G1 DOW Sealion

I would build 1 fighter in London on UK1 after a G1 DoW.  If you want to have a bit more caution, move your UK Med fleet to Gibraltar so that it can further deter a Sealion attack while threatening to crush the Italian fleet when the opportunity arises.

two approaches

build 1 TT on g1-3 and raise the threat slowly, combine that with stratbombing him.   This is the path where you intend to divert UK resources but probably don’t intend to actually attack in the end.   If he doesn’t respond to a slow build, then you may get your chance.

The other approach is to pretend to ignore the failure to build up, save a ton of money,  but get the bombers, and because hes not responding over time, build 4-6 transports in 1 turn and try to “surprise” him.   The units are already on the board that Germany needs and UK will have to use his $$ to repair and build up all at once.

UK will have 14-16 @ 2, 6 AAA, and some more random junk for free.   If he has 4+ fighters left and buys a mere 6 men, taking him out becomes much more difficult.   The goal is just as much to force him to be conservative, repairing and turtling so he cant use $$ elsewhere, as it is to actually invade.  Most realized Sea Lions will end with London dead but Germany stripped out as well and with a depleted airforce.

The tell on Germany is all about the airplanes.   They cannot reach London and land if they are staged up over by Russia.   Germany will need that flexible power over by Russia to make precision strikes and SBRs, it cannot be over in WGermany for the most part. Â

So, if the UK player ignores your transport build, your bomber build, and where you are dropping your whole airforce G3G4, he’s in trouble.  he’s also a newb.

A word of warning. I was recently playing someone far more experienced than me and found myself with a 70-80% sea lion chance on London. Plus the allies had no TTs within range of the UK and only 1 that could get there in two turns.

Being an optimist I went for it. And failed! Grrr!

My experienced opponent was adamant that G will lose if it does sea lion, as the war is won and lost in R. The UK proves an expensive distraction from the eastern front. Despite the fact that G would have denied the UK any builds for three turns.

It is a shame that the dice prevented my testing this hypothesis. :x

@Private:

A word of warning. I was recently playing someone far more experienced than me and found myself with a 70-80% sea lion chance on London. Plus the allies had no TTs within range of the UK and only 1 that could get there in two turns.

Being an optimist I went for it. And failed! Grrr!

My experienced opponent was adamant that G will lose if it does sea lion, as the war is won and lost in R. The UK proves an expensive distraction from the eastern front. Despite the fact that G would have denied the UK any builds for three turns.

It is a shame that the dice prevented my testing this hypothesis. :x

I’m a believer that Sealion must be a valid strategy in this game and shouldn’t be viewed as foolish (although foolish is the case with oob rules)… 1940 is the only edition or scenario in which a Sealion operation is even possible, but the label of it being a fail for the big picture is pushing away it’s place in the game. That’s why our group has a few house rules to make Sealion attractive at the very least (post was not meant to discuss house rules here).

Is it not necessarily the case the sacking and holding London for three turns virtually guarantees victory for the Axis?  Or reasonably possible for the allies to recover?

My point being that I like that sea lion is hard and rare because if you spend 2 hours setting up a board and a turn 2 gambit works and the game is over….

We always hear on the forums that Sea Lion virtually “guarantees” an Allies victory…ect. I don’t agree with that (I’m not a very good player however so what do I know)…but, I think deep down inside, no experienced allies player likes the “advantage” of the UK not collecting an income for several turns.

Even if the allies do easily liberate London and win the game…I’m still going to sack London in a future game if the UK player provides the opportunity. It’s just too much fun (partly because it happens so rarely)!

It guarantees that victory by trading most of the german spearhead, time and airforce for a 6$ territory.  There is just so much $$ and NOs in Russia and the MEast, and you can’t do both Seelowe and take that $$.    Same dilemma as Japan and the Spice Islands–Japan can do anything it wants but if their plan isn’t focused on the money islands, its less lucrative economy wise than simply going for those.

Not only do you get his money, you prevent UK from producing anything for at least 1 turn maybe more.  It’s devastating, so if you can pull it off, do it!

Problem is, that with one turn’s spend, the UK can make it so costly to take London that it isn’t worth it.  Unless they are totally asleep, their first turn buy will probably have to be focused on some beefing up of London.  If the UK spends just 30$ on fresh garrison stuff, it goes from a axis cakewalk to an attritional battle.

don’t forget, if they don’t kill Italy’s navy, Italy can sack-attack London right before Germany does.  And, Germany can send a second round of troops even if they fail as long as the troops are pre-staged into the correct pickup zones and you didn’t sack all your air as casualties during the first assault.  However, you are again spending all your punch on doing Seelowe…

@eladimir:

Is it not necessarily the case the sacking and holding London for three turns virtually guarantees victory for the Axis?  Or reasonably possible for the allies to recover?

My point being that I like that sea lion is hard and rare because if you spend 2 hours setting up a board and a turn 2 gambit works and the game is over….

We played a game where Germany took London but the Allies won when the US and Russia squeezed out Germany and Italy.  Berlin and Rome were captured with London still in German hands.
However, if I remember right, Japan did make a real stupid mistake that allowed the US to capture Tokyo early and basically took Japan out of the game.  The smaller Allies were able to mop up the rest of Japan’s forces and the US was able to concentrate on Europe.

I think sealion can be an effective Axis strategy, but if you do it you are essentially now focusing on winning in the Pacific. I think the main advantage of a Sealion is that the US needs to divert resources to take them back.  As Germany/Italy, your focus should be playing defensive to hold your borders and to keep Russia in Russia.  Germany maintains the transports to force the US to come in strong to retake London or to threaten Leningrad. But as Germany you should be building a lot of infantry and a few planes to replenish your losses.  If US is spending light in the Pacific, Japan needs to be very aggressive.  It definitely creates a new dynamic for the game, and buys the Axis time at the expense of losing the initiative against Russia.

Although my experience is limited compared to others, and understanding Germany’s NOs are towards a Barbarossa push. But if UK is going to invite Germany to do SeaLion then do SeaLion. If Germany manages to kill the 106 DD and TT on G1 and UK doesn’t build 6 Inf/1 Fgt or something defensive for London, I have no problems using my France capital money coupled with Germany’s regular income on G2 to put some boats in the water and go for London instead of using that money to help with a push towards Russia. Easy decision. Reason being is it’s an allied capital, you’re going to take UK Europe out of the game for at least a couple turns and it’s an extra 8 IPCs, 10 if you take Scotland after, plus the 30+ IPCs you get for nabbing London. Those 30+ IPCs can then be used to focus on the Russians who are now coming in, rather then the 19 IPCs from France on G1. That’s a big swing in TUV and IPCs for Germany, rather then 1 here and 1 there by advancing towards Moscow. You will get your Russian NOs eventually. Just not as soon as usual which I don’t consider that big of a deal. It’s a marathon not a sprint. If USA goes full Atlantic then win the game on the other side with Japan.

As per this thread topic, I think if you attack Russia G1 and purchase your units accordingly then you are telling the Allies you are committed and you should be. Going for London while the Soviets are already counter attacking you and pushing in wouldn’t be wise IMO. I feel Germany in this sense should be viewed in the same mentality as if playing the USA. You need to pick a side and go for it. Splitting your income on two fronts or going one way one turn and the other the next will surely spell doom in the long run. Again, just my opinion and there are many others with more Global experience then me who may see otherwise.

London is only worth 6 IPCs I’m pretty sure.  I also only do Sealion if the Brits don’t build much in turn one.  It’s a handy operation, but taking too many units from the Eastern Front can be extremely risky.

I might be completely restating the exact message Taamvan was describing in an earlier post in regards to a mid-game type Sea Lion…

Going Barbarossa G1 might result in nothing placed on London UK1.

Anyone ever attack Russia on G1…but your original intent was Sea Lion all along? Maybe a build of 1 bomber, 1 destroyer, 1 transport, 1 infantry…then G2 build another transport and another destroyer, another bomber and the remaining ground, nothing too threatening so far. So now there are 3 transports on the board…Use the 2 transports you already have to hit Leningrad or Baltic States to at least “fake” a Barbarossa advance and to gain a valuable buffer. Then G3 build 1 more transport, and maybe a carrier, with infantry to fill the transports. G4 land on Scotland with your 1 transport (defend the transport if you have enough surface warships available) and bring your other ships back to SZ 113 and more of what you need to really smash London on G5. You’d have to bomb the factory the same time that you land on Scotland of course.

If you don’t catch the UK with their pants down you could still use your transports to shuck slow movers infantry/artillery to Leningrad for 1 or 2 turns to help make up for the ship costs. And like others have said, maybe the timing works out well where the UK spent 12 IPCs for a MiC that they can’t build on for several turns…

This is sort of what happened in our last G40 game a few weeks ago.  Maphead wanted to attack Nemestia, he uses a 1-2 punch to do this (brings fresh troops G2 then uses scandanavian troops G3, its a double drop of men without leaving the White Sea)

This didn’t work all that well because G1 he didn’t attack Russia’s land front.  Attacking Russia G1 has problems because you are using every plane to help SZ 110 111 France Italy Yugo Tobruk…and don’t have any planes to spare to bolster eastern attacks.  This means using tanks which get stuck in the advance zones and killed during Russia’s counterattack.

If you attack both nemestia/archangel and the eastern front (as usual) Russia has to recoil because you are threatening him (and with can openers) in so many areas, up north, in the center, and down south.

Since this wasn’t working too well, Maphead moved back to SZ 111 and grabbed men for Scotland.  When you have Germany guys on Scotland, UK is in a pickle because every unit he uses to drive them off could get killed or stuck in Scotland (leaving London short).  Again, Germany has the lion’s choice because after dropping the men on Scotland, he can grab another subsequent load of men, and attack you with x2 the ground units he can carry (plus all his air).

It didn’t work out well;  I killed all but 1 of his Scotland men and retreated.  With another turn of turtling (adding artillery, now I have like 12-16 men, 4 artillery, 1 armor, 1 mech, 5 AAA, 6 fighters …pretty much insurmountable) his attack was moot and his fleet was left out for the US and UK to tear apart.

So, I think map had 4-5 transports, any fewer and you cant make much of the double drop.  Any later than G3 they aren’t going to have time to do any damage before the USA shows up.

The key to busting up UK is that Germany can attack round after round with fresh troops that it doesn’t have to build.  The problem is that these are the exact troops that should be knocking on Moscow’s door around the same time.

The UK always has to worry about getting attacked, starting on UK1 and until UK 5 or so.  Germany can build up or attack at any time.  That means that you have to anticipate the possibility of him attacking you and having great luck, even when it seems less opportune for him to do that than attack Russia.  As a result, the 6 men 1 fighter build is the most flexible over time because anything less can potentially get Sea Lioned.  An early buy like that dissuades him (though it hardly makes Sea Lion impossible; its always possible).

I’d much rather buy at least 1 transport and 1 armor (for SA) and at least a few artillery rather than infantry in London (since they are more useful down the road), but this $17 leaves you with not enough $$$ for men AND a new fighter.

@taamvan:

This didn’t work all that well because G1 he didn’t attack Russia’s land front.   Attacking Russia G1 has problems because you are using every plane to help SZ 110 111 France Italy Yugo Tobruk…and don’t have any planes to spare to bolster eastern attacks.  This means using tanks which get stuck in the advance zones and killed during Russia’s counterattack.

I wouldn’t attack both UK fleets if doing a G1. Just attack SZ111, 106 and 91. The BB is too useful for hitting the Gulf of Finland shore troops.

The SZ124 sub can’t reach SZ110 though and a much stronger scramble. If the SZ110 fleet meets up with the SZ98 one, that means you haven’t done Taranto.

If the French fleet joins up, that’s a bit of a problem for the Axis. Hmm. OOB you need to take Southern France as Germany to have reasonable chance of taking down such a fleet clusterring in SZ92 - the fighters can’t land otherwise.

Going that hard with the Luftwaffe to SZ110 cuts down on other things it wants to do though, like supporting amphibious assaults in the Gulf of Finland and supporting the Paris attack without the 3 tanks from Gr Sth Germany.