Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?

It is the combination of the IPC boost and the IPCs that the allies dont get to spend that leads to the long run advantage

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.

@simon33:

Why don’t you just build a third fighter in Calcutta to defend against sbr? It is well spent.

Because I am worrying about a quick J3 Indian Crunch.  I am preparing for the following Japanese movement:
J1 move 1(2) inf from Kiangsi to Borneo, move 3 inf, 1 art from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to Philippines; J1 build 3 transports
J2 move 3 inf, 2 art, 1 tank from Japan/Korea/Manchuria to sz36; J2 build naval base in FIC; concentrate all carrier groups in sz36 (each with 1 tact, 1 fighter), bombers in Siam, block sz38 with some fleet
J3 attack India with 6-8 inf, 3 art, 1 tank, 3 tact, 3 fighters, 2 bombers (can have offshore bombardments)

According to the build & movement below (no Russian fighter to India), I will have
16 inf, 1 art, 3 AA, 1 fighter in India for defense.
This should just be enough to defend India.  If I build a UK fighter in India, then I don’t have enough infantry to defend India.

Middle East-Indian Wall strategy
[[to counter J1 attack, no matter Germany goes for sealion or barbarossa]]
Turn 1
C1: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 4 inf in Szechwan

UK1:
India 1 tack+fighter to Middle East (Middle Earth strategy)
Sz39 transport 1 inf to Persia
India 5 inf, 1 art=> Burma
Burma fighter=> India
Malaya 3 inf => Shan state
India build 5 inf

ANZAC1: Malaya inf => Shan state

Turn 2
C2: take Yunnan with minimal force, build 5 inf in Szechwan

UK2: (consider the case J1 take Borneo, build 3 transports; J2 build MIC and NB in FIC; move 3 transports to sz36)
Burma 7 inf, 1 art => India
Shan state 3 inf => Burma
India build 4 inf
(if no Sealion, build Persia factory)

ANZAC2: Shan state inf => Burma

Turn 3:
China: aim at taking Yunnan

@simon33:

I haven’t had much success with strategies like the one proposed except when Germany spends some of its money on fleet. That gives ussr a bit ight breathing room to do something.

But I agree with you, in case Germany goes for barbarossa, Russia should focus on wars in Eastern Front.  Again Yunnan and India worries me.  The above implies that China should defend J3 take and hold Yunnan by itself…

@Gamerman01:

What about airbase on Normandy/Holland

Not sure about it but I’m saying that I think that spending enough for protection of the Kriegsmarine (in general) may just be inviting Russia deeper into the Fatherland, regardless of the interesting differences between defending with an additional 2AB or 2CV or even going 1 of each?

@Whitshadw:
All strategy for both sides is indeed largely hypothetical, since a large part of the game (for both sides) is more dynamic than a fixed strategy can cover for: action and reaction dominate the field! That is so educational about the forums: strategies being discussed assume a certain action already. Discussing the (possible) reactions to the assumed actions is what makes it so interesting.

Having said that, Axis are largely the side that plays a certain action. The allies then need to come with a proper reaction. And even that is a lot harder than it looks.

I like it!  Its crazy but again this game is based upon dice in the end. If it was a low luck game then I would have to reconsider.

@Violent.copper:

sz 110 max defender 1 cruiser 1 bb 2  fighters
send
108
103
germ 2bombers and 1 tac(landing on the sz 112 AC)
west germ 1 fighter 1 tac
95%

The Allies can defend with a max of 3 scrambled fighters, not just 2.  That French fighter in London can scramble as well.  And remember that any casualties caused by the allied air must come out of German air, the subs can not be used as fodder vs. air.  This will not matter if the cruiser and BB get two hits before they die, but it is a factor to consider.  Germany will still win, but it will be a little more costly.  I’ll leave it to better minds than mine to calculate if it is better in the long term for the allies to scramble or hold the fighters in reserve for defense during the sealion invasion.

@Alsch91:

Normally I think UK could take back both Shan State and Yunnan on UK 3 before pulling back to Calcutta.
Thus your planes have no landing spot.

Might be costly, but also might be worth it for the reasons you suggested.

Obviously you would sink atleast one of the battleships, maybe even two.  My point is if UK buys inf heavy you would avoid sea lion, if they build boats and/or big time in africa, send in the sea lion.

I mean really, if UK buys 9 men on turn 1, why even bother facing them as there no threat, its time to eat some russia!

I think I personally will purchase 1 trans, 1 DD, or two trans and 5 inf on turn 1, hiding atleast the trans in the baltic maybe even the rest of the boats while sinking all the UK boats I can without huge risk, probably leaving 1 BB, 1 Cru in the atlantic.  Then on turn 2 if the UK builds say, a minor IC, or 3 tanks out of south africa, move up the fleet drop more boats and dance in London on turn 3.  Keep in mind too, you don’t need all transports as your airforce is larger than the UKs, not only that but 13 IPCs gets you two inf and a trannie, 10 gets you a fighter.  Yes the inf are better but the fighter is more versatile after you take London.

What I’m saying is, going hardcore sea lion isnt that great of an idea, but the threat of it forces the UK to react and gives you an advantage.