Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?

@dazedwit my point is that if you can’t win 110, you can’t win sea lion. If Britain wants to stop sea lion they are much better off scrambling in G1 rather than conserving air for the land invasion. Typically in the game german air are more valuable than UK air. I would always scramble in that situation because its very likely that I am trading 1-2 planes against 6.

If Germany uses 9 transports and loses those 6 planes and the British lose 2, the UK doesn’t need to build more than 6 inf before G3 to have a better than 50% chance of denying sea lion. I’m assuming here no J1 or J2 which would make stopping sea lion easier. And I’m calculating with British going with a 92 stack (which would add 2 figs, a tac, an inf and a AA) although I’m sure that won’t strictly be necessary. Obviously even with the bombing and convoying, they should manage more than 6 inf. And they may not need land units at all since they might be able to stop it at sea.

Axis have a significant advantage in the OOB game (absent a bid) and it looks to me that in taking risky combats that you will likely lose, you are trading that away. Of course, the dice can help you out here, but usually they won’t.

But the best way to test strategies will always be against actual competition. At some point I’m sure you will get a chance to test this against other opponents.

That’s the point though. Sea Lion is an objective for Germany but there is no justification for doing while the USSR is still a credible threat because once you capture London, there is no way in hell you can defend against the US liberation and the Soviet invasion. Hence, just don’t do it. I am only suggesting that if one wanted to do an early Sea Lion, you will need Japan to put so much pressure on USSR that Germany can focus completely on US thus Japan will lose in the Pacific. I agree Sea Lion isn’t a wise move.

Russia would have to put a lot in India to be able to hold it, or are you saying that the allies could hold Yunnan with Russian support?

@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.

@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.

@Alsch91:

The interception/escorting dogfight stages occur before the bombers “split up” to strike their assigned targets.  Therefore those Tacs being used are actually able to take interceptor hits for Strategic bombers, even though they have different targets.

Huh, ya know, alright, you got me.  I personally haven’t ever done a split like that so I’d never thought about that/  Yea, ok, I’ll concede that point.  well played sir.  well played indeed.  I take it all back.  mea culpa, mea culpa.

I’ve deleted my flagrantly ill conceived rule interpretations, and will remember this the next time I consider SBRs…  boy, is my face red.

Historical Sealion or in game Sealion? If it’s the latter I should say it’s already been explained.

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.