Subs are great. I just hit up Safeway for their $5 Friday and I copped a sub.
G1 SBR
-
I think the bombers are better used taking out ships on G1.
-
I think the bombers are better used taking out ships on G1.
Why? You can take those ships out on G2. G1 SBR stretches your luftwaffe out a little thin, but you probably won’t take any hits on them unless England scrambles. And if he does that, he’s losing his planes too, which are more valuable since they also project force into the adjoining seas. And also because they defend with 4 while yours attack with 3-1/2. You may have to take some hits on your luftwaffe on G2 to finish off what was left in 110, depending on how many subs you have left, but I still think taking his IC down is worth it.
Traditionally, a single SBR on G2 before G3 sealion knocks the IC down a little, but if he’s not planning on building 10 units then a few troops only cost 1 IPC more. Maybe it prevents him from buying 2-3 extra inf. But 2 SBRs makes things expensive for him fast. It’s a lot more than just twice the setback of the traditional G2 SBR, because it sinks production far lower than target production. First he needs to buy back to get up to 0 and then all his troops are now 1 IPC more. If none of the strats are shot down, then 22 avg lost production can easily prevent 6 or 7 inf from getting built. That’s worth a couple planes.
Admittedly, G1 SBR makes most sense for a sealion, but keeping London delayed a turn helps for barbarossa too. -
Tell me again why you’re trading aircraft with the UK to achieve an SBR. This is irrelevant if it is G1 or G2.
Like, what is the benefit of this?
And, at what expense?
Further, what do you aim to achieve by two rounds of SBR?
Making that first INF cost 14 IPC?
How many IPC units did you trade off to do that?Never discount snake-eyes on the SBR either if you just send in your SB due to “Safe” UK skies.
For Sea Lion - my success has always been dictated by how many German Aircraft survive unscathed on G1.
I’d much rather 2-3 extra INF on UK and full starting TAC/SB than being short 1 TAC and 1 SB from trying to deny those INF via SBR.
-
Is a SBR against UK standard in your games G2 or G3?
G1 i use my STRB’s against the Royal Navy.
Most games i need my fighters and TB’s to kill UK ships in SZ 97 and land a few fighters/TB’s in Tobruk/Alexandria.
for a SBR against London i need at least 2 STRB’s (i buy navy G1 so i only have 2 STRB’s) and 2-3 fighters, otherwise the UK will intercept fighters and i’ll lose my bombers. By using my fighters G2 in SZ 97 i can’t do a SBR G2. If i to do a SBR G3, it’s actually too late.
Anyone else has this problem?
-
As the UK, I gladly welcome Germany letting me keep the fleet in 110
-
Tell me again why you’re trading aircraft with the UK to achieve an SBR. This is irrelevant if it is G1 or G2.
Like, what is the benefit of this?
And, at what expense?
Further, what do you aim to achieve by two rounds of SBR?
Making that first INF cost 14 IPC?
How many IPC units did you trade off to do that?Never discount snake-eyes on the SBR either if you just send in your SB due to “Safe” UK skies.
For Sea Lion - my success has always been dictated by how many German Aircraft survive unscathed on G1.
I’d much rather 2-3 extra INF on UK and full starting TAC/SB than being short 1 TAC and 1 SB from trying to deny those INF via SBR.
Here’s where you might lose aircraft:
If he scrambles 4 figs in 106. On average, you’ll lose 2 figs and a tac, but he’ll lose 4 figs. That’s a win.
If he scrambles 1 fig in 111. That’s an even fight if you haven’t built a carrier and can’t bring an extra tac in. He would probably lose a fig and you’d lose a pair, but he might not even lose his fig. It’s the diciest part of it.
If you haven’t built any navy because you were planning on barbarossa, but then changed your mind to go for the sealion based on how many aircraft he’s lost if he scrambled and how well your SBR did. Then you might have only one sub as fodder to clear out the rest of the royal navy. This barbarossa feint is the weakest part of this argument and needs review.
The actual SBR runs its own risk as well. But you have just as much a chance taking out one of his figs on the intercept. And the math has been done several times as to whether SBRs by themselves are worth the risk.In a sealion, I agree you need most of your planes, but only to counter how many planes England has. In the event of a scramble, a 1-1 exchange of planes favors Germany. Two reasons
First his planes defend with 4 while yours attack with either 3 or 4 for a 3.5 average (less if all your tacs aren’t boosted).
Second, because his planes can scramble, he can project force into 110. That’s two zones your planes need to attack, while he gets to choose where to concentrate his jet power. Because you need to cover the amphibious landing with the PROSPECT of British planes being there, in practice it gives England an extra 3 planes. Admittedly this only comes into play if he has less than 3 figs, so really only if you wipe out his planes if he scrambles in 109. You’ll have free range to wipe out the rest of the navy G2 without the extra planes needed to protect against a scramble, and if he wants to build another 2 figs (+1 from Gib) to project force again by sealion time, that’ll be at the expense of a lot of fodder.
So if England scrambles in 109, you’re sitting pretty.Two scenarios, one in which this scenario is dicey, but possibly worth it, and the other in which it’s a win-win.
- You don’t build a navy but build art against Russia. England scrambles in 109 to deny those aircraft against Moscow. You turn around build transports. He loses more planes than you do, and they’re more valuable to him, but you lose a few more clearing out his ships on G2. The question is is losing 2-3 planes worth the inf fodder that the SBR denies him? Maybe, depending on how well the SBR does. I’ll do some quick and loose math on that in a moment.
- You build a carrier, sub and des and proceed with sealion as usual. If he scrambles in 109, he’s a fool. If he doesn’t, you have 1-2 subs in 109 disrupting his economy and as fodder for clearing out the rest of his navy. If he scrambles in 111, you might lose one plane if you’re unlucky before you retreat to 112.
In sum, option 2 is exactly the same scenario as traditional sealion (building a fleet and clearing out 110 and 111), but with a few key differences:
An early SBR, an obvious advantage.
It puts some planes at risk, but not without an equal risk on his planes, which is to your advantage.
A larger British navy to clear out on G2. But you have plenty of firepower to do that. The traditional way is usually done with a bit of luftwaffe overkill on G2 because they have nothing else to do. (You’re not risking them in the Med if you’re sealioning.)
It’s more susceptible to bad rolling. If you lose to a scramble in 109, it would put your fleet in 112 at risk. But that’s a pretty risky gamble on England’s part, since he should lose all his figs on that, making sealion pretty easy. -
Math on the SBRs to see why 2 SBRs is exponentially more effective than just 1. It comes down to two factors:
First is that you need to first get his production down to the ceiling on which he would be producing for it to actually damage him. If you hit for 4 and knock him down to 6 and he’s only producing 6, you haven’t done a lick of damage. If you hit 8 and knock him down to 2, and he’s producing 6 units, he needs to buy back 4, and your SBR is half effective. If you knock him down lower (either on one run or successive runs), the percentage of effectiveness increases.
Second, for every troop he buys when his IC is down to 0, he needs to buy back 1. For every troop he buys when his IC is down past that, he needs to buy back 2. This makes two runs a lot more expensive for him.Let’s say, if England’s IC never gets bombed, that he buys 8 inf, 1 art on UK1 and (with 35 IPC) 7 inf, 2 art, 1 tank on UK2.
Traditionally, with SBs clearing out 110 and 111, you have one SBR on G2 for an avg of 11. But he doesn’t need to buy back all 11. He only has enough cash for 2 tanks and 5 inf. In this example, there’s 3 he didn’t need to buy back. That’s a portion of the SBR that doesn’t hurt him. Compared to not being bombed at all, that’s a loss of 3 units for him.
With an SBR on G1, England’s IC is on avg knocked down to -1. That lets him buy 5 inf, 1 tank with his IPC back to +6. The second round knocks his IC down to -5. From there he can buy 5 inf, 2 art. That’s for a total loss of 6 units.
So, over the course of two rounds, UK can buy Or
With no SBRs: 18 inf/art, 1 tank (19 hits, 39 def) 12 inf/art, 1 tank, 2 figs (15 hits, 35 def)
With only a G2 SBR: 14 inf/art, 2 tanks (16 hits, 34 def) 10 inf/art, 1 tank, 2 figs (13 hits, 31 def)
With G1 + G2 SBRs: 12 inf, 1 tank (13 hits, 27 def) 8 inf/art, 2 figs (10 hits, 24 def)In the right hand column I listed UK purchases that include some high profile units if he’s trying to minimize IC buyback. The actual configurations will change of course depending on the SBR damage, but that gives an example of its effectiveness. The less fodder UK has, the quicker you start eating into his valuable defense; sealion probability skyrockets. I don’t know how to factor the probability of SBs getting shot down into the equations, but I’m working with the assumption that it’s mathematically worth the risk.
If the SBRs don’t go well, you don’t have to sealion. But this isn’t at the cost of anything that isn’t at risk in traditional sealion other than the added risk of SBs getting shot down. But looking above at the numbers, that risk is worth it. So at worst, your sealion prospects are no better off than they would be otherwise. At best, you could hit him for up to 32, making his inf stacking pretty paltry. Also, don’t discount the 1 or 2 subs disrupting convoy in 109 for an avg of 2 each.So let me flip the question around. Instead of trying to demonstrate why this is a good idea, let me ask any of you to explain to me what advantage you gain by sending your SBs to 110 and 111?
-
As the UK, I gladly welcome Germany letting me keep the fleet in 110
Do you find that Germany is unable to clear out the royal navy if 110 is left intact?
Are you able to attack his fleet in 112? -
As the UK, I gladly welcome Germany letting me keep the fleet in 110
Do you find that Germany is unable to clear out the royal navy if 110 is left intact?
Are you able to attack his fleet in 112?In that situation I’d go with a couple of options:
1. Head to 88 and just hang out until US makes it’s way to Gibraltar
2. Head to 92 and meet up with the fleet in 98 (as an added bonus, the UK can use a DD as a blocker in 94, meaning Germany would have to send its air force to kill a loaded CV, a BB and 4 C’s. Hell, you could also put an airbase in Gibraltar, throw 3 planes there and make the fleet untouchable)
3. A few things would have to happen for this one: if Germany doesn’t take Normandy, and leaves Holland Belgium light or empty (meaning France could take it on their turn), build a DD and 2 fighters and then have France take Holland Belgium. With Normandy and HB under French control, Germany cannot get a good chunk of air force to 109, and UK can defend with 6 fighters, a BB, 3 C’s and a DD.
-
Ok, so in options 1 & 2 you’re abandoning London to the sealion.
In option 1, you could put your fleet in 91 on UK2 to try to counter attack the sealion, but if the German fleet didn’t lose any ships clearing you out, then he’ll have plenty of fodder to hold you off (with a couple more builds in the channel and maybe an airbase on Normandy/Holland).
In option 2, you’re not doing Taranto, so what’s to prevent Italy from crippling your combined fleet in 92 or smashing any portion of it if it’s not combined? Italy has a little more luxury to use up its fleet if UK isn’t producing.
In option 3, Holland would not be left undefended, since most planes going to 109 on the G1 attack and your fig escort have to land there. I suppose if UK scrambled there, there’s a chance, but the French fig would likely be killed in that scramble.So what do you get from having a sizable fleet if you’re not using it? By the time it’s beefed up with American navy, Germany needs to give up the fight on the Atlantic and focus on the east anyway. But that’s really more a criticism of sealion in general and not one of a G1 SBR.
-
Ok, so in options 1 & 2 you’re abandoning London to the sealion.
In option 1, you could put your fleet in 91 on UK2 to try to counter attack the sealion, but if the German fleet didn’t lose any ships clearing you out, then he’ll have plenty of fodder to hold you off (with a couple more builds in the channel and maybe an airbase on Normandy/Holland).
In option 2, you’re not doing Taranto, so what’s to prevent Italy from crippling your combined fleet in 92 or smashing any portion of it if it’s not combined? Italy has a little more luxury to use up its fleet if UK isn’t producing.
In option 3, Holland would not be left undefended, since most planes going to 109 on the G1 attack and your fig escort have to land there. I suppose if UK scrambled there, there’s a chance, but the French fig would likely be killed in that scramble.So what do you get from having a sizable fleet if you’re not using it? By the time it’s beefed up with American navy, Germany needs to give up the fight on the Atlantic and focus on the east anyway. But that’s really more a criticism of sealion in general and not one of a G1 SBR.
I don’t fear the Sea Lion. Any time I’ve seen it done the result has been a monster Russia. Moreover, I don’t see how moving the 110 fleet, a group of ships normally killed on G1 anyway, results in an easier Sea Lion
Italy cannot attack the fleet in SZ92 because I will have placed a DD blocker in 94, meaning Germany would have to send the air force (probably not an option, since 4 German planes will be in Holland Belgium and therefore unable to reach 92, in addition to the 2 planes likely lost in the mutual annihilation battle of 111). More than likely, UK will start its second turn with the SZ 92 fleet in tact and have the option to hang around in the Med and harass Italy, or meet up in SZ 109 with a freshly purchased group of ships, and suddenly UK has a monster fleet.
-
Ok, so in options 1 & 2 you’re abandoning London to the sealion.
In option 1, you could put your fleet in 91 on UK2 to try to counter attack the sealion, but if the German fleet didn’t lose any ships clearing you out, then he’ll have plenty of fodder to hold you off (with a couple more builds in the channel and maybe an airbase on Normandy/Holland).
In option 2, you’re not doing Taranto, so what’s to prevent Italy from crippling your combined fleet in 92 or smashing any portion of it if it’s not combined? Italy has a little more luxury to use up its fleet if UK isn’t producing.
In option 3, Holland would not be left undefended, since most planes going to 109 on the G1 attack and your fig escort have to land there. I suppose if UK scrambled there, there’s a chance, but the French fig would likely be killed in that scramble.So what do you get from having a sizable fleet if you’re not using it? By the time it’s beefed up with American navy, Germany needs to give up the fight on the Atlantic and focus on the east anyway. But that’s really more a criticism of sealion in general and not one of a G1 SBR.
I don’t feat the Sea Lion. Any time I’ve seen it done the result has been a monster Russia. Moreover, I don’t see how moving the 110 fleet, a group of ships normally killed on G1 anyway, results in an easier Sea Lion
Italy cannot attack the fleet in SZ92 because I will have placed a DD blocker in 94, meaning Germany would have to send the air force (probably not an option, since 4 German planes will be in Holland Belgium and therefore unable to reach 92, in addition to the 2 planes likely lost in the mutual annihilation battle of 111). More than likely, UK will start its second turn with the SZ 92 fleet in tact and have the option to hang around in the Med and harass Italy, or meet up in SZ 109 with a freshly purchased group of ships, and suddenly UK has a monster fleet.
As I’ve been talking about this, it’s become more of a sealion strategy. I know lots of people don’t like the sealion in the first place, but that’s a moot point. If you want to try it, I think this is a viable strategy. Moreover, because London is producing on avg 3 units, 7 defense less (if my math above is right) than a traditional sealion, then you’ll have quite a few more troops to shuttle over to the Russian front. (I’m guessing a few more than 3 extra, since in fights that close, a minor disparity in strength creates a major discrepancy in outcome, especially if the fight is 3 or more rounds.)
However, if you’re not sealioning, I agree with you that letting him have his fleet in 110 is a bad idea since as you’ve pointed out he can have an intimidating fleet in 109 by the end of round 2. It allows him to start building transports a turn or two earlier, and definitely not worth the extra SBR. Combining fleets in 92 is pretty clever; I’ve never seen that before, and didn’t account for it. It’s a risk taking out Italy’s destroyer without any fodder, but well worth it. Though in the case of a sealion, that move is only good for helping America liberate London a couple turns down the road; Germany can block that fleet from a counter attack on the transports.
You’re right, moving the 110 fleet doesn’t make for an easier sealion. I was thinking if they’re still in 110 on G3, then Germany would have to spend a lot more aircraft on 110 at the expense of the actual fight. But if you left them in range at the end of UK1, they’d be sunk on G2. And if you moved them to 91 or 92 with a view of moving them back to 110 by the time of the invasion, Germany could block them from making it back.
There’s only a mutual annihilation battle in 111 if you see it through. Otherwise, if the odds are straight, you should be able to retreat with both planes and a hit BB.
-
The scramble should be out over 106, since that guarantees the death of all your subs round one no matter what happens.
If not, he should scramble against the SBR with 3 fighters and 3 AAA shots he has x2 the chance causing a casualty you do.
Reducing British Income by SBRing early is supposed to result in fewer troops that he can defend against an invasion with. You wont be able to suppress UK for multiple rounds without taking losses or failing to deal with Russian factories.
It might be a sound idea, if what you traded made it worth it. But trading 2d+4 damage against his factory is not worth 2 cruisers and a battleship (44). No where close. It can hide in SZ 119.
This plan adds risk and spreads you thin…at best it lands 16 extra damage but at worst it costs you 2-4 aircraft and an extra sub dead and gives them 3 extra ships
-
The scramble should be out over 106, since that guarantees the death of all your subs round one no matter what happens.
If not, he should scramble against the SBR with 3 fighters and 3 AAA shots he has x2 the chance causing a casualty you do.
Reducing British Income by SBRing early is supposed to result in fewer troops that he can defend against an invasion with. You wont be able to suppress UK for multiple rounds without taking losses or failing to deal with Russian factories.
It might be a sound idea, if what you traded made it worth it. But trading 2d+4 damage against his factory is not worth 2 cruisers and a battleship (44). No where close. It can hide in SZ 119.
This plan adds risk and spreads you thin…at best it lands 16 extra damage but at worst it costs you 2-4 aircraft and an extra sub dead and gives them 3 extra ships
“The scramble should be out over 106, since that guarantees the death of all your subs round one no matter what happens.”
I assume you mean 109, on the west of UK/Scotland. You lose your subs, and 3 planes, but England loses 4 fighters. By building a sub and destroyer, you won’t have a whole lot of fodder to clear out the rest of the royal navy, but you won’t need much, since he won’t be able to scramble more than two planes, and probably won’t considering the amount of luftwaffe you can throw in second round.“If not, he should scramble against the SBR with 3 fighters and 3 AAA shots he has x2 the chance causing a casualty you do.”
You have equal odds of creating a casualty on the interception: 3 on 3. After that it just comes down to whether you think SBRs are worth the risk against AAA guns. There’s been a few posts floating around that did the math that justifies them.“It might be a sound idea, if what you traded made it worth it. But trading 2d+4 damage against his factory is not worth 2 cruisers and a battleship (44). No where close.”
The idea isn’t to trade IC damage for his fleet. The point is to either kill his fleet G2 or make it run away so that it’s not a factor in the sealion. If it runs away, fine. If the sealion is successful, he’s not building that fleet up anyway. So you’ve got a rogue British fleet of 1 BB and 2 cruisers roaming about. The only place where it can hide within reach of 110 for a counter attack is inside the Med on 92. And Nippon-Koku pointed out England can combine his Med fleet there with it. But you can still block that counter attack by putting your destroyer in 104. That gives you a turn to use London’s treasury to build up some protection for cheap (with a couple destroyers and an airbase). I haven’t worked out what it would cost to protect your transports against that fleet on UK3 after sealion and if it’s worth spending that cash instead of buying inf against Russia’s advance. But since his fleet first needs to kill off your blocker, it’ll be out of hiding and you’ll have 2-3 subs to take hits as you counter-attack (England still won’t have any destroyers, assuming he’s been building a stack in London).“It can hide in SZ 119.”
If he hides in 119, Germany will still have 2-3 subs, a destroyer, and a fig/tac pair (from your carrier) to take him out. You don’t need to kill it off; you can just strafe it until all you have left is your planes so that his fleet is whittled down to something harmless. This assumes he didn’t scramble in 109. But if he did, then the sealion is so much easier that you can afford to use some of your planes in 110 on G3 if he moves it there to block the invasion.“This plan adds risk and spreads you thin”
True. This is the most sound criticism. You really need the dice to roll with the odds on 4 separate fights: 106, 109 (if he scrambles), 111, and the SBR. Any one bad roll of those 4 could leave Germany very vulnerable. And I suppose that alone might make it not worthwhile. I’ve never played a low luck game, but I wonder if that would make the difference. -
Why not also use a tactical bomber on the UK to damage the Navalbase there. If you combine that with taking normandy round 1 there is a good chance of either trapping the 110 fleet or forcing him to further spend cash on repairing the naval base.
Interesting idea. Instead of having two tacs in 111. It would mean England would be more likely to scramble in 111, but he’s likely to do that anyway if he suspects you of retreating to 112, which you should. The biggest problem with that though is you won’t be able to bring it back to W. Germ to protect your fleet. And that fight is already a close one. If you lose your fighter to an interceptor, that tac might be the difference between keeping your fleet or not.
-
Thank you for the detailed reply, Mr. Eames.
“The scramble should be out over 106, since that guarantees the death of all your subs round one no matter what happens.”
I assume you mean 109, on the west of UK/Scotland. You lose your subs, and 3 planes, but England loses 4 fighters. By building a sub and destroyer, you won’t have a whole lot of fodder to clear out the rest of the royal navy, but you won’t need much, since he won’t be able to scramble more than two planes, and probably won’t considering the amount of luftwaffe you can throw in second round.Yes, sorry. Now I see you are addressing the issue of a 109 scramble with some overkill. SZ 106 is the stronger move because UK can bring those reinforcements. Unf, the team you are sending to 109 is nearly powerful enough to kill SZ 110…but not quite.
“If not, he should scramble against the SBR with 3 fighters and 3 AAA shots he has x2 the chance causing a casualty you do.”
You have equal odds of creating a casualty on the interception: 3 on 3. After that it just comes down to whether you think SBRs are worth the risk against AAA guns. There’s been a few posts floating around that did the math that justifies them.Part of my point here is that what is not being considered in this trade is the fact that any killed SBomber does not go on to deal damage. This is what makes the trade worth it, or at least posing 6 rolls against 3.
“It might be a sound idea, if what you traded made it worth it. But trading 2d+4 damage against his factory is not worth 2 cruisers and a battleship (44). No where close.”
The idea isn’t to trade IC damage for his fleet. The point is to either kill his fleet G2 or make it run away so that it’s not a factor in the sealion. If it runs away, fine. If the sealion is successful, he’s not building that fleet up anyway. So you’ve got a rogue British fleet of 1 BB and 2 cruisers roaming about. The only place where it can hide within reach of 110 for a counter attack is inside the Med on 92. And Nippon-Koku pointed out England can combine his Med fleet there with it. But you can still block that counter attack by putting your destroyer in 104. That gives you a turn to use London’s treasury to build up some protection for cheap (with a couple destroyers and an airbase). I haven’t worked out what it would cost to protect your transports against that fleet on UK3 after sealion and if it’s worth spending that cash instead of buying inf against Russia’s advance. But since his fleet first needs to kill off your blocker, it’ll be out of hiding and you’ll have 2-3 subs to take hits as you counter-attack (England still won’t have any destroyers, assuming he’s been building a stack in London).
The negative of letting UK keep a sea stack is that once it has an unkillably large fleet in 110, sea lion cant happen. As you are pointing out, one turn of UK income is not going to make 2 cruisers and a battleship into an unkillable stack. The UK also doesnt have enough punch on UK1 to attack the German carrier, 5 planes and cruiser that he has, though it gets close.
The bigger problem comes later. Based on your analysis, the UK should simply run like hell since you have found many ways to finish them off. But if they come back with a better, bigger fleet after UK 4 than they would have had vs the standard plan (of wiping out 110 111 and 91) this option wasn’t productive.
“It can hide in SZ 119.”
If he hides in 119, Germany will still have 2-3 subs, a destroyer, and a fig/tac pair (from your carrier) to take him out. You don’t need to kill it off; you can just strafe it until all you have left is your planes so that his fleet is whittled down to something harmless. This assumes he didn’t scramble in 109. But if he did, then the sealion is so much easier that you can afford to use some of your planes in 110 on G3 if he moves it there to block the invasion.
Good point…there is no-where to hide.
“This plan adds risk and spreads you thin”
True. This is the most sound criticism. You really need the dice to roll with the odds on 4 separate fights: 106, 109 (if he scrambles), 111, and the SBR. Any one bad roll of those 4 could leave Germany very vulnerable. And I suppose that alone might make it not worthwhile. I’ve never played a low luck game, but I wonder if that would make the difference.
If you are going to try all this, I would suggest a G1 buy of a strategic bomber. The second (and subsequent) turns of bombing have to be fully productive despite any losses, in order to merit the earlier risks taken to add an extra turn of strategic damage. If you can hit him early and consistently, it certainly wastes a huge amount of his productivity, at the expense of pinching USSR instead. Good Luck buddy.
-
The risk seems to be too great. I just tried this gambit 10 times on TripleA, and was satisfied with only 4 of them. The other 6 times, most everything went the way it should have gone, but one exception ruined everything. Like not taking out the destroyer in 106, leaving my subs in 109 vulnerable. Or having my fighter (or even one of my SBs as well) killed on the SBR without killing one of his. Or losing a plane in 111 without taking out his cruiser. In which case my 112 fleet couldn’t withstand a British attack. Even if the odds for each fight were 80%, if you roll for 5 fights you’ll lose 1, and you can’t afford to lose one.
I was trying to stretch out my resources for maximum utility, but I suppose there’s something to be said for overkill. This plan is high risk, medium-high reward. I’ll look into the viability of this strategy for low luck games. And I’ll try sending my tac into London instead of my fighter to see if that increases the odds of my fleet surviving a bad roll. That’s a good idea, ShadowHAwk.
-
Thanks eames for playtesting it, I certainly wanted to attempt this next game if the results were promising.
Based on some of the conversations with YG and SH, and things other people have said, I think the big takeaways are
- anything that adds risk to the Axis dilutes their initial advantage
- skilled players can minimize the impact of an SBR on their medium-term economy, so frontloading that damage isn’t as productive as making a more straightforward choice
- the OOB set up has obviously been parsed so thoroughly by playtesting that any variation in the Germany opener requires that you short one or more battles, intentionally leaving you with too much on your plate to devour in one turn.
- a battleship and 2 cruisers aint worth much, but its better than what you usually have, which is a single destroyer and transport.
Still, it has potential.
-
Then it is settled. The name of the Operation?
Operation Sea LOIN.
-
well it sounds better than Fall Krautenblitz, which was my backup suggestion….
Suggested Topics
