So, I’ve seen a few people around here bandying about a do or die German invasion of Britain first turn, and the only reason most seemed to have abandoned it is because it ruins the game. Not really being one to count on that, is there anything the Allies, especially Russia, can do to dissuade such an attempt? If Russia can’t stop it, is there any way for the Allies to recover and make Germany pay?
If Russia sends 1-2 fighters to UK there is no realistic way the Germans can take UK on G1. Easy as that.
Get the Larry Harris tournament rules. It was compiled by the original game designer (look at the inside of your rules book first page it has his name on it, he was lead designer of the game).
http://dicey.net/revised/index.php?sid=6958f87ef38160f8b2a8d574ce308701
It has some very good revisions in it to the Revised rules.
For one, techs apply at the end of your turns now, instead of immediately. This nullifies the turn one SeaLion.
For two, it enforces a total combined bombing limit for rockets/bombers. You can’t deal more IPC damage in one turn than the territory’s income value. In the rulebook out of the box you can because the limit it enforces is per bomber, not in total, which is gay.
These two rulings make the game more interesting; no more turn 1 German wins and no more lame mass bombings by US/UK on Germany.
If you insist on playing with instant techs, that guy above me is absolutely correct. Send the two Russian fighters to UK and it will more than likely stop the assault. Also send your sub to “block” his fleet; it probably won’t do squat but at least it has a chance of sinking something……
If Operation Sea Lion is so easy to counter, by having the 2 Russian Fighters fly to England on R1, then why do so many people say that the OOB rules are broken? It should just be a normal, if anoying, part of the game for Russia to fly its Fighters over on R1 to counter the G1 Sea Lion, just like it is a normal part of the game for Russia to take West Russia on R1 to counter the G1 attack on Moscow. Now I do understand that, in a bidding game, if the bid is 8+, that an extra transport added to the Baltic Fleet could still probably overpower the 2 Russian Fighters, so maybe that is why people say that the OOB rules are broken, but if the bid is <8, then I wouldn’t say that the OOB rules are broken.
If Operation Sea Lion is so easy to counter, by having the 2 Russian Fighters fly to England on R1, then why do so many people say that the OOB rules are broken? It should just be a normal, if anoying, part of the game for Russia to fly its Fighters over on R1 to counter the G1 Sea Lion, just like it is a normal part of the game for Russia to take West Russia on R1 to counter the G1 attack on Moscow. Now I do understand that, in a bidding game, if the bid is 8+, that an extra transport added to the Baltic Fleet could still probably overpower the 2 Russian Fighters, so maybe that is why people say that the OOB rules are broken, but if the bid is <8, then I wouldn’t say that the OOB rules are broken.
Forcing the Russian ftrs always into London on R1 really limits Russian 1 options. It also ‘scripts’ the game even more, rendering it more of a game of dice as opposed to a strategic one.
I do not know about you, but I have played enough A&A games to know that certain moves are STILL scripted without having the Russians so badly hand-cuffed with putting their ftrs (possible the two most important pieces in the game) into such a poor strategic position R1.
Just curious about one thing: Given the cost of sending the Russian Figs on holiday in London on R1, and the otherwise possibile G1 Sea Lion, how would that change the bids? How far would bids come down? Might they go away completely, or even go negative (positive bid for the allies :-o )? For the sake of argument, let’s say the per-territory turn limits were in place, but not delayed techs.
Now, this still doesn’t address the “scripted” nature you discuss, and good gameplay should be the highest priority. (I’d MUCH rather have high bids and good gameplay than an even matchup that doesn’t require bids, but boring play.) But I was just wondering what people thought the “cost” of the instant-tech rules would be to the Allies.
If Operation Sea Lion is so easy to counter, by having the 2 Russian Fighters fly to England on R1, then why do so many people say that the OOB rules are broken?
Forcing Russia to fly to UK on R1 is almost a setup change. A setup change would be a house rule.
OOB rules has other issues. Check out under Rockets and SBR…
The opponent must surrender that many IPCs to the bank (or as many as the player has, whichever is the greater amount).
So then you have to use OOB + FAQ. Then you still got the unlimited SBR problem.
I forgot the maths. Whats the expected value of G3’s cash-on-hand?
Its most definitely 0 by G4.
And we know how long it takes Japan to hit Russia. Too long.
Maybe its time all the major forums have a sticky to list out the issues.
So new players don’t travel back and fourth between OOB and LHTR.
The delayed techs kind of ruins them as one of the whole reasons you would use it is rolling all your cash for heavy bombers or long range air just before your big assault or a surprise assault but if you have to wait a turn the enemy can spot it and counter. Why not just you can’t take an enemy capitol on round 1. stops round 1 sealion right there.
Maybe its time all the major forums have a sticky to list out the issues.
So new players don’t travel back and fourth between OOB and LHTR.
Excellent idea!
I’ve always wondered just how beneficial an all out attack on England on Germany 1 is.
A) It requires you to spend all your money on Long Range Fighters, that means NO BUILDs for Germany
B) It pretty much destroys your air force and kills a lot of your counter attacks on Russia for two full rounds (the first one where you don’t have fighters to help and the second because you have to rebuild.)
C) America and England can easily liberate and reinforce England on Turn 1 since you probably took it with only a tank left. (England can hit it with an armor from E. Canada giving it a 50/50 shot, America can hit with 2 infantry, artillery, armor with a much better shot.)
D) Russia’s still taking out Ukraine and W. Russia regardless. So you’re still down one fighter, how does that effect Sea Lion?
If England uses the following OOL:
Bomber
Infantry
Infantry
Artillery
Armor
Fighter
Fighter
And you attack with Infantry, Armor, 5 Fighters and a Bomber (assuming Armor dies last)
Then you only have a 70% chance to win with a 30% chance of being wiped out.
You lose 73 IPC on the attack to get 30 IPC and you’ll probably not hold anyway since England’s attack with armor/battleship will probably win. (67% of the time it wins without even allowing you to shoot back!)
Dunno, seems to me like this is not the greatest attack plan for the Axis. Sure, it gives you a big boost right off, but you have no air force left and Russia’s probably taking Balkans and/or E. Europe and Norway that round. That means the Russians, most likely, will be making 30+.
I agree with you Jen at the most. Three things to add:
If germans attack with z8 sub to z1 tra and win, UK cannot retake England, only USA (if sub to z9, UK can counter with bbs and free the path for USA). So it’s a bit riskiers for allies than you say
However, still have a chance to fail. And, as you say, the price is big. Even in the slim case Germany consolidates her position, it’s a boring game winnied by pure dice at Ger1. The player who make and success Sea Lion too much surely would have a difficult time to find opponents.
I played 2 years with OOB rules, all knowing the Sea Lion stuff and no one tired ever one time. Zero times in two years. Sometimes, germans rolled and managed long range, but only with a couple of dices and for long term use, no for Sea Lion
My question is:
@Cmdr:
A) It requires you to spend all your money on Long Range Fighters, that means NO BUILDs for Germany
No it doesn’t.
I can try for long range with only $5… If I get it, I take UK, or $10, or $15. That will not kill Germany.
And yes, it’s expensive to your German air force, but it REALLY is worth the cost, ESPECIALLY if UK can not take london back UK1 (as Fucioneta points out, sink that UK tpt and no UK1 retake).
Even on a failed sea lion, UK has no ground units, and maybe 1 ftr left.
A failed sea lion does not lose the game for germany.
however, IMHO, a successful sea lion at a cost of $5-$15 for Germany is a rather large hole for the Allies to climb out of.
Germany can make a purchase to retake UK AGAIN G2 as well, when only rolling 1-3 tech dice (read 2 tpts with no UK airforce to attack)
@Cmdr:
A) It requires you to spend all your money on Long Range Fighters, that means NO BUILDs for Germany
No it doesn’t.
I can try for long range with only $5… If I get it, I take UK, or $10, or $15. That will not kill Germany.
Yes it will.
If Germany rolls one 1 die and gets tech big deal the Allies lose, but if you keep playing that style the Allies will win ~80% of the games.
With no bid and the loss of 5 ipc on G1 the Allies should easily stack up an 80% win ratio (regardless of ruleset).
Sealion is only an annoyance if Germany is willing to spend at least 20 ipc on dice where I think the probability of getting your tech is close to 50%.
And to make it worth while Germany has to spend 25-30 to get to 60-65% to get tech. Then, even if you do get Tech you still need to take the UK. I don’t know the odds off hand of taking UK but even if it is a 90% battle for Germany you are looking at (.65 - for tech * .9 - for battle) which is a 58% win percent for Germany if you are buying 6 dice and go max for London.
IMO, this process is a waste just to try and come up with a 60% win ratio.
There are far better strats where you should be able to win around 70% of your games without relying on dice or a G1 crap shoot.
Unless you’re playing no bid and the Sea Lion thing is only there to try and level the playing field. But that just seems like a boring game to me with very little strategy.
That being said with no bid and immediate Tech, just land 1 Rus ftr in London and Attack Wrus only.
If Germany still trys Tech/Sea Lion then by all means let them.
A few things to add to Jen analysis above…
Germany loses a lot of units, true.
But, they gain $38 not $30 for taking UK ($30 from the bank, plus paid the $8 for UK territory)
They also REMOVE $30 IPC of UK units that will not be built on UK1.
That is a net shift of $68 units just from the land/cash transfer.
Now, let’s say that Germany DID get wiped out and BARELY succeeded (odds are better than that, but let’s say that UK rolled up).
Germany loses $68 of units (a wash for cash and land transfer)
UK loses $50 of units.
So even if Germany BARELY wins, it is still a net $50+ gain to the Axis (in reality is is more often a $75 IPC shift once you add units, cash and land).
Then, if Germany blocks a UK liberation (SZ8 SUB to SZ1), then UK is not building for TWO turns, adding another $28 or so to the Axis side of the equation.
It also LOCKS USA into liberating London. That means Germany is going to gain additional cash and land in Africa; meaning when UK is finally liberated and can collect cash again, they are only going to collect about $20.
USA can;t do a KJF with London falling on G1, so Japan is able to just UNLOAD on Asia with no thought to the Pacific (except grabbing UK income).
And I am sorry, with Germany doing a G2 build of about $90 IPC’s, I don’t care WHAT Russia did on R1, they are still SCREWED. That is a 16 ARM build for Germany with lots of cash left over… Moscow falls G4…
And that my friends is why LHTR corrected an obvious problem with the rules.
@ncscswitch:
A few things to add to Jen analysis above…
Germany loses a lot of units, true.
But, they gain $38 not $30 for taking UK ($30 from the bank, plus paid the $8 for UK territory)
They also REMOVE $30 IPC of UK units that will not be built on UK1.That is a net shift of $68 units just from the land/cash transfer.
Now, let’s say that Germany DID get wiped out and BARELY succeeded (odds are better than that, but let’s say that UK rolled up).
Germany loses $68 of units (a wash for cash and land transfer)
UK loses $50 of units.So even if Germany BARELY wins, it is still a net $50+ gain to the Axis (in reality is is more often a $75 IPC shift once you add units, cash and land).
Then, if Germany blocks a UK liberation (SZ8 SUB to SZ1), then UK is not building for TWO turns, adding another $28 or so to the Axis side of the equation.
It also LOCKS USA into liberating London. That means Germany is going to gain additional cash and land in Africa; meaning when UK is finally liberated and can collect cash again, they are only going to collect about $20.
USA can;t do a KJF with London falling on G1, so Japan is able to just UNLOAD on Asia with no thought to the Pacific (except grabbing UK income).
And I am sorry, with Germany doing a G2 build of about $90 IPC’s, I don’t care WHAT Russia did on R1, they are still SCREWED. That is a 16 ARM build for Germany with lots of cash left over… Moscow falls G4…
And that my friends is why LHTR corrected an obvious problem with the rules.
If you’re feeling daring, you can move the SZ 8 sub to SZ 9, and cross your fingers that the British retake attempt fails. After that, it’s just a matter of holding off Russia while Japan and Germany go full bore for America. :-D
I’ve never actually seen an LRA G1 Sea Lion, but I thought it involved retaking UK and more or less sewing up the game. It was only a 50/50 shot of winning the game right there because you had to multiply the UK attack by the odds of getting LRA with 8 dice. But if the strategy has been outlined correctly in the previous posts, then I definitely am not as afraid of it as I used to be.
Very often the G sub will kill the sz1 trn and UK won’t be putting units on the board until the end of UK3. That in itself is rather huge, but it has to stack up against a lot.
Germany loses basically all of its airforce, right? New ftrs could be purchased, but I don’t think Germany could afford to build too many. So trading territories would become much more costly for Germany. 80+ ipcs for G2 is scary, but, no, Moscow would not fall on G4. I’m guessing that would mean 20 some arm (and maybe more from a G3 build) just come storming across Europe. First, they would go to Kar/Belo/Ukr and then Arc/WRus/Cau and then Mos. That’s G5 at the earliest. Second, those armor wouldn’t make it. I mean, maybe I’m wrong, but I think Russia would build enough units during those turns to be able to either kill the arm or keep them at bay. Meanwhile, Germany would be having a jolly old time trading territories on the eastern front.
I mean, look at it. Germany’s G2 build of 80 IPCs is almost exactly what Germany’s normal G1 and G2 builds would add up to. Build 8arm on G1, G2 and G3 and see how often that works for you.
I’m pretty sure the G1 UK attack requires all of Germany’s airforce, so most of the time the AE attack would be 2inf 2arm vs 1inf 1arm 2ftr. Not too hot for Germany. Without running any numbers, it looks like whatever survives AE would be wiped out by 3inf 1ftr on the following round. Some more UK inf eventually find their way to Africa, and the two US trns could swing down and drop 2inf 1art 1arm into FEq. Germany would not be making much in Africa at all. Some money, yeah, but you’re not gonna see a gray continent.
@ncscswitch:
A few things to add to Jen analysis above…
Germany loses a lot of units, true.
But, they gain $38 not $30 for taking UK ($30 from the bank, plus paid the $8 for UK territory)
They also REMOVE $30 IPC of UK units that will not be built on UK1.That is a net shift of $68 units just from the land/cash transfer.
And you spent how much on tech dice? And you lost how many fighters? And you realize that Russia landed at least one fighter in London, maybe two, so there’s a fair chance you didn’t even win the battle on London, meaning UK builds its $30 of units, you blew $20+ on tech, and you lost a ton of air force. Good times. Well . . . if you like English cooking, anyways, augh. Personally, I prefer a nice German chocolate cake . . .
Now, let’s say that Germany DID get wiped out and BARELY succeeded (odds are better than that, but let’s say that UK rolled up).
Odds suck with Russian fighters, and if you are playing with a ruleset that allows German invasion of London on G1, the Russians SHOULD fly 1-2 fighters to London.
Germany loses $68 of units (a wash for cash and land transfer)
UK loses $50 of units.Germany loses the air it needs to fight the Allied navy and trade with Russia. UK lost a few infantry and its air force - bad, but not fatal. You need to think about the position, not the simple IPC value of the units. But again, you’re not accounting for the Russian fighters. You really should, because if you’re not thinking about a Russian fighter, you’re assuming the Allied player is an idiot.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it - the battle plan of “I will just make sure my opponent is an idiot, then I take his/her capital and it’s fun fun happy happy good times.” Unfortunately, making sure your opponent is an idiot is difficult, or at least, I’ve never managed to force it to happen.
So remember. Russian fighters.
So even if Germany BARELY wins, it is still a net $50+ gain to the Axis (in reality is is more often a $75 IPC shift once you add units, cash and land).
It’s kewl how you don’t count the cost of tech dice. Because it is funny.
Then, if Germany blocks a UK liberation (SZ8 SUB to SZ1), then UK is not building for TWO turns, adding another $28 or so to the Axis side of the equation.
It doesn’t add to the Axis side, it subtracts from the Allied side. Honestly!
It also LOCKS USA into liberating London. That means Germany is going to gain additional cash and land in Africa; meaning when UK is finally liberated and can collect cash again, they are only going to collect about $20.
UK doesn’t need a load of IPCs to start dumping units into Norway or Algeria. It already has two transports and a battleship, and the German air is depleted. An underproducing UK is not good for the Allies, true.
But consider the fact that Germany risked shooting itself in the ass two times to get to that point. First, Germany had to sink IPCs on tech. Second, Germany had to invade London and win (remember the Russian fighter(s)). A little tweak on that UK AA gun can leave the Germans reeling. If the Germans fail to capture London, they will probably lose, and there’s a GOOD chance that the Germans will FAIL one or the other crucial dice outcomes. Figure it out. It’s no joke, it really is an ugly long shot for the Germans.
And don’t forget you need ALL your air to hit London. What does that mean for Anglo-Egypt? What does that mean for the UK battleship at Gibraltar? Probably you will unite the German battleship and sub and transport at Gibraltar, leaving Anglo-Egypt with only a moderately decent attack (WITH a German bid, I might add); the UK can easily recapture. German progress in Africa will be slow.
USA can;t do a KJF with London falling on G1, so Japan is able to just UNLOAD on Asia with no thought to the Pacific (except grabbing UK income).
So bloody what, that happens every KGF. And this UNLOADING doesn’t happen as fast as you seem to think it does. UK can still shoot the Kwangtung transport, Japan still needs to build transports to move units over from Japan. It is not a fast process.
And I am sorry, with Germany doing a G2 build of about $90 IPC’s, I don’t care WHAT Russia did on R1, they are still SCREWED. That is a 16 ARM build for Germany with lots of cash left over… Moscow falls G4…
You are sorry. :roll:
Tell me again with this mystical build . . . just what did you do on G1? Spent a good bit on tech? Okay, you didn’t buy tanks, Russia expanded on R2, you start to push back on G3 (first turn you can even use your big G2 tank build), and somehow you capture Moscow G4 because somehow Russia abandoned both West Russia and Caucasus and let German tanks blitz through to capture Moscow.
JENFORCES!
G5 at least. And remember, critical readers - to get to this point, Germany has to take some balls-to-the-wall chances.
And that my friends is why LHTR corrected an obvious problem with the rules.
Orly.
Two Russian fighters to London isn’t great for the Allies considering the difficulty in trading territories on R1, but it is an acceptable sacrifice considering the Allies superior general position, and the fact that Russia can either hit WRus alone, or WRus/Norway R1, and use the Russian fighters in London to trade Karelia R2. Clearly not optimal, but acceptable.
You want to try G1 LRA Sea Lion on me? Hell, I WROTE G1 LRA Sea Lion, son! Don’t tell me about how it’s a pie-in-the-sky scenario, because it just plain ain’t.
Some notes -
1. German sub can’t stop retake of London alone. UK battleship/transport pick up from ECan, drop off in sea zone northwest of London - how do you stop this again? Let me guess, you bid a second sub in sea zone 8 and killed the Russian sub/UK transport/UK battleship. Awesome, especially since all your German air attacked London. :roll: I SMACK THE FOOL!
2. Russian fighter. I know I’ve beat you guys over the head with this. Guess what. Here it comes again. I SMACK THE FOOL!
3. 40 IPC on tech and 30-40 IPC in fighters is a nasty cost for Germany; Russia expands early (nothing to stop them), the Allies retake London, and the Allies have a game that often has a UK build of 30 IPC on UK2 (it is likely the Germans cannot hold Anglo-Egypt). Not an EASY game, but a game, and considering the multiple chances of total failure that the Germans took to get to that point, it’s more than an acceptable tradeoff for the Allies.
Now think, if someone said “OK, we’re going to fight, and I’m going to shoot myself in the ass 50% of the time before we start. The other 50% of the time, I’m going to roll up my sleeves before we start”, wouldn’t YOU like those odds? 50% of the time, your opponent hands you the game. 50% of the time, you can still fight, just at some disadvantage. That’s about the same as succeeding on tech rolls AND invading London - figure it out. (If anything, that’s generous.)
4. The correct German play is, in my opinion, is to roll for tech dice and go for transports. If the Germans have 3 transports in the Baltic, they have a good chance of securing London for at least one turn, after which they can put 8 infantry in and land surviving fighters for a probable lock (along with various G1-3 naval maneuvers). If US builds in the Atlantic to race Germany, Japan expands, and it’s a 45 IPC Germany and 35 IPC Japan fighting a 30 IPC Russia and a 40 IPC US, with the positional advantage to the Axis as Germany defensively trades with Russia and secures London while the US is forced to attempt attacking, and Japan is unopposed in the Pacific. If the US builds in the Pacific, Germany grabs Africa and ramps to 50+ IPC quickly. Either way is a win for the Axis.
I’ve never actually seen an LRA G1 Sea Lion, but I thought it involved retaking UK and more or less sewing up the game. It was only a 50/50 shot of winning the game right there because you had to multiply the UK attack by the odds of getting LRA with 8 dice. But if the strategy has been outlined correctly in the previous posts, then I definitely am not as afraid of it as I used to be.
The CORRECT G1 Sea Lion in my opinion requires securing of London (note that with a G1 two transport build, a UK recapture of London actually HELPS Germany in most cases, two transport build typically means that the Germans need a bid for max tech dice). There’s another version that basically trades German fighters for German ground units, but that allows a lot of Allied counterplay.
Very often the G sub will kill the sz1 trn and UK won’t be putting units on the board until the end of UK3. That in itself is rather huge, but it has to stack up against a lot.
UK has another transport in sea zone 2 with the UK battleship. In most cases, this means either the Germans have to kill another German fighter early on to keep a German infantry and a German tank in London, which decreases the overall odds of success, or this means that the Germans leave one tank in London, vulnerable to a UK2 battleship bombard then tank attack meaning a 2/3 chance of the UK collecting income at the end of UK1. With the non-transport G1 Sea Lion version, the best you can do (for aggro) is to kill the 2 US transports plus the UK battleship and transport, but London cannot be recaptured leaving lines of Allied play.
Of course, with the German transport buy, UK isn’t going to be putting units on the board until the end of UK3, if only for safety reasons, and there’s a fair chance UK will never put any units on the board ever again.
Germany loses basically all of its airforce, right? New ftrs could be purchased, but I don’t think Germany could afford to build too many. So trading territories would become much more costly for Germany. 80+ ipcs for G2 is scary, but, no, Moscow would not fall on G4. I’m guessing that would mean 20 some arm (and maybe more from a G3 build) just come storming across Europe. First, they would go to Kar/Belo/Ukr and then Arc/WRus/Cau and then Mos. That’s G5 at the earliest. Second, those armor wouldn’t make it. I mean, maybe I’m wrong, but I think Russia would build enough units during those turns to be able to either kill the arm or keep them at bay. Meanwhile, Germany would be having a jolly old time trading territories on the eastern front.
Quite right on most counts. Against a G1 8 tech dice LRA Sea Lion, Russia does expand early. Germany’s G2 build is pretty sizable, but no larger than a combined G1 and G2 build would normally be, and the German air is mostly dead. The Allies have a tough time getting things going again in the Atlantic with the German fleet roaming around, but it’s acceptable considering the horrible risks Germany took to get to that point.
I mean, look at it. Germany’s G2 build of 80 IPCs is almost exactly what Germany’s normal G1 and G2 builds would add up to. Build 8arm on G1, G2 and G3 and see how often that works for you.
Yeah, see, that’s what I mean. Of course, the Allies have a harder time in the Atlantic, but it’s still playable, that’s my point.
I’m pretty sure the G1 UK attack requires all of Germany’s airforce, so most of the time the AE attack would be 2inf 2arm vs 1inf 1arm 2ftr. Not too hot for Germany. Without running any numbers, it looks like whatever survives AE would be wiped out by 3inf 1ftr on the following round. Some more UK inf eventually find their way to Africa, and the two US trns could swing down and drop 2inf 1art 1arm into FEq. Germany would not be making much in Africa at all. Some money, yeah, but you’re not gonna see a gray continent.
Hold on there tiger. First, there should be 1 UK fighter at Anglo-Egypt and that’s it, because first, Russian fighter(s) should be flown to London to prevent G1 Sea Lion, second, Germany often has a bid, third, if Germany does have a bid in Africa, it’s more like 3 inf 3 armor 1 fighter 1 bomber against Anglo-Egypt without Sea Lion (killing the Russian fighter easily, making Sea Lion unnecessary given the consequent German advantage).
Also, if Germany successfully Sea Lions on G1, US has to recapture London, not move units into Algeria. True, in that case it WILL be 2 inf 2 armor even with a German bid (since the German Med fleet should probably go west to help threaten a G2 re-recapture of London after an Allied recapture)
Are we talking about different things? If Russia lands 2 fighters in London on R1, of course Sealion is bad.
Otherwise, Germany can spend $5 on 1 die ad 17% of the time the game is screwed.
Or $10 on 2 dice and 33% of the time the game is screwed.
So playing OOB, if Russia does not land fighters in London on R1, and the game ends up screwed…both Russia and Germany players should be smacked. :wink:
