Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?

@redrum

That makes sense. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for responding! :+1:

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.

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.

Very good points ItIsILeClerc, although I don’t think its wise to ever do a Sealion and a J1-DOW.  The plan above which I stated is very situational would be very risky with a J1-DOW.

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?

the thing is, not everyone has their sea lion strategy down yet as some people still defend UK/try to maintain a naval instead of taking UK then abandoning it to race Moscow, before UK is liberated and USA becomes a threat to europe.

When I play it is easy to crush UK then turn around drive the russians out of the balkans back to moscow before france/italy/germany is seriously threatened. Once Russia is done, the game is super over.

There are two problems about sea lion.

I don’t mind UK getting conquered. Just if UK gets liberated… it should recover faster. The complex being nerfed to 3 combined with the crappy income generated… is really rough. I find that you can pack UK men on USA boats and drop them off the next turn is better than UK buying their own naval… you actually get more boots on the ground per turn much quicker. Or you can use UK’s 3 production a turn to buy naval pieces for USA or if germany is buying lots of air perhaps UK will buy naval pieces to protect USA naval (so usa can focus on dropping big payloads instead of carriers) and place a few men in africa to ship around (assuming you still have the transport down there).

So with both allied and axis strategies not being fully developed by a majority of the community… the game balance itself is skewed.

Allies have always been harder to play as they require more planning in order to maximize the amount of men you drop per turn into europe or plan ahead and move pieces to wise places in the pacific.
~
Also countering barborossa has a few school of thoughts. 1) archangel shuffle defense 2) france first 3) shutting down italy.

I do feel that cutting the germans out of Norway/Sweden/Finland is good start for UK. no point trading men with germany before taking that out that production.

Another option, besides the CV buy, is to invest in bombers.

Do a strat. bomb on London G1 (with 2 bombers), and do another one with 2 + 2 on G2 (with a G1 buy of 2 bombers and whatever else your heart desires for 6 IPCs).

In my opinion, it’s the better option because once you’re through taking London, extra bombers are far more useful against the USSR than a carrier.

@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.