How do you respond to Sea Lion threat as UK?

[Cobert]

I was told a story once about a quite experienced player that actually managed to lose Britain in the 4th round.  I dont know how it happened exactly, but I know the german player stayed very calm and slipped the Japanese player a note explaining that he could take Britain and telling him how he needed to help.

[Feds10]

Cobert, do you know what the japanese player did?

i think that Japan has to play it’s part as well if germany was to successfully take England…but i agree that overall it’s jsut a scare tactic.

but taking England on G4 does sound reasonable…probably one heck of a german player too lol

i still stick with the 8 INF  1 AC buy for g1…but after reading these i’m starting to consider a 8inf 2 tranny build on g1…all i know is i wanna find a way to effectively get more tranny’s (maybe 1 or 2 more) in the baltic…it moves troops from germany into russia farther…and protects norway much better. i jsut can’t will myself to compromise Europe to the Russians lol

The UK can’t do much else to respond to the sea lion threat then build infantry on the homeland…and hope for american help…they also hope that Russia gets some darn good dice so that they can cruise through europe with minimal problems.

Man, I love this game 8-)

Feds 10

[DarthMaximus]

@ncscswitch:

LOL!

"Sea Lion Scare"  Glad to see that the ‘concept’ from that test game last year has stuck with you Darth!

It really is probably the best way to discribe it.

As you said, barring great dice or an oversight (or bad play) by your opponent, it simply should not work often enough to be a viable everyday strat.

Even if you can get the odds to 50-50, why be happy with that?  Especially in rd 1 or 2.
A 50-50 shot to end the game in rd 10 may be worth it, but in rd 2?

[Cobert]

@Feds10:

Cobert, do you know what the japanese player did?

Unfortunately, no.  Probably just movinghis planes in position so in his next turn he could land them on britain.

[Guest]

The earliest Japan can get AF to London is J3, and then only 3 FIGs and a BOM (the FIGs that start in FIC and in SZ37).  Even that requires a secure LZ for J2 in Egypt, which is a pretty iffy thing in most games.  Otherwise only 2 FIGs can make it to London by J3, using the AC in SZ37 as an interim LZ in SZ34.

[Guest]

I have just run some numbers for a G2 Sea Lion attempt by Germany, in a “best case” scenario for Germany.

Assumptions:
5 TRN build on G1.
NO FIGs lost by Germany in turn 1 (not likely, but still assumed it)
Med Fleet moves west and is able to participate in the landing
No Allied fleet blocking eithr Baltic or Med Fleet units.
UK built all INF and did not attack at all, and kept their Navy safely out of range.
US sent 1 FIG, 1 BOM, 2 INF, 1 ART, 1 ARM to UK.

Even with Germany having the ability to land 14 land units (7 INF, 7 ARM), 6 FIGs, 1 BOM, and a BB shot, the chance of taking London on G2 is…
16.2%

But again, that assumes that Germany lost NO AF on turn 1, that ALL FIGs land in Western or Norway on G1 so as to be in range of London, and that the Med Fleet sailed West, destroyed the UK BB without loss, AND that the US did not block the Med Fleet.

And if the US does go to Africa, blocking the Med Fleet and leaving UK to its own defenses (other than 1 US FIG and BOM to London on US1), it is STILL only a 29% win for Germany.  And to get that, they pretty much have to give up Egypt on G1, and they use almost 100% of their ARM, and they DO use 100% of their AF in the attempt.

I am sorry, but for a less than 1 in 3 chance to win early, the cost of a Sea Lion attempt with a 5 TRN buy on G1 is simply too high… it is a cost of Germany LOSING the game when they fail to take London on G2.

Lastly, even if they DO take London on G2, the US can counter on US2, and the Brits can move into the Med from the Indian Ocean, finish kicking the Germans out of Africa, and also possibly reinforce the Russians in Ukraine and/or Balkans.  Germany MAY get London’s income, but they cannot keep it.  And if they try to do so, the Americans will simply keep hammering them, while Russia solidifies a VERY advanced position in Central Europe.

Final Note:  Raiding 30ish IPC’s from UK is NOT worth the cost in AF and land units needed.

[Jennifer]

All this thread really does is remind Veterans that they have to leave a few land units in England until the German navy is completely destroyed.

[newpaintbrush]

German transports in the Baltic are a worthy option.  Just not five on G1, though.  That’s a bit much.

"Final Note:  Raiding 30ish IPC’s from UK is NOT worth the cost in AF and land units needed. "

Depends on how much was actually necessary to invest - that is, it depends on whether or not it was actually a worst-case invasion of London scenario.

Really, UK loses 30 IPC, Germany gains 38 IPC (30 from UK’s income, plus 8 more for capturing the territory itself).  Net gain 68, quite good, so it is worth something to risk an attack on London.  That’s why a G1 Sea Lion with Long Range Aircraft tech roll is worth considering; you invest heavily on tech rolls and lose fighters, but that 68 IPC difference lets Germany fight longer.

[Jennifer]

What’s the difference between 5 transports on G1 and 2 ACs and 1 Submarine on G1?

[newpaintbrush]

@Jennifer:

What’s the difference between 5 transports on G1 and 2 ACs and 1 Submarine on G1?

Is this a rhetorical question?

2 AC 1 sub is mostly useless.  5 transports are also mostly useless.

At least transports force the UK to defend London instead of instantly making purchases to start breaking down the German fleet / set up a transport chain from London.

[Jennifer]

I don’t see any of it as worthwhile.

Better is 8 armor on G1, and then steam roll Russia before England can get a fleet.

[newpaintbrush]

So it WAS a rhetorical question.

I don’t approve of 8 armor on G1.  It looks real hot up until G3, then you run into UK and USSR infantry.  UK attacks the Baltic fleet immediately with 2 fighters 1 bomber with moderately good chances of successfully eliminating the Baltic fleet (unless Germany submerges subs, which is still fine for UK).  UK can then start a shuttle to Norway/Karelia/E. Eur/Archangel on UK2 to bleed off the German strength, because there is no threat of a German suicidal Baltic fleet; the Germans can counter with mass air, but the Germans suffer without their fighters.

I think a mix of infantry and armor, or perhaps just infantry and a few artillery, offers the Germans a lot more staying power for that final push.

(edit) Hahaha fixed typo.  Crack pipe! (/edit)

[Jennifer]

But you see what I’m getting at.  IF you are going to spend your money unwisely, at least spend it on high value pieces, not units you plan to loose.

[Feds10]

smart G1 build is 1AC the rest infantry…everybody knows that infantry are the best pieces. they are cheap, decend defense…and are perfect fodder to protect our more valuable pieces (tanks, fighters, bombers). if your getting anything other then infantry, it’s to replace your lost units. Germany starts with more then enough firepower with their Tanks and Luftwaffe. Russia is forced to make infantry because of their obvious superiority to other units(and cuz russia is dirt cheap). but who said germany couldn’t follow suit? they get 14$ more (4 inf…save 2) so they can put even more units on the ground. so why would anybody want to build 5 tranny’s or anything else ubsurd like that to try and win the game? come on people lol infantry for germany us much smarter…yes germany could use a second tranny in the baltic on g3 or g4 (depending on how it’s oging) but the first thing in the germany player’s mind should be "ok…russia built __ infantry…so i gotta build at LEAST that amount to keep the war on an even playing field. staying toe to toe w/ russia in terms of production of troops to the east is key…remember, axis start off with the strategic advantage…so you still keep it vs russia b/c ur not losing troops that he isn’t losing. inevitably, germany is going to be outnumbered by the allies b/c of britain and the USA…but this is where the key "German strategy"comes into play, their plan when it comes down to it isn’t “how do we win the war?” its more along the lines of “how do we stop USA & Britain from interfering?”

Germany can and will take Russia.but they always lose to the other 2 it realy comes down to how long can u keep the other two out. as history shows, Germany cannot fight a 2 front war…they have to finish each opponent off one at a time.

wow…this has little to do w/ sea lion strat…let alone UK rele lmao

love to hear imput

feds 10

[Jennifer]

I don’t like the carrier.  I’d rather move the fleet out to SZ 7 or let the British throw their fighters away trying to kill it.  Meanwhile, I have 5 Infantry, 5 Armor or some other combination to make up the difference. (Kinda depends if I lost 2 fighters to russia or not.)

[Guest]

You mean like you threw away the RAF FIGs and did NOT kill the Baltic Fleet in our game Jen?  :evil:

[Jennifer]

Yup.  Exactly like that.

But then, Switch, people like you and me should never be allowed to have any assets, useful or not so useful.  Others, well some others I would let have their pretty little carrier and ignore them as I would in any game with a German carrier or lack thereof.

[ezto]

I dont see why you would build a carrier on G1. If you play low luck (realistic) your Z5 fleet will kill the RAF before they kill you.

[Guest]

A couple of reasons Ezto…

#1:  ADS.  The odds are that the Baltic Fleet is sunk w/ loss of 2 UK FIGs, leaving the BOM alive; and the Baltic open to the UK fleet in UK2 or 3
#2:  Attacks beyond UK1.  To do as much damage to the UK fleet and RAF as possible with the Baltic Fleet.  For an investment of only 16 IPC, you can double or triple the casualties inflicted against a UK strike into the Baltic, costing them all or most of the TRNs, and also possibly costing them much of their AF.  This leaves Germany secure for an additional 1-2 rounds while UK build sup their TRN forces, possibly longer if the surviving fleet can be destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
#3:  Ukraine.  So long as Eastenr is not directly threatened, Germany can pour additional forces at Ukraine agianst the Russians.  If Germany has to start defending Eastern against UK amphibs in Turn 2, then Russia is going to have increased income and position for several turns… long enough for the US to enter the War in Europe.

[newpaintbrush]

@ezto:

I dont see why you would build a carrier on G1. If you play low luck (realistic) your Z5 fleet will kill the RAF before they kill you.

First, I must refute the outrageous implication that low luck is realistic!  Low luck may give you the single most common outcome in some cases (even low luck doesn’t eliminate dice), BUT if there is a 12% of a single outcome happening, and a 88% cumulative chance of SOMETHING ELSE happening (say single outcomes of 9%, 9%, 8%, 8%, 7%, 7%, 6%, 6%, 5%, 5%, 4%, 4%, 3%, 3%, 2%, and 2%), can you REALLY say that the 12% outcome is the REALISTIC outcome?  If you have ten thousand dollars, and I have none, is it accurate to say that I have five thousand dollars?  Clearly there are lies, damned lies, and statistics!

Second, there are lots of reasons to build a carrier on G1.  1) It defends the Baltic fleet with more surety, protecting your existing 36 IPC of units already there.  2a) It prevents the UK from having the chance of destroying the Baltic fleet and making an immediate move on Norway (actually too aggressive, I think), but a 2b) threatened UK/US navy in the north Atlantic by UK2 is almost impossible to stop unless you have a Baltic navy.  (Essentially, 2) means you protect Norway a bit longer, and prevent the UK from setting up reinforcements from Norway/Karelia/Eastern Europe while threatening Berlin and Western Europe at the same time).  3) A carrier gives your fighters more effective range, allowing more fighters to attack London on G2, which is not a SERIOUS threat to London, but one the Allies must take into account, 4) A Baltic carrier allows the Germans to unite the Mediterranean and Baltic fleets if they had an African bid which in turn would allow the Germans to take Anglo-Egypt without the need for the Baltic transport.  Those are just some of the more prominent reasons that come to mind.

I am not saying that a carrier SHOULD be built on G1.  I am just saying that there are reasons to do it.  There are perfectly sound reasons not to build a German carrier on G1.