Angels Landing: SeaLion gone Archangel

Never thought about that. I’m presuming that if Leningrad has enough troops to take down the force that the operation is scrubbed? Transports must be escorted if there is even one ftr/TB in Leningrad. Probably otherwise too. But surely the two rounds of buys in Moscow can deliver enough infantry to block any reasonable landing/run to Moscow. Seems I’m missing something here.

I can see doing this as a diversionary tactic.  The hope being to draw forces out of Leningrad to face the Arch Angle threat and then a next round assault on Leningrad from Baltic State.  Having ground forces poised to attack Leningrad from either side will make the Soviets either turtle in Leningrad and give more access to the Arch Angle forces to move toward Moscow or if the Soviets launch a counter attack, The Germans in Baltic States can then attack the factory.  It would be a gamble but it might work and that is the fun of the game.  Try it.

I spent a bit of time analyzing this, and the end result that I saw was that it actually took me a turn longer to take Moscow because A) I spent a fortune on transports and B) I inevitably took the opportunity to kill the cut off the forces around Leningrad before they could retreat to Moscow. When I did get to Moscow, it was easier to take because I had killed those forces than if I had let them escape.

It has one of the same downsides as Sea Lion – you spend a small fortune on transports, which is that much less you have on ground forces in Russia. Don’t forget to watch out for the scramble from Leningrad! Those transports have to be covered.

If you are going to do this, instead of hitting Archangel why not hit Leningrad directly? You A) kill the Russian units there and B) complete an objective one whole turn earlier and C) are building at the MIC a whole turn earlier. Archangel only is only a 7 IPC swing, but taking Leningrad is a 9 IPC swing and therefore better. If you have force to spare, take Archangel at the same time (cause hey, same sea zone) and get a 16 IPC swing out of the move.

However, the best way is still to go overland and make tanks instead of transports…

Marsh

Reminds me of the old Nenetsia invasion strategy that was bounced around a few years ago.

If Germany is going to successfully invade Russia it needs to spend that cash on ground units. Russia is a pretty good match for Germany if it doesn’t - its production early is quite good, defensive purchases are more efficient than offensive (and mobile) purchases, and its supply line distance advantage increases as Germany moves east.

@shadowhawk take into account the previous turn’s production, most of which will be within 1 move of Russia proper. There’s no way that German force is able to get even 10% odds on a capital attack, even if it’s all tanks and both bombers come in to support it.

10arm + 2bmb attacking 15 inf + 2 ftr + 1 tac is a 3% play. In other words, it’s a losing play in 32 out of 33 games.

@ShadowHAwk:

@SubmersedElk:

@shadowhawk take into account the previous turn’s production, most of which will be within 1 move of Russia proper. There’s no way that German force is able to get even 10% odds on a capital attack, even if it’s all tanks and both bombers come in to support it.

10arm + 2bmb attacking 15 inf + 2 ftr + 1 tac is a 3% play. In other words, it’s a losing play in 32 out of 33 games.

That is why it could be nice, when going against sea lion russia will do good buying mostly art and arm in its forward factories ( leningrad and ukrain ) which cannot get to russia.
With only 10 inf + 2 fighters + 1 tac vs 10 tanks and 2-3 bombers ( germany can plan this ) it could become pretty tricky indeed.

It depends on russias build but you could really hurt russia with this move provided you still have land forces to hurt his forward forces as well.

Except Russia can only build 6 units in Novograd and Ukraine and has the cash to build more than twice that number. So the extra 5 are going to be built in Russia no matter what - UNLESS Russia makes a very specific (and boneheaded) mistake of building only in the two forward ICs, building no planes, building no mobile units in Ukraine, and saving no cash.

I’d have to think a bit to even come up with a plausible R2 buy that would fit those parameters.

Sorry, but the fake-Sealion-to-Archangel idea is a gimmicky strategy with very remote real chances of success, and very real chances of destroying your win chances early in round 3.

@SubmersedElk:

Sorry, but the fake-Sealion-to-Archangel idea is a gimmicky strategy with very remote real chances of success, and very real chances of destroying your win chances early in round 3.

Perhaps the OP could explain the idea a bit more.

I could sort of understand it in the following circumstances:

• Leningrad has a very small force with no planes and no AAA.
• Bulk of USSR units are standing in Karelia
• Leningrad is still taken to prevent a buy.
• blocker is placed in the Baltic States, preventing a blitz
• Mass stack is moved to Baltic States to prevent the Karelia stack from holding Leningrad after retaking it.
• Karelia force would smash anything landing in Leningrad
• Troops are in West Germany and couldn’t reach the Leningrad front

So the general idea would be that the Archangel force would support the recapture of Leningrad on the following turn. But the probability would be that the few additional troops landed in Archangel don’t make a big difference. Seems to be designed to block an NO the very hard way.

• Leningrad has a very small force with no planes and no AAA.
• Bulk of USSR units are standing in Karelia

What Russia player would do this in the face of Germany having just bought a ton of transports? Any experienced Russia player is stacking Belarus in this scenario, not Karelia.

If Germany buys those transports it has to hit London or they’re a wasted purchase. The only thing that gives Germany superiority on land vs. Russia is dedicating that G2 buy to land units. That’s why Russia always turns into a monster in a Sealion scenario - the lack of a ground purchase plus another 20+ German land units hitting London, with almost all lost in the process, gives Russia land superiority. Germany needs the UK captial capture income just to defend itself at that point.

Game out the scenario and count up how many land units Germany has at the end of G2 and how many Russia has on the western front. Germany needs UK to be dead at that point, it needs the capital capture income, or it’s immediately fighting a losing battle on home turf.

@JeroldTheGreat:

What you can also reckon too is the possibility of sneaking tanks and mechs away to the far east, where even though all Russian territories are worth one, the sheer number of them are a huge income.

If Russia moves those 18 inf into Manchuria or Korea, could work out well. If he’s bringing them home, not so much.