Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?

People on FB and here are continuing the discussion of subs–worthless or worthy, so I’ma gonna pull this plan back up to the top as an example of a detailed, sub based plan.

@Elsass-Lorraine:

@NotEvenJail:

Its starting to feel like this guy is just trolling us with these “essays.” I mean come on, man. Many of these statements are way too out of touch. Can’t be serious.

I would hesitate to jump so far so quickly. He/she probably is just discovering this forum and/or other sources of strategies, and their game group has probably been disconnected, if you will, from the most effective strategies that the wider A&A community takes for granted.

I will note that in his first essay (the Barbarossa one) he mentioned how G40 had recieved “little attention on this blog”, which I take to mean the main axisandallies.org website (which most definitely does have a lack of G40-related articles, last I checked) as opposed to the forums. I knew about axisandallies.org the site long before I knew about the forums, so maybe that is what happened here.

I didn’t mean to be harsh just speculating. I get it. This game is special because it has a lot more nuance than one would readily perceive.  I have no problem with the thread just made me scratch my head.

GH had it right! Better safe than sorry. You don’t want to lose a capital and it’s income if preventable just because you think it can be taken back at some future time. Turn 2 is when you decide your options.

Attacking 106 is pretty important too, it gets the UK two land units. If UK doesn’t do Taranto, their fleet can link in 92 as well with the Malta stuff carried in.

Sea Lion is always an opportunistic play. The resulting German fleet has other uses.

@Spendo02:

I don’t see much value in the 70 IPC of Trn once you take London and get your offensive units back on mainland Europe.Â

Spending resources to address their protection seems less efficient than boots on the ground pushing back the Russian advance.

5 Transports and the fleet stay in the Baltic Sea - now you can ferry your infantry/artillery builds directly into Novgorod each round (+13 units a round in Novgorod - there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell Russia is getting it back - ever.)
5 Transports go down to Gibraltar - land in Morocco and join with large Italian fleet - which will probably exist unless England went no defense for England - and take Brazil, Africa, W. Indies and then slide the rest down around the Cape for Madagascar.

There’s a lot of things you can use the transports for.  You could use them to set up a train service to Arkhangelsk through the Arctic Ocean and the other half to shuttle troops from Berlin.

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.

I am currently in the middle of my first game of Global using Alpha. It is going really well actually. We have played 6 games of global in our group (this alpha game is our 7th). Initially we certainly believed that there is a distinct allied advantage, and I still do. I believe that only very skilled players playing as the Axis have a chance of winning with them, and that is if they play against mistake prone allied players. If you have skilled allied players against equally or even more skilled Axis players, the Allies seem unbeatable barring extreme luck or blunders going in Axis favor.

We have 1 victory for the Axis, and that actually came down to our two best players who are much better than the rest of the group playing Axis, and the allies were made up of our third best player and two totally new players. America’s player was playing for the first time ever. And the Axis just barely won due to a 1/36 tech miracle and botched allied play (poor use of transports).

There were also 3 allied victories, and 2 games we called draws, but the allies would have won if we decided to play for weeks longer…

We are currently on J3 in our latest game with our first go at the Alpha setup. We also have the same two players as Axis, only this time switching powers. I have to admit that I think I like this setup better as Germany because our UK player is infamous for bringing the whole british empire into Egypt and holding Africa with overwhelming force while threatening Italy all game long. Less planes and ships and initial transports makes this harder for him and makes Italy more viable. Also we started with a G2 DoW on USSR. Things are going very well for them with the USSR’s hardware in dead zones, so by R4 they will be down to only Inf.

Japan is doing very well also in China and with the sizeable Manchurian land force nipping at the retreating Russian’s heels in Siberia. The lack of planes certainly is putting a cramp in Japan’s game play in the Pacific itself, and in its Caroline/Hawaiian posturing against the Angloish-Allies, but they are still in a solid position. I the new naval base in NSW is a very interesting double edged sword. It makes Australia very happy that they can move around a bit easier, and can claim DNG on ANZAC1, but they have to be careful because it no longer is a dead end for the IJN, which makes ANZAC a viable target for Japan.

If this is correct, then how would a newly built carrier in SZ110 not matter?

-  The UK can now launch an air attack on SZ113 with 1 or 2 fighters (depending on if a destroyer was also built in SZ113) and kill the entire transport fleet along with any hopes of a G2 operation Sealion.
-  Depending on any surviving UK naval unit it can also launch an additional attack on either the damaged (?) battleship or the lonely cruiser with the remaining fighter in the UK and 1 or more destroyers.
-  Finally the main attack on the Italian fleet can still go ahead as planned … and depending on G2 builds, the air units used can fly back to the UK the following round to assist against a possible G3 Sealion.

… all that for the cost of one carrier? Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

It is correct except UK can still attack 1 BB, 1 CV and my 2 Fighters with 4 planes. The CV build stops that. It is necessary. MY APs are placed with the CV and protected.

odds are like less than 10% for him to win.

3/3/3/4 vs. 4/2-2/4/4/0/0