Sealion Version 1.0

4. Do any of you  think for a second that the game designers, really desgined a game “on purpose”, in which in MOST games played with the out of the box rules allows for the capture of UK on turn 3 and at worst turn 4?

No they didn’t play-test enough times ( 3 times total in some cases). So they made a mistake.

Sea Lion is possibly, but only just.

It isn’t like its a surprise if Germany is gearing up for an attack, so, if your worth anything as a serious player, you counter it.  Keep your fighters there, build UK infantry, block with Destroyers, fly in United States Airpower (including bombers, they can take a hit instead of a fighter).  If Germany shows their hand, then don’t be afraid to fight it!  It isn’t like its gonna be a surprise.  Besides, if Germany is dumb enough to attempt a Sealion, then let them waste their money, it only helps out Russia. 
If the dice work out for Germany, then its possible that they take UK via Sealion, but think of the risks, I will never attempt it as Germany.  You waste your money on ships that are just gonna die, you are force to scuttle your Luftwaffe, its strategically stupid to even attempt it.  I play against an Axis lover who also happens to be a Sealion lover and I enjoyed watching him murder himself twice now, so as UK, I say Bring it, I will take you down with me.

taking UK is not an auto-win for Germany–its far from it actually… Germany has to reverse strategy. now it has to prevent he US from liberating UK and Russia grows…this Sealion attack isnt special, dude…its isnt some game ender like you want to believe. :cry:

@jim,

I apologize, I am really commenting on a Global game scenario, where it is assumed that USA is already at war with Germany after J1 attack (which I have always found works best, at least for me)

If Sea Lion works for you, then more power to you.  I just don’t favor the tactic.

I will give it too you, Yes, in a Europe game, assuming the US is not at war yet, then London is very Vulnerable, and I am sure it could easily fall.

So, I didn’t mean any offense or unfair criticism of your strategy.

When you say fire up a game, It’ll have to wait on the folks at Sourceforge, I just can’t do the PBF games, too much margin of error for cheating.

@jim010:

this Sealion attack isnt special, dude…its isnt some game ender like you want to believe.

You’re not reading the posts, are you?

Hey Jim,

I would like to fire up a game with you.  You can be Axis and I will be Allies.  I downloaded Func’s map so I’m ready.  I’ve played here with AA50 many times but its been several months since then (PBF that is).

Give me your best Axis moves with your Sealion 1.0, however, I want to play Global.  Since Sealion requires a G3 take, I assume you would wait as Japan to attack on round 3 also right???  Also, I want to play with Larry’s latest Pac 40 setup, which sounds like the one he wants to settle with (below in color).  I’d like to playtest Global with Scenario Alpha and your Sealion 1.0 at the same time with this game…maybe a couple games.  So would you like to play???

***note:  the changes to the national objectives apply to the Pacific game only, use the global national objectives as is for the global game.

Quote as per LH:

Scenario Alpha

I think the following setup is where I’d like to end up. If this is moving a bit too fast for some of you I apologize.

Below is the Scenario Alpha’s setup

I recommend you test this setup and give me some feed back. Let me know how you like it. What you don’t like about it. Barring any great balance issues or other unforeseen goodies, this will be the core of the new Pacific '40 recommended setup.

I call this setup “Scenario Alpha”.
All the National Objectives and bonus incomes remain as they are in the present Pacific40 rule book, with the exception of the following two NOs:

Note: The UK will gain 5 IPCs for controlling Kwangtung and Malaya at the same time but only if at war.
Note: The United States will collect 5 IPCs per round for controlling the Philippines but only if at war.

China
Szechwan 5 Infantry and one fighter
Hunan 2 Infantry
Yunnan 4 Infantry
Kweichow 2 Infantry
Shensi 1 Infantry
Suiyuyan 2 Infantry

ANZAC
Malaya 1 Infantry
New South Wales - 1 Infantry, 1 Minor IC, 1 Naval Base.
New Zealand - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Queensland - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Sea Zone 62 -1 Destroyer, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 63 – 1 Cruiser

United Kingdom (India)
Sea Zone 37 - 1 Battleship
Sea Zone 39 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport
Kwangtung - 2 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
Burma - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Malaya - 3 Infantry, 1 Naval Base
India - 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC

United States
Western US - 3 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Hawaiian Islands - 2 Infantry, 2 fighters, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Philippines - 2 Infantry, 1 fighter, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base.
Midway - 1 Airbase
Wake Island - 1 Airbase
Guam - 1 Airbase
Sea Zone 26 - 1 Sub, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 10 - Battleship, Cruiser, Transport, Carrier w/Tac & Ftr
Sea Zone 35 - 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport

Japan
Japan - 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber, 1 AA Gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Major IC
Manchuria - 6 Infantry, 1 Mech Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 AA Gun, 2 Fighters, 2 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber
Palau Island - 1 Infantry
Kiangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Formosa - 1 Fighter
Shantung - 2 Infantry
Kwangsi - 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Iwo Jima - 1 Infantry
Jehol - 2 Infantry, 1 Artillery
Caroline Islands - 1 AA gun, 1 Airbase, 1 Naval Base, 1 Infantry
Siam - 2 Infantry
Okinawa - 1 Infantry, 1 Fighter
Kiangsu - 2 Infantry, 1 Fighter, 1 Tac Bomber.
Korea - 3 Infantry
Sea Zone 6 - 1 Sub, 2 Destroyers, 2 Carriers each with 2 Tac & 2 Ftrs., 1 Cruiser, 1 Battleship, 1 Transport
Sea Zone 19 - 1 Sub, 1 Battleship, 1 Destroyer
Sea Zone 33 - 1 Destroyer, 1 Carrier w/ 1 Tac & 1 Ftrs.
Sea Zone 20 - 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport

Best laid plans…

I had every intention of Sealion. Only hitch on G1 was phenomenal dice by the French.
Suffice to say Paris held against the Germans and fell to the Italians later round 1.

My Italian ally was overjoyed with this unexpected bounty.

I used all air on Royal Navy with the exception of one Tac Bomber which I sent into France to its death. Sent all ground units into Paris that could reach with the exception of Inf + Art which invaded Normandy.

I had bought CV, DD, SS. Needless to say, G2 did not see a huge TT build.

Unfortunately for the allies, less than sterling play led to their defeat.
To counter Italy in Africa, UK built quite a lot of materiel in South Africa.

In spite of ridiculously bad dice by Germany in battle after battle, Russia still fell on turn 8. (Moscow could have fallen on turn 7 but I judged the odds at only about 65-70% in German’s favor. WAY too low for my dice rolling to succeed.)
I remember in one Russian counter attack final 2 rounds were Rus fighter, 2 Tanks, 1 Art vs 6 German Panzers defending. Russian won with fighter and tank surviving. Typical German dice. at the start of that battle Germany outnumbered Russians 3 to 2 in terms of pips. Absolutely idiotic attack by USSR that succeeded.

Final Moscow battle the dice finally deserted the Russians. Left with 14 surviving Panzers in Moscow.
Thanks dice gods. No really, perfect timing.

Americans stationed out of Gibraltar made a last ditch effort to recapture Cairo but the 3 fighter build by Italy in Egypt was too much to overcome.

You should play it again to get the a G3 with Sealion. its not a fair test if Germany sucks out on battle that was a gimme.

Also remember though guys,

Assuming your playing the Global Game to test Sea Lion:  It sounds to me like G3 is the best (earliest or only?) time for Sealion to go down.  In that case, like was mentioned, A J3 attack might be best to keep US out of the war and avoid them landing men and more importantly fighters there.  That being said, I am more familiar with Pacific 1940, as most of you are, and we all know that the longer Japan waits, the more it helps the allies (in both Global and Pacific).  If Japan doesn’t sink that British battleship and transports, then they can build a carrier in India and have quite a little fleet, not to mention the USA having enough time to successfully evacuate the Philippine aircraft (which have always helped me when I could get them saved and utilize them later).

I guess in short I am just throwing it out there that if a delayed Japanese attack is required for a better Sealion outcome for the axis in Global, don’t forget about the repercussions that waiting for a J3 attack will cause to Japan in the East.

Rule question:

Is it possible to, when you place (PT round) an AC that you bought, also place fighters who are stationed on an adjacent territory on that AC? I.e. fighters that you did NOT buy that turn.

If not, the  G1 buy for sealion (1 AC, 1 SS, 1 TT), placed in SZ112 will be at risk for anihiliation by UK 3 fighters combined with possible survivors in SZ109 (destroyer) and AC plus tactical (ftr?) and DD from SZ91. It seems like a risky G1 buy to me.

The most probable  scenario (I guess) is that Germany has 1 BB (with one hit), 1 CA, 1 SS and 1 AC (plus 2 x TT) vs. 3 ftrs, 1 tactical, and AC (to take hits) and 1 DD. Don’t have an odds calculator (where can I find one for free?), but if anything goes wrong on G1 the german fleet will be anihilated on U1 (probably even if everything goes accordning to plan). Leaves the med. wide open for Mussolini but it’s still a good bargain for the UK, especially since UK also sinks 2 x TT (68 IPC loss for Germany). Maybe Germany could spare his CA from the attack on SZ112 in G1 to block the UK AC on SZ104?

Odds
Germany vs. UK
1x4 (BB damaged) - 1x4 (tactical)
1x3 (CA) - 3x3 (ftrs)
1x2 (AC*) - 1x2 (DD)
1x1 (SS) - 1x0 (AC*)

• both UK and Germany has 1 extra hit for their AC

R1
G 9 - 2 hits
UK 15 - 3 hits

R2
G 7 - 1 hit
UK 13 - 2 hits

R3
G 4 - 1 hit
UK 10 - 2 hits }}} Germany annihilated and UK has 1 x tactical and 2 x fighters left.

Pls correct me on the math if Im wrong here.

There was a rule clarification on newly built aircraft carriers (CV).

If you end fighter movement in the sea zone the CV is being built, the fighters can land on the newly built CV.

You could use your cruiser as a speed bump in the seas zone to the left/west of your main fleet behind Denmark (sorry, don’t have the map in front of me), couldn’t you?  This would only allow British aircraft to hit you that turn, which they probably wouldn’t, if they couldn’t throw in any ships to also take hits, ie the carrier=2.  I think it would be a worthy sacrifice of the cruiser.

I also suppose you could use that cruiser as an attaker/casualty in attacking the British and French Cruisers in that sea zone as well, might save you a plane.

@spectre_04:

I also suppose you could use that cruiser as an attaker/casualty in attacking the British and French Cruisers in that sea zone as well, might save you a plane.

But I need to attack the french and UK cruisers on G1, then I cant hide behind Denmark, and I canät use my newly bought CV in any attack…

@Van_Trump:

There was a rule clarification on newly built aircraft carriers (CV).

If you end fighter movement in the sea zone the CV is being built, the fighters can land on the newly built CV.

Thx. Were was the rule clarfífication made? Is there an authority to ask or are we just interpreting the rulebook?
Another rule question for you. Can you ship troops to Finland in G1 without declaring war on Russia? i.e. acting as if there was no russian fleet.

cheers!

Thx. Were was the rule clarfífication made?

When I was playing a game of Pacific about a month ago, my friend (Japan) pulled this one on me.  He attacked my fleet at Midway, which I thought was safe, with a bunch of Airpower I thought was out of range from the Carolines.  It turns out he bought 3 carriers in the sea of Japan and landed them there, I didn’t know about that, I disputed it, we looked in the Pacific 1940 Rulebook and its all there.  You can buy a new carrier, end the fighters movement (combat or non combat) on a sea zone adjacent to the factory where you buy the carrier, and land the fighters on the newly built carrier.  Essentially this gives you 1 more space of range on your fighters and Tacs, and allows you to pull a bit of a K4-2 square trick on your enemy.  Deception is part of the battle, I know better now.

@taishan:

@Van_Trump:

There was a rule clarification on newly built aircraft carriers (CV).

If you end fighter movement in the sea zone the CV is being built, the fighters can land on the newly built CV.

Thx. Were was the rule clarfífication made? Is there an authority to ask or are we just interpreting the rulebook?
Another rule question for you. Can you ship troops to Finland in G1 without declaring war on Russia? i.e. acting as if there was no russian fleet.

Yes, its not an enemy fleet and does not affect your actions while they are neutral.

cheers!

Ok played 2 more games.

First one I played the allies. Sealion such an abysmal failure that the Axis resigned and we immediately started another game. In a nutshell, Germany did not exclusively buy transports and stuff to put on them. He also did not attack G3, instead invading Scotland (intending to have a dble attack on London next turn.) I strafed Scotland, eliminating two thirds of German force plus built 10 more inf on London.

2nd game I played the Axis.
I took France but crapped out on one of the sea battles. 2 fighters, 1 Tac, 2 subs vs 1 BB, 1 CA. Both UK ships survived. UK chose not to destroy German fleet (G1 buy: CV, DD, SS). Instead he used Gibral fleet to sink half the Italian navy.
He did Infantry stack buy in part because I warned him about my intention to Sealion.
Surviving Royal Navy linked up with Canadian DD and TT in the sea zone between Ireland and uk. (These ships sunk on G2 with minimal loss for Germans)
UK2 saw another 10 inf built in London.
Set up interesting situation G3. I judged the G3 Sealion attack about a 50-50 chance. I set up to repeat an almost identical attack G4 so I proceeded, retreating 2 planes after final round of combat. Eliminated 75% of UK defense.
G4 Sealion (Porky’s 2, the next day) was no contest. USA was not in the war so could not reinforce London US3 with planes. UK falls.

Meanwhile, USSR had a considerable stack in East Poland and waltzed into Poland on R4.
G5 saw Germany mounting a hasty defense in Berlin (bringing back all surviving Armor from London). Germany upgraded Berlin IC to major AND had the money to buy 23 inf (10 in London, 10 in West Germany, 3 in Berlin.)
Cairo had also fallen so Axis needed only 2 more cities. UK had no more builds in South Africa so the Italians were mopping up. Also Italy build IC on Iraq to help threaten Russia.

Americans were off the coast of Europe in force by US6 with an unassailable fleet (8 loaded TTs)-they were intimidated by German fleet and had delayed coming over for a turn.

G6 Germany used TT’s to move Infantry stack to Poland (together with everything in Berlin) and USSR was on the defensive.

At that point we had to call the Game because of time but I feel the Axis had the win: US takes 2 turns to ferry stuff to the front while Germany can build directly on London (or Paris) as needed.

Sealion was not a sure fire strategy for Axis win. Pushing Russians back on broad front starting G4 seems safer (putting IC in Romania instead of TT build).
but