England Must Turtle?

Okay, this is probably a silly question.

The last two games I’ve played, Great Britain has succumbed early to Operation Sea Lion. The first time, it happened in three turns, after Germany had a chance to build a second bomber. In our current game, it happened on the second turn of play!

[Germany built a transport in Turn 1 and moved a fighter from Southern Europe to Western Europe, while UK built a fighter; in Turn 2, Germany launched a successful amphibious assault into Scotland with two infantry from Berlin, using two fighters and bomber as air support]

In this game, the UK had the misfortune of losing its initial spitfire in support of an amphibious assault from Eastern Canada to North Africa.

After seeing England crushed so easily twice, I have to wonder if the only correct play is to build as much defense as possible on Turn 1 (two infantry and a tank, or three infantry)…in essence, taking the same tactic as the Soviet Union through the opening moves. I realize the tank in Canada could be moved into the UK (assuming it could avoid the German blockade), but a single tank isn’t much defense by itself (in the three turn game, the UK had built a tank in defense, but Germany brought a tank to England’s shores along with an infantry unit, and the thing was gobbled up).

Just wondering if I’m missing something or if an “all defense” tactic is the only effective means of saving the UK’s capital from German occupation.

Thanks!

Great stuff, folks…thank you!

Private Panic wrote:

GB should never succumb early to Sea Lion! If the GB player is awake that is…

…In this game the allies have to respond to whatever initiatives the axis are taking in the early turns, given the axis advantage in units on the board.

It may just be that we are new to the game, because there’s a certain amount of “psychological warfare” going on precisely because of the Allies responding to the Axis attacks. An amphibious assault on Gibraltar followed by a successful sneak attack on Britain’s aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, coupled with attacks on the Russian territories (Karelia and/or Caucasus) can cause all sorts of consternation, distracting the UK from the potential Sealion assault. Especially considering the Allies’ focus on keeping Pacific territories safe from Japanese conquest!

Charles de Gaulle wrote:

Another thing to consider is the German lack of defense navally.  Any German transport built is very vulnerable to British air assault.  Assuming Germany holds its battleship back, the UK will most likely have some other advantage.  If Germany goes for this option, the UK can react accordingly and ask US for help.  Meanwhile,  this risky move on Germany’s part is sure to give Russia massive advantages in the east.

If Germany buys the transport, either sink it or be sure to build or divert the necessary forces.  It does not matter if you have to give up North Africa or a build in India.  Just hold off the German attack and Russia will be able to do serious damage with so many Germans in the west.

You don’t have to tell me about Germany’s lack of naval power! Despite a successful landing in England, the Axis lost its entire Kriegsmarine, leaving Germany stranded in England (though with a hefty bonus to IPCs). Part of this was due to extremely poor rolling (battleship to an unsupported destroyer?!) but its not uncommon for us to see nothing but British and American warships in the Atlantic by the third or fourth turn.

What we have NOT found, though, is this giving Russia a significant advantage on the eastern front. Attempting to take German territory is a tough struggle for Soviets, inevitably leaving them thin and vulnerable to (potentially devastating) counterattack. The USSR seems to be much more effective at cutting the legs off of Japan (in mainland Asia) while building defense to stave off the Germans. Adding four or five of Japan’s IPCs can more than make up for the difference of territory losses on the eastern front…provided the Soviets can hold onto both Moscow and the Caucasus.

Is it a standard tactic to ignore (or de-prioritize) the Japanese threat in order to focus on Germany? We’ve found that, left unopposed, the Japanese can quickly achieve a dominating position in the Pacific, maintaining their mainland territories and bringing the war to the Americas through Alaska.