I just saw 4 copies today at Mind Games in the Oshawa Center (east of Toronto, Ontario) for $99 a copy. (Pacific 1940 is also $99 a copy there as well).
Is threatening Sealion with G1 navy buy viable?
-
This is if there is no bid. I have no meaningful experience with E40 and G40 but it seems like doing Sealion is not worth it, and wanted to hear if people still go a buy that makes Sealion viable. I have seen on youtube videos people sometimes do an ac, dest, sub buy, or ac and 2 transports buy. I also have seen somewhere (i don’t remember where) someone even doing a battleship buy on G1. Buying any sort of ships does not seem to be worth it if Germany wants to keep an open mind about not doing Sealion, unless it specifically wants to invade the Soviet Union through the north, try to deny their 5 IPC NO by making SZ 125 hostile and taking Archangel as early as possible, and give any ships bought on G1/2 a purpose by doing amphibious attacks on Leningrad, setting up a transport shuck on that territory, and so forth.
Even then, it seems more viable to go the “southern route” for Barbarossa as General Hand Grenade puts it because the territories are worth more, there are NO’s for having Caucasus and Stalingrad, and it is also easier for Italy to help too.
-
@Suppressmeajumma
Such an opener is totally viable. Not sure if it is a top strategy, but it works.
For me that opening includes sinking the UK fleet at 106 (Canada), 109 and 111. Just leaving the channel fleet alone. That takes all DDs and TTs away from UK and gives Germany some free reign of Atlantic the first few turns. And I build a Carrier plus sub/DD or 2 TTs.Sea Lion itself is easily countered by UK, but they have to invest to do so, and possibly have to neglect defense of Cairo.
And Germany can use it’s fleet to take Gibraltar and put US in an awkward position.
That opens the MED for Italy and enables them to create some disturbance for Allies. (but do not expect too much from them, it is a minor power, no matter what)
Starting G2, Germany should build and move all they can to Russia, though. That is where the war is won. “Owning” Atlantic is nice, but the money lies in Caucasus, as you noted.
-
@Elrood
I know it’s late, but thank you for the input. I have been doing attacking 106, 110, and 111 but not 109. Do you ever use the ships you have on G2 for Barbarossa if you don’t send them to SZ91? -
@Suppressmeajumma attacking 110 and 111 is very much standard…
Not attacking 110 and going for the TT and DD in 109 is what makes my opener different.
You take away a Transport and the last DD in Atlantic, forcing UK to build inf and DD asap.Never done sea lion after that though, it is easily countered by UK with Inf for London, but it means useless troops in London instead of useful ones in Africa / or an IC in Egypt.
-
Most of the highly experienced players in past posts seem to have held that German Sea Lion leads to a German loss because Allies will eventually recapture London and the Germans forego critical building against the Russians in the early rounds.
While that sounds right, I’ve not seen a detailed explanation of how that actually works out. In a current OOB game, Germany did Sea Lion round 3 with 11 transports and wiped out UK with a bunch of tanks left over, and a heap of transports who now threaten Leningrad, or Gibraltar. In this game Japan held off declaring war against US, wiped out Soviets in far east, and has Navy in Carolines and SZ 6 (it suffers with UKE and China growing unchallenged), so US has had to balance its ~50 IPCs on both sides of the board in the opening rounds.
With UKW wiped out, Egypt is not long for the world, although they did just repel an Italian assault. And at this stage it looks like Germany can grab 2 of 3 of Leningrad, Stalingrad, or Moscow before the US or any other Ally can help them.
That is all just to provide a real game example where the common wisdom about Sea Lion not being a long-term victorious strategy for Germany does not seem to hold.
I would appreciate any insights!
-
@Colonel-Mustard US postion is not really changed by Sea Lion, but Russia’s should. Germany usually spends nearly all it’s income against Russia early on. So 70 IPCs for TTs and a lot of Units spent against London should put Moscow in a very good position to be aggressive, or not?
-
I’ve gamed out German Sealions by myself using a Europe only map (note the category of this thread), and despite some differences, the main contours of the game are the same.
Germany can usually grab London, but that sucks up so much German power and gives the Soviets so much time and energy to prepare that, even if Italy does incredibly well in Africa and the Middle East, they’ll have a tough time defending their existing territory against Soviet attacks (really juicing Soviet industrial production), let alone actually going after Moscow. With every German unit needed just to have a fighting chance against the Soviets, the US can easily establish control of the seas and liberate London. The Germans, even with best Italian help, just don’t have the resources to win in the east and hold their existing territory west against the large American armies. And that alone is deadly to the Axis, given how many IPCs France, the Low Countries, and Scandanavia hold.
Even though I didn’t play the following 2 games to their conclusion, I think it’s obvious that victory at this point is impossible for the Axis in both games.
Suggested Topics
