threat seriously, and react accordingly. Given what we have listed would be a max def for London approach by the UK (not all UK players would do these things). I will add UK is my favorite allied power to play, and I would defiantly smell a Sea Lion threat with the purchases and moves that Germany made in the opening post giving the Germans a pretty damn good North Sea fleet (buying carrier/bmr, plus hit & run with Ger BB surviving). I realize that it could be a bait and switch (threaten UK, hit Russia), but I personally would prepare for max def of London (like I said, UK is my fav, and I won’t lose it because of lack of effort), again granted others might not see/do these things.
This would include buying units for London, using my surviving transports to bring troops home, keeping the RAF in London (no Taranto run), and bringing the Med fleet over to sz92 (as pointed out by ItIsILeClerc and myself earlier). The UK can block out the Italians from hitting the English Med fleet in sz92 and the Rock at the same time by clearing sz96, and leaving a dd in sz 94 (if the French fleet is still alive in sz93). I like to call this “Castling” (like in chess you are protecting the king early in the game, and the king is London).
Maybe your group hasn’t seen this in the past, but it really is a very viable UK strat especially if there is a SL threat. A lot of UK players don’t like to sacrifice the Med fleet to kill the Italian fleet (figure they’ll get it later when it leaves port). This allows the UK to keep the Med fleet (or trade it for German air), block out Gib, and deny Italy from all it’s NO’s for at least one turn. I realize the axis can work together, and kill the Med fleet (Italy clears a landing spot for the Luftwaffe, and the Germans air strike it). If this is the case then SL is off the table (Luftwaffe took at hit, and/or is out of position), plus you have weakened the Italian econ. If the axis don’t hit the Med fleet in sz92, then you have an Atlantic starter fleet if SL is aborted or can interfere with SL making it more of a gambit (with the UK Indian fleet heading to the Med).
So we have either called your bluff, and force you to abort SL, or if you go through with SL, the cost is too extreme. You either won’t have the ground units left to protect your conquest (not a given that London will fall), or the Luftwaffe/navy has taken a hit because of the RN/RAF lurking on or around England. With the UK Med navy coming up, you would either have to fight through/kill it, or avoid it (the later leaves it as part of a 1-2 punch w/US on your SL fleet before/afterwords).
Plus the US (stationed in sz102) very well could be in a great position to also strike your SL fleet off the coast of England, or liberate London (given the later could be difficult depending on how the attack on the Island Nation went).
So to answer the question of the topic “Sea lion? Is there a perfect set up?” I guess my answer would be no, because there are some tricks up the allies sleeve if they are prepared for it (very situational). It very well could work though, if the allies don’t take it seriously. The real question is was it worth it in the long run due to the cost, and can Germany recover?
Suggested Topics
