Does an A+3 Sealion = Axis victory?

He’s talking about just killing the UK fleet in the SZ off India. A suboptimal move in my opinion, stretches Japan really thin and that fleet can’t really be aggressive against much without dying in return. It also makes your cleanup around the Solomons weak. Same with the attack on the Hawaiian SZ, there’s no point for Japan to be throwing its material forward in barely positive trades when Japan excels at keeping a large American fleet at bay when it can consolidate its fleet resources at the Philippines.

Who are you playing Base2ball? What is your game plan?

That is as valid an opinion as mine.  :evil:

That’s okay, I would also increase the number of German submarines on the board and put some convoy zones out in the mid North Atlantic that hurt US Economy (and UK Economy)

But then, if we implemented my changes, the Germans would need a significant bid again probably.  So yea, in the case of game balance, realism does need to take a back seat (that is not to say forget it completely!)

Those are some good ideas. I think to make this game balanced, I do need to make some adjustments. Just giving Italy the Axis NOs and ANZAC the Allied NOs doesn’t quite work. It seemed to be working for a while, but once ANZAC got the upper hand, it just gradually got worse and worse for Italy. I know that happens even in some games of regular A&A, but I don’t think there was any hope of Italy turning things around once ANZAC started getting ahead.
We just finished this game tonight. It took 15 rounds before Italy surrendered. For the first three rounds, Italy really grew and just about closed the gap between them. Rounds 4-8 were somewhat even between the two. If Italy did well on one front, ANZAC was doing well on another front. From Round 9 on, Italy was more and more defensive. ANZAC managed to take Japan and pretty much ruled all the Pacific and Asia within the next 2 rounds. Once all other Italian presence was eliminated, all ANZAC had to do is keep pounding on Europe until something gave way. Between amphibious landings every turn in Western Europe and a flood of tanks, mechs and planes rolling in from Russia, Italy was finding it harder and harder to maintain any kind of border.
For a while, whenever ANZAC would land somewhere in W Europe, Italy had enough to take it back. There were a few sparks of good for Italy, like when they sacrificed most of their European air force to kill the ANZAC fleet outside of England, including a stack of transports. That delayed ANZAC for a couple of rounds, but soon they were making landings again and Italy couldn’t afford a whole new air force to risk against the navy.
While playing the game this way makes each round go somewhat faster, it is pretty hard keeping track of all the different fronts. You literally have attacks going on in every point of the map on some turns. It’s a little easier when Germany is dealing with England and Russia, Italy is dealing with the Med and Japan is dealing with China and the Pacific. Still, it is kind of cool to be able to carry out ALL your ideas in the same turn.

Okay +3 more ipc to the usual 12 allies bid. Makes no difference to me. Kind of lame because that 3 more ipc would go to a more strategic spot like right below it to smack ethiopia with better odds.

mmm, that is fine. I might see more crazy korea attacks.

I wish the developers would post some of their games if they are doing it online. I really want to see the logic in -1 inf for egypt in an already axis stacked game. Too many people complained about Italy sucking I guess, but they never hear the tears of UK hitting the floor. London should start with more money to defend itself, 37 starting income seems more reasonable. 9 inf fighter.

Regarding Unstoppable Sealion:

I am not saying with any certainty that this would give the Allies a victory, but my face-to-face playing partner and I have had some discussions on what the Allies can do to counter Sealion. We have come up with two possibilities that we have never been able to try and no one has really talked about, much less tried.

1.) Try to sink the German fleet after it attacks the UK. This is contingent on the US buying bombers in the starting rounds and the UK preserving what ever fleet and aircraft that it can.

Under the new rule, Russia immediately enters the war when London falls. So, if Soviets see Germany build a G2 transport fleet, they can build a small fleet in sea zone 127 or 115 so as to take Norway on R3 when they enter the war. Now, the US can fly it’s bombers to attack the German fleet in sea zone 110 and land in Norway. If some German fleet still survives, the UK can use it’s remaining fleet and planes to clean it up.

Problems: What if Germany goes to sea zone 109? This prevents the US bombers from making it to Norway. Possible Solution: Russian build in sea zone 127 and take Scotland on R3 so the US bombers would have a valid landing place. Problem with that: Germany could use a blocker in sea zone 125 or 126. Possible solution to that potential problem: Could the UK position its fleet in such a way on UK 1 so that on UK 2 it places a blocking ship into sea zone 110 and 111 so the only option on G3 for Germany is to do Sealion from sea zone 110?

If the German fleet is sunk post-Sealion, what happens? How badly does this hurt the Germans? Is not enough pressure placed on Japan if the US spends rounds 1 and 2 buying in the Atlantic?

Those were some of the questions my partner and I had. Personally, I think it would be a huge blow to the Germans to lose their fleet because they wouldn’t be able to transport any remaining troops back from the UK to face off against the Soviet for a time (if ever).

2.) The only spot on the entire map that the US can use one set of transports to shuck troops back and forth is Alaska to the Soviet Far East (sea zone 2- sea zone 3). Now, if Germany does Sealion, Moscow survives past round 10. Right? Well, if the US buys fleet and ground for the Pacific, on US 3 (after London falls), they could move to sea zone 3 and offload into the Soviet Far East. From there, mechanized infantry and tanks can make it to Moscow by round 8 (best case scenario). Well before Russia falls. Can they get enough there to matter? I don’t know, but I’d like to try it out. To me, it beats flying mountains of planes since ground units are cheaper.

A few of the positives for this: By having a fleet in sea zone 3, you threaten Japan. Slow walking troops can go to Korea and or Manchuria. The US only needs to build one fleet to have a real effect and place lots of boots on the ground. It also helps the Russians maintain their income from all of the territories in Asia…. a real bonus in my opinion.

I would love to try these ideas out on my own, but I have a newborn in the family and that precludes me from playing for the foreseeable future. Guys and girls, give this some thought. My partner and I believe there could be some validity to these two ideas.

Yes but that would be costly for the Brits.

@jim010:

Well, it can’t stay in sz92.  Out towards the US then, I’d say.

Exactly !

Or, for crazy gamblers , you could also go to sz98 and add the Uk Pacific boats (that you moved in range on UK1) to this fleet. From sz98, you can go full pacific, or try to get back Gib, or attack the Italian.