@GeneralHandGrenade:
All it takes is a commitment to attack by Germany.
Germany buys 2 transports on turn one and 5 on turn 2. Turn 3 they put 16 infantry and 8 tanks plus the air power on London. They will already have that many tanks without having to purchase any so they still have money left over to commit to the eastern border. They take UK’s income and drop the ground units in the east that they didn’t on turn 2 or reinforce London with the transports they already have and infantry they purchase with UK’s money.
If they don’t get it turn 3 they can hit them again turn 4.� � Every single game.
GHC, just friendly debate here :) Buying 7 transports is a lot of IPCs in the critical 1st few turns.
If London has to be hit again on turn 4, I really don’t know how the Axis could win at all. The US will have to be kept of the war through Japan’s turn 3 which means India and ANZAC have enough time to build sufficiently to take care of themselves for a long time. Maybe only China is destroyed during this time, which I believe very critical. The US can fully concentrate on liberating London.
Yes, GHC, don’t get me wrong. Just saying…I like pulling off Sea Lion, even if I lose the game :)
It’s fun to sack London! I know how to execute a Sea Lion. I’ve done it successfully in 2 games (taken London a total of 4 times). In the 2 games London was taken, but not successfully, Germany could barely hold Russia back in both of them; planes had to be taken as hits just to get 1 tank on London. In the successful games, Moscow eventually fell, but in all 4 games London was liberated. The US can easily liberate London regardless.
I agree and already wrote in a previous post that no matter what, London can be taken. Have you ever experienced sacking London against a fully defending UK? If the UK player is able to put 16 infantry on London plus a fighter (UK 1 and UK2). Germany can still take it like you said. But Germany having to drop lots of ground while losing a whole turns worth of purchases is very taxing. The sacked treasury is often barely enough to stabilize and push Russia back. I go for Sea Lion only if everything goes right G1 and then the UK player gets too aggressive. Some people less experienced think a G1 purchase of 1 bomber and 6 infantry signals Barbarossa.
In the situation you describe, an experienced Russian player is going to get bonuses in Hungary and Romania, maybe Russia gets pushed back to their original borders, but Germany won’t be going much further for a very long time. A smart Russian player will have more tanks on the board than Germany and stacked on E. Poland.
Therefore I’m arguing that the HR idea of this thread is still not overkill for the Axis or at least in the situation of Sea Lion as you describe. This will mean though that a smart UK player will have to place 6 infantry/1 fighter on London UK1.
“Germany could spend every penny on executing Sea Lion and still successfully do it, even if the UK is putting everything on London, but at that point it’s too expensive; especially if Germany has to take plane hits to conquer London…”
