Does an A+3 Sealion = Axis victory?

Give me a moment while I look at this.

Right off the bat, you are using too many sbs.  You have 5, not 6.  You need to chose what battle you are removing it from.

Feel free to rack-n-stack the board.  But I think you’ll see it differently when you see the moves and the odds.

I’ve challenged you on a number of occasions and was ignored.

2 Submarines SZ 106
1 Submarine SZ 111
2 Submaines SZ 110

Perhaps I typoed the SZ 111 battle.  Habbit of mine to bring 2 submarines there, it’s taking some time getting used to the shift. (New habbit should be 2 submarines to SZ 106, 2 to SZ 109 and lots of planes to SZ 109…dont really WANT London, but I want to show it is not only possible, but probable to win.  Not necessarily a GOOD idea, but it is AN idea.)

Keep in mind, Jim, I for the sake of this argument, I don’t care if I lose every blasted German unit on the board and Russia can blitz into Berlin unopposed, all I care about is the theoretical and probablity of Germany actually getting England on round 3 or 4 (and I feel more chance of that on round 4, which is why I am arguing that one.)  I dont even care if England can liberate it the next round.

@jim010:

Feel free to rack-n-stack the board.  But I think you’ll see it differently when you see the moves and the odds.

I’ve challenged you on a number of occasions and was ignored.

A number of occasions I was extremely busy.  I had two games end abruptly (allegedly they surrendered, but it was early in the game and there was no significant traction for either side, they were just too busy and quit) so I only have 3 games and the tournament right now.  Not my typical stack of 6+ games, if you catch my meaning.

For the sake of argument, I am going to modify the combat movement post to remove the error, there is only 1 submarine going to SZ 111 and that’s how I ran the calculator. (some will selectively quote that over and over again completely disregarding the fact I amended my statement and corrected the error.)

Should mention, I did run the numbers as if England scrambled every plane it could (it would result in 4 less fighters, so I doubt they would) but I don’t believe they would scramble in any battle.

You have a fht in sz111 that I can’t account for.  The one in Hun dosn’t make sz110 or sz111.

As you pointed out, sz112 is very risky by not bringing a plane to assist there.  If you lose sz112, Sealion is done.  A tac needs to be put there to ensure it.

France is weak.  The odds are ~68% because of the AA as a casualty.  You survive with 3 units on average.  1 in 3 games you lose Paris and Sealion is dead (and maybe worse)

You only have 1 sb, 1 fht, 1 tac and 1 bmb that legally make it to sz111 based on what you are attacking elsewhere.  Your odds of success with scrambling are 52% in sz111.  A loss of 3 planes to UK’s 1 plane.

To ensure consistent success, Paris needs to be hit harder, so does sz112, and sz111 as well.

I’m sorry, but this opening relies too much on good dice.

If you want to tighten this up, you will need that 2nd sub from sz106 on sz111, bringin us back to 1 sb vs 1 DD in sz106.  Paris needs 1 more unit to get teh odds up to ~79%.  I’d still be uncomfortable with this, as there is still 30% that Sealion is a bust (more, actually, as losing planes and tanks will impact Sealion as well) so 2 more inf, but then the attack on Normandy is out.

You don’t really have enough to attack sz106, were I defending uk I would scramble all planes into 106 watch your subs die and maybe walk away with my destroyer and my transport alive.

@jim010:

You have a fht in sz111 that I can’t account for.  The one in Hun dosn’t make sz110 or sz111.

Makes it just fine to SZ 112.

@Peck:

You don’t really have enough to attack sz106, were I defending uk I would scramble all planes into 106 watch your subs die and maybe walk away with my destroyer and my transport alive.

What planes?  SZ 106 is off the coast of New Foundland, not England.

Doh :-o

@jim010:

As you pointed out, sz112 is very risky by not bringing a plane to assist there.  If you lose sz112, Sealion is done.  A tac needs to be put there to ensure it.
Right, but the two transports and the carrier are not wasted, they will just go in SZ 113 and I can switch over ot Barbarrossa.

France is weak.  The odds are ~68% because of the AA as a casualty.  You survive with 3 units on average.  1 in 3 games you lose Paris and Sealion is dead (and maybe worse)
I ran France as if the AA Gun was an infantry and got higher odds.  What calculator are you using?

You only have 1 sb, 1 fht, 1 tac and 1 bmb that legally make it to sz111 based on what you are attacking elsewhere.  Your odds of success with scrambling are 52% in sz111.  A loss of 3 planes to UK’s 1 plane.
Check again.  Fighter in Norway, Fighter in Holland, Tacticals from W. Germany, etc.  You have to count the Aircraft Carrier as a legal landing zone.

To ensure consistent success, Paris needs to be hit harder, so does sz112, and sz111 as well. 
Consistency is not relevant, realism is.  I’m not asking for 100% odds in every battle, I’m asking for 70% or better and all my attacks get 70% or better according to Frood. (Using AA Guns as defending infantry)

I’m sorry, but this opening relies too much on good dice.
By good, you mean better than 70%.  Yes it does.  However, 70% is perfectly acceptable given many of those attacks only drop down if you scramble which means I just ate British fighters for breakfast weakening London immensely.

Comments in red.

To clarify, again, I am not looking for 100% success rate EVERY TIME Sea Lion is attempted.  If Round 1 goes slightly below average or more (RNG-f’ed) then I can quick shift to Barbarrossa.  If Round 1 goes average or better, I am in supreme position to obliterate the British.  Therefore, I am stating that Sea Lion was not nerfed out of being a viable strategy, it is still viable, if not optimal.

My definition of Viable means each battle has at least 70% odds of success regardless of any scramble orders.

@Peck:

Doh :-o

I generally go 2 Submarines to SZ 106, 2 submarines, 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers to SZ 109.  So I understand the confusion.

I, like, never go Sea Lion.  Even in Alpha 2 I thought it was a really bone-headed maneuver that cost way more than you got out of it.

@Cmdr:

@jim010:

As you pointed out, sz112 is very risky by not bringing a plane to assist there.  If you lose sz112, Sealion is done.  A tac needs to be put there to ensure it.
Right, but the two transports and the carrier are not wasted, they will just go in SZ 113 and I can switch over ot Barbarrossa.
Not if you have to build the CV there to land your tac from sz111.  You MUST build the CV in sz112.France is weak.  The odds are ~68% because of the AA as a casualty.  You survive with 3 units on average.  1 in 3 games you lose Paris and Sealion is dead (and maybe worse)
I ran France as if the AA Gun was an infantry and got higher odds.  What calculator are you using?
I ran France with 10@2 and with 9@2.  The difference between the 2 will be pretty close to what the odds should be.  This accounts for the extra soak, and for the fact the AA has no defense.
You only have 1 sb, 1 fht, 1 tac and 1 bmb that legally make it to sz111 based on what you are attacking elsewhere.  Your odds of success with scrambling are 52% in sz111.  A loss of 3 planes to UK’s 1 plane.
Check again.  Fighter in Norway, Fighter in Holland, Tacticals from W. Germany, etc.  You have to count the Aircraft Carrier as a legal landing zone.
I did.  You still illegally moved 1 fht from Hun.

To ensure consistent success, Paris needs to be hit harder, so does sz112, and sz111 as well.  
Consistency is not relevant, realism is.  I’m not asking for 100% odds in every battle, I’m asking for 70% or better and all my attacks get 70% or better according to Frood. (Using AA Guns as defending infantry)
Then you still need to figure out how to get sz111 to work and France, as both are under 70% (52% and 68%).  You are not playing realism, as you claim - you are hoping to keep luck on your side.

I’m sorry, but this opening relies too much on good dice.
By good, you mean better than 70%.  Yes it does.  However, 70% is perfectly acceptable given many of those attacks only drop down if you scramble which means I just ate British fighters for breakfast weakening London immensely.
In sz111, I excahnged 1 fht for 1 german tac, and fht, and maybe even the bmb.  I’ll take that trade any day.

Comments in red.

To clarify, again, I am not looking for 100% success rate EVERY TIME Sea Lion is attempted.  If Round 1 goes slightly below average or more (RNG-f’ed) then I can quick shift to Barbarrossa.  If Round 1 goes average or better, I am in supreme position to obliterate the British.  Therefore, I am stating that Sea Lion was not nerfed out of being a viable strategy, it is still viable, if not optimal.

My definition of Viable means each battle has at least 70% odds of success regardless of any scramble orders.
See my above comment.

I am starting to wonder if your odds calculator flunked statistics.  I wouldnt want to hand calculate it all, but I have faith in my calculators and they’re consistently higher than the numbers you report.

Maybe you’re using that screwed up one at http://www.dskelly.com/misc/aa/aasim.html.  If so, that thing has never predicted a battle of mine anywhere near where the actual results came in.  It’s notoriously aweful at naval engagements and if you try to run more than 1000 simulations it freezes up.

Dunno.  I, obviously, dont know your calculator, but mine are giving me consistent 80% or better except for France itself,which is 75.6% and if you use mathematical rounding, that goes to 80% as well. (rounded to the nearest ten, and only being referenced for the sillyness of it.)

Fine. :roll:

I am using Frood’s.  Run it WITH 7 inf, and then with 8 inf in France.  Split the difference between the 2.  You get ~60% assuming the AA as in inf, and 75% with no soak.  That makes 68% success for Paris.

And you still moved a fht illegally.

Figure out the fighter deal later.  There are 5 figs, 5 tacs and a strat.  I’m almost positive they all went somewhere legally, but maybe one has to come off SZ 111 and back to SZ 112, who knows.  Filmatleven.

France was higher for me with Frood…did you run the tacticals as bombers?  I added 1 infantry to France (8 Inf, 2 Art, 2 Arm, 1 Fig) and just assumed that as what it would be and came out higher than you did.  As a counter to the extra infantry, I did not flag AA Gun. (Also makes the results more stable.)  Figured 33% hit chance in one round should be negated by an extra 3 rounds of 33% hit chance from the infantry.

7 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm, 2 Bmb
vs
8 Inf, 2 Art, 2 Arm, 1 Fig

71% Germany
26% France
3% Everyone loses

@Cmdr:

Figure out the fighter deal later.  There are 5 figs, 5 tacs and a strat.  I’m almost positive they all went somewhere legally, but maybe one has to come off SZ 111 and back to SZ 112, who knows.  Filmatleven. This is quite important

France was higher for me with Frood…did you run the tacticals as bombers?  I added 1 infantry to France (8 Inf, 2 Art, 2 Arm, 1 Fig) and just assumed that as what it would be and came out higher than you did.  As a counter to the extra infantry, I did not flag AA Gun. (Also makes the results more stable.)  Figured 33% hit chance in one round should be negated by an extra 3 rounds of 33% hit chance from the infantry.

7 Inf, 2 Art, 3 Arm, 2 Bmb
vs
8 Inf, 2 Art, 2 Arm, 1 Fig

71% Germany
26% France
3% Everyone loses

This is faulty, as you have now removed the possibility of losing a plane (which will occur 1/3 games) - which is important.  After running the math manually, splitting the difference between 7 inf and 8 inf the result comes out closer to the actual odds.

71% is pretty close to my 68% anyway.  You are accepting a ~30% that your Sealion falls apart?  1 in 3 games?  Not sound.  I realize that you are now just out to prove you can do it, but this is not a battle you can afford to lose.  Without France, you are not buying the TTs and Sealion is dead.

@jim010:

I could be off on your assumptions, it’s been a while since I was in your thread with the calculations, but I remember there were significant differences between your assumptions and the reality of my games. (Due in part to different attacks and changed attacks, not because you are wrong for your games, just for mine.)

I’ve seen your games, and you had not faced a proper UK defense.  I base my numbers on odds that were exhaustively looked at, not assumptions.  They are LIKELY outcomes.  If you run slim 50% battles and they work, good for you, but they will not work consistently over time, and are not sound tactics.  they are risks.

Theres even a whole long thread on this subject, with the actual numbers used.  Over the course of the 3-4 rounds UK has they were able to amass a pretty decent max defense.