Calvin found a loophole in Sealion that invalidates the UK naval block!

K, how about this?  Let’s call it the Double Block plus Italy Save Manuever.  I would only recommend this if you’re feeling lucky.

Germany builds 1 DD and 3 TRNS.  The German fleet is kept in SZ 113 during G1 combat, which just uses subs and planes to kill everything reachable with more air casaulties acceptable.

NCM:  1 CA moves to SZ 104 to block the DD and CV.  The BB stays in SZ 113 along with the TRN (trn moves 2 inf to Norway.)  The DD is placed in SZ 112, and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.  Land Material is moved to W. Germany to prep for a 4 TRN G2 Sealion.

Britain can attack the SZ 104 CA with one DD and one tac, attack the SZ 112 DD with one fighter, and HAS to attack SZ 113 with two fighters.  They HAVE to make this specific attack in order to hit the transports in SZ 113 for the CV to be in range for the fighters to land.  Actually, the SZ 112 DD place is more about preventing a UK naval block with its CV in SZ 112 than for the 2 fighters to land.

If the SZ 113 battle goes right (2 FIG vs. 1 BB, 52% chance of the UK winning using TripleA calc, with a 17% chance of a draw and the transports surviving), the 4 transports should be able to still land on the UK IF SZ 112 is clear.  The chances of the UK winning the SZ 104 battle is 86%, with a 7% chance for a draw, and the chance of the UK winning the SZ 112 battle is 50%, with a 25% chance for a draw.  That’s two 50% chances there, plus you have a good chance of shooting down quite a bit of the UK’s airforce.

Even if the SZ 104 attack kills your CA, and the SZ 112 attack kills your DD, so the UK moves its CV into SZ 112, even if it only has one plane on it you may still have a chance.  Both Italian fighters can reach SZ 112 on I1 and you can have a last ditch attack to try to clear the way for a Sealion G2 (another 50% chance of winning there with one plane).

Pretty risky, but it does leave the german airforce mostly intact for Sealion G2 and doesn’t require a G1 UK air raid.

@oztea:

Are we so sure?
Isnt the UK battle 3 Fighers and a Tactical Bomber? Agaisnt the German BB, CA, DD?

IL wait, think about what you are saying……

In SZ 112 UK can also throw a DD and its AC at your transport fleet to soak hits

Sealion can not be done without a German Carrier…it just cant

The battle UK 1 in SZ 112 is enourmously in UKs favor. AC(2 hits)/DD/3 FGT/1 TAC vs BB/CA/DD/4 TRN

Good luck bro…

Even two DD -assuming the one off the British West-Coast at set-up didn’t get destroyed (which usually isn’t attacked in our games, because it would be spreading the German forces too thin; on second thoughts you could use two subs for it instead of sending those to the Canadian seaboard to attack the DD and TRA there. The benefit of the latter is that you would cause 3 IPCs of convoy hunting damage there).- which would make the odds even better!

@Imperious:

and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.

UK’s fighters can kill that. UK has an AB

The UK isn’t an island (funnily enough), so fighter units can’t scramble (I think you’re referring to that??)

@HolKann:

Isn’t there a scramble rule - putting some ftrs in West-Ger can save the fleet in SZ 112. The fighters can still attack UK because they are in an airbase. The West-German airbase rules!

Ow, and putting a dd in SZ 119 with UK does block acces to SZ 109 via SZ 119 right?

Aircraft (not bombers) can only scramble from ISLANDS with an airbase. West-Germany may have an airbase, but it’s NOT an ISLAND (Niether is the UK, by the letter of the rules, for that matter!)

@Imperious:

and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.

UK’s fighters can kill that. UK has an AB

Uk ftrs can’t hit sz 113 from England and return home. You can get two ftrs into that battle, but UK must either bring up the sz 91 carrier, or build one in sz 110 to pick up surviving ftrs (if any).

He is also leaving the German BB in sz 113 w/3 transports. The UK can only get 2 ftrs to sz 113, if it (theoretically) brings the carrier up to land the planes (or builds a carrier in sz 110). I say theoretically, because the carrier may not be able to noncombat in to pick up the surviving ftrs from the sz 113 battle. The UK would also have to kill the German cruiser that is cock blocking in sz 104 to bring the carrier up.

IL,
In any case, if you give the UK a juicier German target (fleet), then yeah you will probably save the Italian fleet. The Italian fleet is worth 39 ipc’s. The starting German fleet is exactly the same (39 ipc), but you are adding boats to it to be slaughtered (getting over 60 ipc’s). If you lose the German fleet it’s just as bad as losing the Italian fleet (you would know this if you actually played a game). The Germans need a fleet in the safety of the Baltic to keep Norway. In global Norway is part of your NO (Norway is tied to two German NO’s in Europe only). Germany must fight for Norway the same as Italy fights for Egypt (Africa). Once Norway is allied, things get really tough on Germany. Especially if the US gets it (builds a major ic). So before you go sacrificing the German fleet, keep this in mind. Plus building only fleet G1 will give Russia some breathing room. If you lose that fleet the soviets will be stronger then you would like. Adding to the German fleet is a good idea (but keep it in the Baltic for now). I have played UK a few times and the Germans have got ballsy and came out into the North Sea to early. They paid the price, and opened up a lot of doors.

@Imperious:

and the 3 other TRNS go into SZ 113.

UK’s fighters can kill that. UK has an AB

If you leave your BB with the 4 trans, the most the UK can reach that fleet with is 2 fighters (he can only land 2 on the CV).  The other fighters can’t be flown cause they couldn’t have landed on the CV.

STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.

there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.

and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS?  Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.

Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense.  It’s really not that hard.

1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP

Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason.  3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.

STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.

there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.

and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS?  Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.

Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense.  It’s really not that hard.

1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP

Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason.  3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.

I could not agree more! Every time they give them other names!

Is Japan considered an island in Global though?  (I just wondered today why the UK player never scrambles his airforce in the naval fights…)

@GoekaWar:

STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.

there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.

and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS?  Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.

Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense.  It’s really not that hard.

1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP

Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason.  3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.

I could not agree more! Every time they give them other names!

Or people could take the extra 3 seconds to write the word out fully, it really isn’t that hard.

@Gargantua:

STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.

there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.

and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS?  Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.

Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense.  It’s really not that hard.

1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP

Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason.  3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.

You’d have thought CA might be for carrier?  Nope, try a c word with no a’s.  I thought this was voted on some time before I joined the boards so I kept my mouth shut.  I figured as long as the system was uniform, I could learn them and protest silently.  Now all of the sudden I was gone for a bit and the transport turns into AP?  Musta missed the vote again sigh.  If people want to use the 2-letter acronyms, there should at least be a legend stickied to the top of a board.

I agree, if we want to use acronyms then let’s have a vote on it.

:lol:

If you are confused why some us think that way:

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/designat.htm#t1-2-1

See 1.2 The US Navy designation systems, Section 1.2.2 Ships, boats, and other vessels

I’ve just used those abbreviations in wargames for 20+ years, so it’s an old habit that might die a little hard and I suspect the same with others too.

wow thats alot of stuff to remember!!

Back on topic:

This reply is from another thread ( http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19947.300 ), but posted here because it’s about this topic and two threads just confuses the debate.

So here it comes!

@Imperious:

UK could buy a carrier for SZ110 so that a fighter from the UK could reach the Baltic Sea and still land on the new carrier.

It matters not. The point is my main fleet is safe from attack because he cant bring naval soakers. He must use planes only and he does not have enough.

If he wants to build a CV thats even better, now it sinks because its easy for me to get at it.

Just to make sure we’re not mixing up different versions here: I’m assuming the German battleship is in SZ112 (possibly damaged), the cruiser is blocking in SZ104, all transports remain in SZ113 (1+3 new) and possibly another naval unit.

If this is correct, then how would a newly built carrier in SZ110 not matter?

• The UK can now launch an air attack on SZ113 with 1 or 2 fighters (depending on if a destroyer was also built in SZ113) and kill the entire transport fleet along with any hopes of a G2 operation Sealion.
• Depending on any surviving UK naval unit it can also launch an additional attack on either the damaged (?) battleship or the lonely cruiser with the remaining fighter in the UK and 1 or more destroyers.
• Finally the main attack on the Italian fleet can still go ahead as planned … and depending on G2 builds, the air units used can fly back to the UK the following round to assist against a possible G3 Sealion.

… all that for the cost of one carrier? Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Defending ships can shoot back against attacking submarines. Not that I would complain if the casualties could only be taken by the aircraft though

We are talking about " killing my subs". thats not possible unless you got destroyer. I will sink them and the other is blocked with the CA. So subs protected for UK 1.

No, I was talking about the G1 attacks on the UK home fleets. In those battles the subs are attacking so the defending UK naval units are free to shoot back and kill the subs, with even a small (but not negligible) chance of killing an aircraft.

Keep in mind what those numbers actually mean. A tie, both sides scoring a kill, would actually be a victory for the Allies under these circumstances because it means the transport will survive and bring extra units to the UK.

It actually means that the DD wont be an issue to force me to ‘divert’ forces to both sink it and commit sealion. THis adds to the UK desire that if he still has that AP, he will protect it and this means his carrier comes back to UK. Thats the point. I diverted him from attacking Italy.  A tie forces him to land the tank and inf and also protect the AP with ships.

Also if i kill a DD and lose a sub i still gain in net IPC.

I think that I can safely claim that no experienced A&A player would ever call of the attack on the Italian fleet just to safe a single transport at the UK. After the transport has moved the additional infantry and tank to the UK, it’s job is done

It’s not about who wins those sea battles, which is obviously going to be Germany. What I’m trying to show is what the cost might be to Germany. This is very important because the only thing that really matters is if there is a CREDIBLE THREAT OF OPERATION SEALION during the second turn. Lose too many units, or allow too many reinforcements to reach the UK and it will no longer be forced to skip the attack on the Italian fleet.

… The key provision is my CA block, which protects my fleet allowing me to kill him and not have to deal with a credible counter. If everything goes right he must forget Italy and come back. This is the only plan that can do that and both protect the main fleet.

The cruiser block simply isn’t enough. If you go for a 3 transport build, they will fall prey to an air attack from the UK, landing on a newly built carrier. In G2 you could attack the carrier with subs (the air units land in the UK), also aircraft (you lose more air units, or also the battleship (losing protection for a new transport fleet) … neither of these options gives you better odds for operation Sealion during later rounds.

If you go for a 2 transport build with more escort units you can probably protect it well enough against UK counter attacks … but with less German ground units and with the reinforcements coming from Canada and the expected air losses during the G1 attacks and the AA during operation Sealion the odds of success have dropped dramatically.

Run the simulations and you’ll see what I mean.

8-)