Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?

@Private-Mike Np. If you ever want to play test anything on triple A, shoot me a message!

I know how to read, SH, I do it for a living.

I’ve played a lot of games, and since I’d played Axis and Allies before, I didn’t read the rules at all.  I was much more interested in playing a game, 90% of which was already familiar.  We consulted the rules when there was confusion, which was often.  Reading the rules in detail first might have been helpful, but it still didn’t answer most of the 10% of questions that come up as exceptions, nuances or rare situations, which is why I read these boards.    Sure there was plenty of slop and mistakes, but I admit when I’m wrong and try to do it correctly going forward.

Fantastic!  Thanks Bob!

Cool tanks i meant transports instead of destroyers the pets were being pests and the phone distracted me. I read 1 Transports being plural i thought something was missed in the translation when it went to the forum. we’ve been using 2 but I’m fine with one.
Again Tanks

My method of dealing with the Soviets is to strangle them, punch multiple holes in the line, hold the line, and blitz with units to reduce the Soviet IPC count.  Using transports would be excellent.  Could use them as a diversion, the Soviets will man the adjacent land territories, all the while being unable to attack the transports themselves.

You know… for all my games of Axis and Allies, I can’t talk like that anymore :(  I almost miss it.  Infact it’s been so long, I don’t ever remember even talking like that.  Sometimes I see people trying to bait me, or I get blocked.  But aside from the odd trap, I don’t see “much” on the battlefield, that isn’t a typical crunch.

There are no “ambushes” or “flanking manuevers” anymore :(

Sometimes I get to do that against new people but… does that even count?

I guess my strategies are mostly dependant on what my opponent does, and where he makes his movements, and mistakes.  This is where my opportunites to strike are.  And I think strictly in game terms, of how best to accomplish what others might consider insane, or very unlikey, or what looks dumb, but really buys time and isn’t.

Someone else said it here… my turns aren’t thought ahead, but are predetermined…  there’s the "What I MUST or HAVE TO do,  Then there’s the “what I ought to or should do”, then there’s the “What do I want, or what Can I do?”  in that order.  And it applies to the purchase and placement phase too.  You’re likely not going to know all the facts until it’s YOUR turn anyways.

I miss the simple old days…  Russia = 8 inf, Attack, Defend,  Roll Dice, Place.

@gsh34:

James,

Good thought experiment you have going on.  Most of the time doesn’t Germany fully commit to Sealion on G3 by either doing a direct G3 attack on London or landing is Scotland, right?  If that is the case, they can see that on R1 and R2 the Russians have only purchased naval units (meaning a theoretical 26 ground unit deficit vs. max defend build) why do Sealion?  On Italy round 2, you could use the Italian air force to clear the blocking Russian BB in the Baltic Sea and then amphibious assault Leningrad.  Without those R1 and R2 ground builds, I would think Russia would be relatively easier to take down.  Especially when done in conjunction with Japan doing a max push into Russia which is what I think I would be doing with them if I saw the Russian build naval forces en mass.

Just my thoughts on what I would do if Russia made the builds you describe.

I tend to agree, it would be easier to take Russia first, would that be dangerous leaving UK alive, if USSR provides them a fleet to protect their builds. That seems like it gives both US and UK quicker and stronger strikes against Europe then would otherwise occur. I suspect even with no real land unit builds until turn 3, that Moscow could hold until turn 6 or 7, maybe longer maybe not.

That gives the allies a 3 turn window of opportunity to get entrenched in Europe and put some heat on Berlin/Rome. Key to this opportunity will be whether USSR can knock down the German factory on W. Germany turn 4…That severely limits what the Germans can build in Europe for defense. I could see USA knocking it down turn 5 if recaptured, and UK grabbing it turn 6…etc. Keeping Germany with only 10 unit builds turns 5-8.

Oh well, its just a crazy Russian navy idea. Not sure I will ever try it. You are basically screaming, take me! take me!. Certainly a magnanimous move to spare the British player and allow him to play sea lion free. I’d like to be that nice guy.

@DutchmanD:

Oh, this is no more ahistoric than Italy being able to take Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and the rest of the Mediteranean when they could even beat the Greek army with their entire military. Not to mention one of the most significant ahistorical flaws of G40, which is that the French troops in Aremain loyal to the Allies for some reason, not Axis Vichy…  and, if they are not at war, why are they killing Brits mercilessly on Italy 1? Don’t get me started on the whole “orginally owned” territory nonesense either, the Germans can buld a major IC in Norway and the UK can build one in Malaya, but the Japanses cannot build one in Shanghai; the Japanese were the first to build factories in Shanghai around 1900 after the First Sino-Japanese War, and by 1937, when they fully officially occupied the city, it had more manufacturing power than the rest of Southeast Asia combined!  Dice Gods forbid the Japs actually being able to make a major IC in an actual manufacturing center that they originally created        :wink:

Ahistoric… hmpf!  Nothing like an instant 10 tnps build by the Germans and the dissappearance of essentially the entire Royal Navy in the Spring of 1940 to make you give up on all the historical aspects of the game we love…
 
All good points, but directed more at game mechanics than historical accuracy.  I agree that the production cycle is not accurate to real life, it should take 3-4 turns for a BB to be built, but the game is not made for that scale.  All units you can build are placed almost immediately.  Both the US and UK fleets are severely nerfed, most likely in order to give the axis a chance that they didn’t have in RL.

As for the other issues, I understand why Vichy is not in the game, you have to draw the line somewhere and Larry choose to add France but have them be inert, while China is also hamstrung.  Otherwise you get a community of people clamoring on the BBS from Bulgaria wanting special Bulgarian rules or some other nonsense.

I have played a game where Japan could build a major in China and it did seem overpowered.  It was maxed on production and China was quickly swallowed up.  It took massive US naval builds and tenuous fighting from India to stall the Japs.  Japan was also able to not build many trns in that game and still concentrate on the Pacific islands.

Thanks for going over the Abandon London moves again James.  One would assume they became even more potent in A3, have you had the opportunity to try it yet?  It’s playing the allies like the Axis, creating the initiative and then keeping it long enough to sack Italy…hopefully.

I’ve seen Sea lion work and not work,  it depends on a lot of things like your opening round rolls.
  I’ve also seen where it works,  and Barbarossa works too in the same game
  Opening round rolls made a big difference in the second game yesterday, The Axis got hurt early and couldn’t recover.
  In every game It’s important for Germany to eliminate the royal Navy. Stay strong with their Navy and air force to thwart off any threat of an Allied invasion, and hurt Russia and push on to their capital and get as much money as possible