Does an A+3 Sealion = Axis victory?

The rules allow the British to assume the Carrier can make it through and land two fighters from Britain.

However, I’d assume the British fighter on Normandy is dead.

It’s still a tough battle, assuming two German fighters land in S Italy, and Germany may want to consider killing the Cruiser off Gibraltar to make Britain sweat it out.

Also - it has to be considered that London would be weakened by this attack, and four AA Guns or not, it potentially puts Sealion back on the radar screen.

@Stalingradski:

The rules allow the British to assume the Carrier can make it through and land two fighters from Britain.

However, I’d assume the British fighter on Normandy is dead.

It’s still a tough battle, assuming two German fighters land in S Italy, and Germany may want to consider killing the Cruiser off Gibraltar to make Britain sweat it out.

Also - it has to be considered that London would be weakened by this attack, and four AA Guns or not, it potentially puts Sealion back on the radar screen.

True, a non combat move going through 96, I see. Assuming the Normandy fighter survives, the battle is a costly win for the Allies 48 IPC lost (say 4 planes and the cruiser) against 52 IPCs taken away…

Then the UK fighters would be lost first and the UK fleet would consolidate in 96:

1 carrier, 1 tac, 1 fighter, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer. That seems to be too strong to attack with what Italy has left.

Three questions:

1. Can Germany fly the tactical bombers from Western Germany and the bomber from Germany through sea zone 110 to attack the UK air base and industrial complex on G1, landing them in Holland Belgium?
2. If yes, does it matter if the UK ships in sea zone 110 are also attacked (I am thinking UK scramble versus interception)?
3. Does this “Blitz” make sea lion possible?

You can attack naval/airbases anytime you like, as long as you have a valid landingzone (any territory you owned at the start of your turn.)

I am going to assume the Normandy fighter survives for now, only because Germany needs that little extra oomph in France (which I still thing is GOOD).

The Italian fleet is decentrallized, so it is easier to attack, however, is it worth attacking?  You can no longer get 67% of the Italian transport ships.  IMHO?  Destroyer, Fighter, Tactical to SZ 96 to sink the Italian destroyer (and transport since it is there) allowing the cruiser to take up blocking for Gibraltar and getting your extra planes to England faster - IF you still worry about sea lion.

@Cmdr:

You can attack naval/airbases anytime you like, as long as you have a valid landingzone (any territory you owned at the start of your turn.)

I am going to assume the Normandy fighter survives for now, only because Germany needs that little extra oomph in France (which I still thing is GOOD).

The Italian fleet is decentrallized, so it is easier to attack, however, is it worth attacking?  You can no longer get 67% of the Italian transport ships.  IMHO?  Destroyer, Fighter, Tactical to SZ 96 to sink the Italian destroyer (and transport since it is there) allowing the cruiser to take up blocking for Gibraltar and getting your extra planes to England faster - IF you still worry about sea lion.

It looks like it’s possible to go all out for 95, see above. But that come at expense of sending 2 fighters outside of UK!

I would probably not want to do that as the UK, in fact I’m not sure yet what I would do…

@Omega1759:

@Cmdr:

You can attack naval/airbases anytime you like, as long as you have a valid landingzone (any territory you owned at the start of your turn.)

I am going to assume the Normandy fighter survives for now, only because Germany needs that little extra oomph in France (which I still thing is GOOD).

The Italian fleet is decentrallized, so it is easier to attack, however, is it worth attacking?  You can no longer get 67% of the Italian transport ships.  IMHO?  Destroyer, Fighter, Tactical to SZ 96 to sink the Italian destroyer (and transport since it is there) allowing the cruiser to take up blocking for Gibraltar and getting your extra planes to England faster - IF you still worry about sea lion.

It looks like it’s possible to go all out for 95, see above. But that come at expense of sending 2 fighters outside of UK!

Keep in mind, if England scrambles fighters (interceptors) you have a good shot at trading a German fighter for a British one.  England earns 30ish IPC for a while, dropping to the teens quickly because of CRD.  Germany earns in the 50s going up to 60s.  So you are trading nearly half a British Paycheck for 17% of a German one.

That’s good in my book.

@Cmdr:

@Omega1759:

@Cmdr:

You can attack naval/airbases anytime you like, as long as you have a valid landingzone (any territory you owned at the start of your turn.)

I am going to assume the Normandy fighter survives for now, only because Germany needs that little extra oomph in France (which I still thing is GOOD).

The Italian fleet is decentrallized, so it is easier to attack, however, is it worth attacking?  You can no longer get 67% of the Italian transport ships.  IMHO?  Destroyer, Fighter, Tactical to SZ 96 to sink the Italian destroyer (and transport since it is there) allowing the cruiser to take up blocking for Gibraltar and getting your extra planes to England faster - IF you still worry about sea lion.

It looks like it’s possible to go all out for 95, see above. But that come at expense of sending 2 fighters outside of UK!

Keep in mind, if England scrambles fighters (interceptors) you have a good shot at trading a German fighter for a British one.  England earns 30ish IPC for a while, dropping to the teens quickly because of CRD.  Germany earns in the 50s going up to 60s.  So you are trading nearly half a British Paycheck for 17% of a German one.

That’s good in my book.

Hmmm, are you saying that after UK goes for 95, you would strategic bomb uk with the two fighers left there?

I would strategically bomb England every chance I can get.  Now that I only have to invest 6 IPC to do 8 CRD to England (6 to London from SZ 109, 2 to Scotland from SZ 109) I have more money to spend on ground warfare and new aircraft.

Picking up a couple extra strategic bombers to really pummel England + 1 tactical for the naval base and 1 for the airbase would be a pretty good option for me now. (If you dont fix the airbase, you cannot send up interceptors.)  With only 3 fighters in England (because you didnt send more from the Med) I’ll quickly overwhelm your forces.  Even if you bring them up on Round 2 (and I am talking a start of the Battle of London on round 2) that’s not a whole bunch more aircraft.

With the Italian fleet decentrallized, you’re not getting a mess of ships anymore.  You could still get a BB, CA and TRN, but Italy still has 2 transports and that’s enough to make serious inroads into Africa. (1 always left me very light in transport ability.)

@Cmdr:

I would strategically bomb England every chance I can get.  Now that I only have to invest 6 IPC to do 8 CRD to England (6 to London from SZ 109, 2 to Scotland from SZ 109) I have more money to spend on ground warfare and new aircraft.

Picking up a couple extra strategic bombers to really pummel England + 1 tactical for the naval base and 1 for the airbase would be a pretty good option for me now. (If you dont fix the airbase, you cannot send up interceptors.)  With only 3 fighters in England (because you didnt send more from the Med) I’ll quickly overwhelm your forces.  Even if you bring them up on Round 2 (and I am talking a start of the Battle of London on round 2) that’s not a whole bunch more aircraft.

With the Italian fleet decentrallized, you’re not getting a mess of ships anymore.  You could still get a BB, CA and TRN, but Italy still has 2 transports and that’s enough to make serious inroads into Africa. (1 always left me very light in transport ability.)

Interesting, looks like the game is steered towards:

1st round, battle of France
Round 2-3 battle of Britain  + mediterraenan struggle
G4 is barbarossa

My game looks like:

Round 1: Pummel France into submission
Round 1: Buy(30) - 2 Strategic Bombers, 1 Submarine

Round 2: Bomb England into the Stone Age
Round 2: Buy(70): 15 Infantry, 2 Fighters, Save 5

Round 3: Buy(55): 15 Infantry, Artillery, Armor

Round 4: Buy(50): 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 4 Armor (or replacement Submarines, I want 2 in SZ 109, 1 In SZ 106 and 1 in SZ 125 at a minimum)

Round 5: Attack Russia

Rounds 3, 4 and 5 are continued bombing of England, of course.  11 Starting Aircraft + the 4 declared builds, that gives me 15 aircraft to use in hitting England, pulling replacements back from the front as needed.  3 escorts per bomber = 9 escorts + 3 bombers that’s 12 + a tactical at the naval and airbases should be plenty to cripple the British with. (I’ll trade an 11 IPC Tactical for a 10 IPC Figther any day of the week inthe first 5 rounds with England.)

@Cmdr:

My game looks like:

Round 1: Pummel France into submission
Round 1: Buy(30) - 2 Strategic Bombers, 1 Submarine

Round 2: Bomb England into the Stone Age
Round 2: Buy(70): 15 Infantry, 2 Fighters, Save 5

Round 3: Buy(55): 15 Infantry, Artillery, Armor

Round 4: Buy(50): 6 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 4 Armor (or replacement Submarines, I want 2 in SZ 109, 1 In SZ 106 and 1 in SZ 125 at a minimum)

Round 5: Attack Russia

Rounds 3, 4 and 5 are continued bombing of England, of course.  11 Starting Aircraft + the 4 declared builds, that gives me 15 aircraft to use in hitting England, pulling replacements back from the front as needed.  3 escorts per bomber = 9 escorts + 3 bombers that’s 12 + a tactical at the naval and airbases should be plenty to cripple the British with. (I’ll trade an 11 IPC Tactical for a 10 IPC Figther any day of the week inthe first 5 rounds with England.)

What’s the point of cripling England with bombers if the convoy / sealion threat + African push can make them and their airforce irrelevant?

When does japan force the US in the war here?

Assuming the escorts dissuade any interceptor, each bomber has 1/6 chance of getting shot down (-2 IPC) for a 5/6 chance of hitting at 3.5. That’s a gain of 0.9 IPC per raid, but the risk is high and opportunity cost is considerable.

UK spends so much rebuilding after repeated bombing that they never get to build enough infantry for D-day, or much else.  USA provides most of those troops.  Notice that this scenario is more like how the actual war proceeded.

@Vance:

UK spends so much rebuilding after repeated bombing that they never get to build enough infantry for D-day, or much else.  USA provides most of those troops.  Notice that this scenario is more like how the actual war proceeded.

That could also make it easier for a late (possibly surprise) Sea Lion, if necessary.

@Vance:

UK spends so much rebuilding after repeated bombing that they never get to build enough infantry for D-day, or much else.  USA provides most of those troops.  Notice that this scenario is more like how the actual war proceeded.

With a submarine interdiction and a constant sea lion threat, the UK should be boxed in, don’t see the advantage to bomb it further.

@Vance:

UK spends so much rebuilding after repeated bombing that they never get to build enough infantry for D-day, or much else.  USA provides most of those troops.  Notice that this scenario is more like how the actual war proceeded.

Part 1:  You take away their income.
Part 2:  You bomb them to capacity.

You cannot literally take all their income, there just are not enough convoy zones to do it.  So they will be collecting some cash (in the teens probably.) That’s where the bombers come in.  Taking out their bases is more of a coup’de’gras since it stops them from sending interceptors or moving 3 spaces with their ships, so it’s mostly irrelevent early in the game.  I’d do it anyway, just to really annoy England and because I have nothing better to do on Rounds 2 and 3 anyway. (Not to mention, they’re almost certain to repair the airbase so they can intercept SBRs.)
Strategic Bombing Runs are really the priority there, you want that factory hit between 18-20 dmg.  They then need 9-11 IPC to repair.

So if England has 18 IPC to spend, 3 dmg to the airbase and 18 dmg to the complex they need 9 to build 1 unit and if they want to intercept more runs, 3 more for their airbase for 12 of 18 IPC (+3 for an infantry at least).

That’s assuming they have Rhodesia, S. Africa and South West Africa free, which is reasonable.

On top of that, 1 submarine in SZ 106 drops 18 IPC to 15 IPC and 2 submarines in SZ 109 drops that to 7 IPC.

So you dont really NEED to take London early in the game, you can just erase it as a threat.

@Cmdr:

@Vance:

UK spends so much rebuilding after repeated bombing that they never get to build enough infantry for D-day, or much else.  USA provides most of those troops.  Notice that this scenario is more like how the actual war proceeded.

Part 1:  You take away their income.
Part 2:  You bomb them to capacity.

You cannot literally take all their income, there just are not enough convoy zones to do it.  So they will be collecting some cash (in the teens probably.) That’s where the bombers come in.  Taking out their bases is more of a coup’de’gras since it stops them from sending interceptors or moving 3 spaces with their ships, so it’s mostly irrelevent early in the game.  I’d do it anyway, just to really annoy England and because I have nothing better to do on Rounds 2 and 3 anyway. (Not to mention, they’re almost certain to repair the airbase so they can intercept SBRs.)
Strategic Bombing Runs are really the priority there, you want that factory hit between 18-20 dmg.  They then need 9-11 IPC to repair.

So if England has 18 IPC to spend, 3 dmg to the airbase and 18 dmg to the complex they need 9 to build 1 unit and if they want to intercept more runs, 3 more for their airbase for 12 of 18 IPC (+3 for an infantry at least).

That’s assuming they have Rhodesia, S. Africa and South West Africa free, which is reasonable.

On top of that, 1 submarine in SZ 106 drops 18 IPC to 15 IPC and 2 submarines in SZ 109 drops that to 7 IPC.

So you dont really NEED to take London early in the game, you can just erase it as a threat.

In one of my recent games, the india complex was free of interceptors. I thought, good deal, I’ll bomb (with the +2 bonus). My opponent ended up rolling snake eyes, creating a huge swing off the expected value… The 2 bombers were greatly missed afterwards. SBR is very risky when alternative is to box in UK with subs and retaliate on any attempt to free up with subs and airforce (taking sub as fodder)

@mantlefan:

@Cmdr:

Yes, that was an idea I had, but might not have been the first to express it, it seemed ridiculous that Russia could only sit and watch Geramny reposition for a strong front after London fell.  I am virtually 100% positive that if Germany stripped their defenses to take out London, Russia would have invaded Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania, perhaps Greece, Albania and Yugoslavia as well.)

So I am very happy to see that Russia AND the United States can declare war the instant London falls.  But then, London should still be falling on Round 4, which is great since that’s when the allies attack anyway.

4 AA Guns in England means it can take up to 12 shots at attacking aircraft.  If they only had one, you could bring in 50 aircraft and England could only shoot at 3.

More horse-hookey on G1 might make Germany more honest and less attacking everything on the sea and on land the first round.  I kind of like that.  AA Guns also help Germany and Italy defend better, and are now cheaper than tanks.

I agree with Omega.  You only need 3 submarines to deal with the British Isles and prevent them from income.  1 more off Canada and you’ve essentially ended British income entirely. (Assuming Italy took out Africa like they usually do.)  It is far cheaper as well, 24 IPC for submarines or hundreds for an invasion?

As for the AA Gun in France, I think the idea was to give Normandy (W. France) a chance not to be killed off

I don’t get it, Alpha +2 was supposedly broken but now the axis has it significantly (if not drastically) harder, and you like it. What did any of these changes do to solve balance problems?

Did these changes help the axis or the allies more?

What does the 3 sub convoy raid respond with when UK builds one DD and plops it in that sea zone with 3 ftrs on the airbase next to it? Does germany really want to commit strat bombers to helping their subs survive in 109, at the risk of losing them to scramble?? Or putting planes on normandy or belgium? What happened to the Med navy, anyways? How do you expect to do enough damage to the Royal navy Round 1 with the extra burdens on Germany to make those subs viable convoy raiders in 109? How do you expect to counter the new buying options on UK1 because sealion starts out relevantly harder with a HUGE 4 extra hits?

As for you comment about being 100% positive that Russia would have attacked or whatever, I’m not sure what good that comment does. Not only is it completely devoid of evidence in the affirmative, it also ignored the evidence to the contrary. Given the Soviet response to the HUGE German buildups in the Summer of ’41 (practically none), as well as other examples throughout history (such as when huge stretches of the French front were left undefended during the mutinies of 1917, and the Germans NEVER HAD A CLUE), there is no reason to claim 100% positivity. Really, from a logical perspective, the best you could argue is that it could go either way; that it is likely that the soviets could have learned of and exploited the German deployments, or that  history shows us that it is even more likely that such things often go unknown. Since at the very least both possibilities are reasonably likely (and perhaps I’m being too conciliatory in viewing your assertion as likely, but whatever), we can use the one that is best for the game. So how exactly do these changes have a positive net effect on the (at least formerly) unbalanced Alpha +2?  And please don’t use the “we have to play it to see it” excuse. Look at every change, and see whom each helps more.

@Omega1759:

To me, both zone 95 and zone 97 are out of danger.
The UK can bring to bear on 95…
Cruiser from 91
Fighter from Normandy (assuming land on carrier in 96)
Fighter from Malta
Fighter from gibraltar
Tac from carrier
And 96 is attacked by
1 carrier, 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer.
96 is an easy battle, but not 95, odds are 80% against the UK on this (against 1 sub, 1 DD, 1 Cruiser + 3 fighters)
What am I missing? I find the zone 96 block effective.

Why attack 95? A battleship and cruiser are much better targets than a dd and sub. Attack 96. With the aa gun in france, Germany will need to be extra careful, meaning you probably keep the Gib Cruiser or the Normandy ftr.  All you need against that dd and trn is 2 units. Send the carrier to 96, where even planes from London can reach.

I was mistaken, You can take 95 and 96, or just 97. 97 is still a close call though

@mantlefan:

What does the 3 sub convoy raid respond with when UK builds one DD and plops it in that sea zone with 3 ftrs on the airbase next to it? Does germany really want to commit strat bombers to helping their subs survive in 109, at the risk of losing them to scramble?? Or putting planes on normandy or belgium? What happened to the Med navy, anyways? How do you expect to do enough damage to the Royal navy Round 1 with the extra burdens on Germany to make those subs viable convoy raiders in 109? How do you expect to counter the new buying options on UK1 because sealion starts out relevantly harder with a HUGE 4 extra hits?

The following German turn, you kill the destroyer with the 3 subs, 1 bomber and a few fighters / tac from West Germany + 1 new sub from 112 (keep them coming). Assuming they don’t scramble, one chance out of 3 to lose a sub.

Might be good to go weak in 109 to give them incentive to scramble.

The bigger danger is a build off Canada coming at you in 109, with the fighters from UK. Then need to spread in 119 and 109. To prevent this from happening, need to keep subs in 91 to go after the punks (not mentioning the potential benefits of interdicting 106, the issue though is that US plays between Germany and UK)

Besides, what are the new buying options for UK? Say I buy 3 subs, 1 transport, saved 5 and wiped out all the zones except for 109?

I agree with mantlefan on the bombing, and there is definitely a challenge when the US gets into the war for the sub warfare off Canada once the US can help pound subs in 106. Ideally, you have an agressive Japanese player that forces the US to spend into the pacific.

Just a question mantlefan - do you think that when this was playtested, and playtested, and thought about and worked over by people who are highly paid/deeply passionate about this game, that they haven’t seen the scenarios you worry about and feel pretty satisfied with the product?

I’m unsure about the negativity based on zero playtesting on your part. I don’t mind sticking my neck out and questioning it, because I find it to be frustrating. I’m seeing people base their worries on assumptions, rather than fact.

For example - have you thought about the long-term ramifications of the US having a virtually unattainable NO in France? Let’s say it’s turn 10 - and you have a good German/Italian opponent, who has frustrated your efforts to get that particular NO… don’t you think that 50 less IPCs isn’t a game-balancing mechanism? Sounds like five less US fighters to me… if I told you before you started the game that the US would have five less fighters (or whatever) by US10, wouldn’t that sound like a matter of some significance?

I don’t know how the game will be impacted, but I have some faith it is an improvement over the course of many turns and many games… but I know I don’t know. That’s a big difference from guessing and getting pretty clearly upset about how the game has been forever ruined.