British Counter to Sea Lion?

@SuperbattleshipYamato
nice, lol

@marshmallowofwar thanks to both you and @AndrewAAGamer for clarifying. Thought I had a sneaky way to slow him down, but will have to give it some more thought!

And to add a supplementary reason to the ones already mentioned by P@nther and Krieghund, consider the following argument.

The area under dispute shows two borderlines: the yellow terrestrial one between Newfoundland/Labrador and Quebec, and the blue maritime one between SZ 116 and SZ 106.  The yellow one runs horizontally west-to-east, then make a 90-degree turn and runs vertically southward.  The blue one runs horizontally east-to-west, and connects with the vertical component of the yellow one, forming a right angle.

In most places on the map, the end-points of borderlines are clear and unambiguous. WolfPack points out, correctly, that this particular intersection of two borderlines in question isn’t clear and unambiguous: the point at which the yellow and blue lines meet is a fuzzy dark line rather than a hard transition from yellow to blue. And it’s quite correct that this creates ambiguity, as is shown by the fact that an official clarification once had to be issued on the matter.  WolfPack’s “I think you may change your mind that NF doesn’t border SZ106” follow-up post seems to indicate that he doesn’t agree with the official clarification.  The supplementary argument I’d make, therefore, has to do with the concept of the mapmaker’s probable intent.

If you imagine that the yellow and blue lines are solid red – i.e. if you draw a long vertical red line through the middle of the vertical yellow one and a long horizontal red line through the middle of the horizontal blue one – there’s no question that they form a right angle and that the territory of Newfoundland/Labrador lies entirely within that right angle, and thus that there’s no connection between Newfoundland/Labrador and SZ 106.  This would fit with Theory A: the mapmakers intended for that right angle to be a hard, clean border, but an unintended graphic error made the border look confusingly fuzzy.  This explanation has the virtue of being both simple and plausible.

Theory B, on the other hand, goes like this: the little fuzzy dark line between the yellow line and the blue line was deliberately put there by the mapmakers in order to connect Newfoundland/Labrador to SZ 106.  This theory seems neither simple nor plausible.  If the mapmakers genuinely wanted to connect Newfoundland/Labrador to SZ 106, why would they do so by using a “pixel-wide trace” technique which is used nowhere else on the map, and which is so open to debate, rather than by cleanly and unambiguously giving Newfoundland/Labrador a coastline on SZ 106, which would have been quite easy to do?

Even if the thread looks dead, I just would like to underline Brados post, he is absolutely right! I somehow like DD and sub G1 more because usually the sub can go to SZ 125 and can hardly be removed - stealing the +5 from RU which makes Barbarossa easier.

I think sealion for any price does not make sense anyway for DE. Thus give UK the chance to make a mistake.
In case UK does Tarranto attack round 1 (which is imo necessary to keep the balance in the Med) he is indeed forced to go for ground only. Even with 1 fighter 6 inf and 10 inf round 2 German has 68% with a 10 transport sea lion.

However leaving UK with ground only leaves him somehow paralyzed and if dices roll slightly above average in German 1 UK will suffer painful convoy disruptions in Canada and SZ 109 for at least 3 rounds.

However I have to admit that I lack experience how “post sealion” game goes further. Germany does an IPC loss move by taking UK leaving him with 1-.3 ground units and air after the battle and ~34 extra IPCs.
On the other hand RU can take Poland, Slovakia Romania Round 3 giving them a +17 boost. On the other hand Germany has >80 IPcs round 4 allowing them to replace almost the entire ground force he lost in UK.
Plus US can take Brasil earlier and has already a drop in US3 to Gibraltar –> And at least threatens to recapture UK - which is again risky as in case Germany can recapture you shove IPCs in the German’s mouth^^. Looks still unclear to me - a lot of pros and cons.:)

I guess in my next German game I will simply go for that in order to see how this works empirically^^

In my games that never happened so far, would be interested how this would continue^^

He’s talking about putting a navy in Sz110 that can fight off the Germans handidly.

You can’t get to Sz109 from Sz112 unless you go through Sz119 or Sz110, so if they are both blocked you are SOL and can’t land units in London.

Maybe instead of posting in every thread all the time, you should just post in threads after you read them thoroughly.

And No, you can’t fly a fighter from West Germany to Sz119 to Northern Italy.

Sz112, Sz111, Sz119, Sz111, Sz112, West Germany, Northern Italy. That’s 7 Movement points, last I checked Italy doesn’t start with a bomber, and you can’t build one on I1, do fighters fly 7 in the games you play?

Get off the drugs dog! :P

No.  The transport must be accompanied for its entire move in order to be “escorted”.

But isn’t Canada too weak to have a war with only 7 IPCs?

It’s still better than having nothing but a German UK (plus with only 2 roundels, they can’t really go that far…)