Very nice video GHG, I enjoyed it.
I think you missed my point of the double AB plan but there is no need to go into that.
Actually now that I think about it.
There are at least 2 threads I could start on how bad you missed the point.
and one thread on how 2 AB is a total waste of time, IPC and air power.
Give me time….
Ok, Iam going to start this from going in reverse order based on GHG video.
Why it is a total waste of time building 2 Air Bases to defend SZ110?
Now the idea of defending SZ110 is to prevent the USA or UK from coming into that zone to contest the conquest of London. Deny them a immediate response and give Germany 1-2 turns to build units on London to hold it.
The bottom line is the bigger picture of the war. The Europe map is really a struggle between Germany and Russia. For Germany to achieve a global victory on the Europe map they MUST take out Russia. UK/USA are the spoilers in this big picture plan. They are trying to distract Germany and attacking them in such a way to make the “gaze” of Germany turn west and give Russian some respite.
So
Is Sea Lion a total waste of time and IPC? Well, I would agree with GHG that Germany going all out on Sea Lion is most likely a doomed strategy for Germany.
Thus if it is a doomed strategy you must go all out against Russia. That is Germany’s entire focus and just hold off UK/USA on the western front as long as possible.
Waste no time or IPC against the UK/USA besides bulking up the fortress Europa against them and everything else goes all in on Russia.
Now on G2 you still build the 8-9 TRS. Threaten Sea Lion and have the Allied players scampering around looking at You Tube videos on how to defeat it on Japans turn. You then take those TRS and move 18-20 units into Russia on G3. Make the Baltic sea a massive TRS shuck to Leningrad for INF and ART. That saves Germany 2 turns of movement to get INF/ART onto Moscow.
Bottom line for me is then Germany MUST fake Sea Lion on G2 with the TRS purchase to make the UK/USA react accordingly. Which means their focus is saving or liberating London ASAP and not doing crazy plans like middle earth or sending 12 FTRS to Moscow.
Fake Sea Lion, they have to respect it. Go all in on Moscow and crush them under your tanks.
By doing this you buy Germany/Italy 2-3 turns on the Europe map by making the UK/USA doing all the moves necessary to save London and not doing crazy plans on turn 1-2 like killing off Germany early and the Allies winning the game on Turn 10.
Agree, mostly. Lots of games, the Allies intend to KJF, they put nothing in Europe, even so; Germany attempting Sea Lion is still not good odds or optimal move, though in that case, UK better be playing conservatively, since they will be all alone on that map to survive while Japan gets demolished.
You don’t really have to bluff SL, though its not so bad most games. If GER suddenly builds the transports, all UK has to do to neutralize that is to buy 1 full turn of UK defense right after you do it. If you slowly build the transports, UK is even more flexible because he can do w/e in the ME while slowly countering you by buying 1-2 guys a round, or fighters, then he has choices all game.
built (Air)bases are often a waste, because they are too expensive, aren’t necessarily used often, are subject to capture, and don’t fight. The areas where they are these things, already have AB on them, for the most part.
Germany is quite overpowered in G40 as written, which is why it sometimes feels like it can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, smashing every opponent in turn.
You don’t really have to bluff SL, though its not so bad most games.� � �
I totally disagree good sir.
On G2 the game is still in the set piece portion of the game, where strategy videos are made and so forth. There are not strategy videos on how the Allies defeat the Axis on Game turn 19.
So Germany builds the 9-10 TRS on G2 and UK call your bluff that your are going into Russia and not UK because Sea Lion is a total waste. Well, if UK does not spend their first 2 turns defending Sea Lion and Germany calls the bluff and goes into London, takes it, and has 9 units left….Lets just say strategy videos do not cover this scenario.
Germany having a 9-11 TRS fleet in the Baltic is never a bad thing for them.
SO bottom line for me.
YOU MUST always bluff Sea Lion on G2 with TRS purchase and go through with Sea Lion on G3 if the UK thinks you are bluffing and does very minimal to defend London.
The TRS purchase on G2 for Germany is not a waste. It is a very valuable asset that can be used against Russia and UK.
I totally disagree with PainState. Bluffing SL without following through is a massive waste of resources which could be being used against USSR.
I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO
I totally disagree with PainState. Bluffing SL without following through is a massive waste of resources which could be being used against USSR.
Fair enough.
BUT
If you do not fake Sea Lion and spend your G2 build on a all in tactic on Russia are you not letting the UK off the hook? Letting them build that factory in the Middle East, building up in South Africa or rebuilding their navy?
9-10 TRS in the Baltic Sea is a serious threat to Russia also. You can get all your units from Western Europe to the Russian front on G3 OR if you are feeling really crazy you could stage the TRS in the North Sea and threaten to go south with all those TRS and hit Gibraltar and go all in with German Med fleet fully loaded with troops going at Egypt.
With out a full commitment of the G2 TRS purchase you are letting the UK off the hook on UK2 to do what ever they want to do.
@Elsass-Lorraine:
I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO
What?
Hold on.
Lets just say the Baltic fleet has no worries.
You have Leningrad.
You build 10 INF or 5 Inf/ 5 ART in Germany. You can shuck those 10 units + your 3 builds in Leningrad every turn. You have in essence cut down the time of travel from Germany to Moscow by 2 turns with Inf/ART with those wasted TRS.
You see no benefit in this?
FOOT NOTE
My G1 build always has 1 DD in it. Germany needs a DD to stop those pesky Russian Subs.
Part of the problem is that the number of transports useful for taking Leningrad (2 to 5) is different from the number of transports useful for taking London (8 to 10). You get some use out of a massive transport stack against Russia on G3, but not enough use to fully justify the cost of the transports. 9 transports + minor factory in Leningrad cost 60 ipcs per turn to fill with a conservative mix of infantry and artillery, leaving you zero or negative budget for tanks, mechs, planes, ships, and the western front. Most turns, at least a few of your transports will sit empty if you bluff Sea Lion.
A full Sea Lion bluff can make sense if the UK player is stronger (or rolled better on round 1) than the Russian player, or if the Russian opening is particularly vulnerable to a Baltic attack, but calling it mandatory is a big stretch. You’re transferring power from Britain (which is weakened by the need to place low-value infantry in London) to Russia (which is strengthened by Germany’s relatively inefficient purchase of 8+ transports.
I often prefer a partial sea lion bluff, with 2-4 transports and perhaps a couple of extra planes. It should still deter a full Middle Earth opening, but I know I can use all of the assets at full efficiency on the eastern front if I need to.
I’d be more inclined to purchase 3 transports for Germany and the rest on ground troops and another warship if I was trying to fake Sea Lion on the second turn. That gives you 4 in total now and makes them think that you are targeting Scotland to do a double-scotch landing. With 4 transports you move troops to Leningrad when you are ready.
As far as Sealion, I’m much more in favour of the later attack on London when the UK is not suspecting it. You build your fleet slowly while beating the piss out of the Russians and then BOOM you hit London. If America is going KJF then the Atlantic is wide open and there’s no taking it back.
About the 2 air base thing, I like one air base on Holland if I’m trying to protect that fleet and more warships instead of bombers if I’m going to do a G3 Sealion (which is not likely).
Iam against a passive approach to Sea Lion. You either do it or fake it or move on with another plan of attack against Russia.
I can see how you can do a middle ground approach of building a few TRS, and then the rest for Russia. I just do not think the UK is going to buy into the idea of Germany going Scotland and then see what happens and go Sea Lion on G4. If the UK does not buy in and they are right….well we are back to square one of using German TRS to shuck to Russia.
The middle ground approach I will admit is good for Germany to hold Norway, present a Leningrad threat / shuck plan and a London threat later on in the game if the UK are caught napping.
I just think Germany does not have the time to dick around and feint this and feint that and drag the assault on Moscow until turn 12.
Germany has to have a solid plan from Turn 1 and go for it. A G2 9TRS build is part of that plan to present a bold front against both UK/USSR… It allows Germany to go both ways, UK or Russia with strength.
You have to choose, attack with conviction OR mess around with middle ground / hedging our bet plans of attack.
Back to the SZ 102 discussion in regards to Sea Lion.
The USA does not start with the units necessary to contest SZ110 and help London.
That is a choice the Allies have to make, during a live game and if they choose wrong it could cause problems over the next few turns for either side.
The Axis have the upper hand at the start and force the hand of the Allies. The SZ102 carrier build is an example of the Axis forcing the USA to build 2 CV, move 4 planes and build bombers on USA1.
Germany could pivot on G2 and go Russia or Egypt.
It is the give and take of the first 3 turns of Global.
BUT
The Axis have the upper hand of this give and take exchange between the Allies.
By no means am I saying that German transports in the Baltic are bad, not worth it, whatever negative adjective you want.
A few German transports will, like GHG and Argothair stated previously, provide Germany with flexibility to go for SeaLion or attack Leningrad and/or shuck some troops to Russia, whatever fits. Buying a full transport fleet G2 is more than bluffing, it is showing your hand. If I see Germany go build 8-10 transports on turn 2, I’m gonna max defend London and then laugh when Germany doesn’t go for London because they just wasted a whole bunch of money.
HOW is Germany going to have the production capacity to fully utilize those transports against Russia (shucking troops), and WHY would they want to shuck when they can build fast movers and then use the minors the Russians so kindly give them to build more slow fodder at the front? I don’t want to go off-topic here (this was an Allied strategy thread after all), but to me the fast movers you build in Berlin/W Germany will better serve you in Russia because of their flexibility. PLUS, you’re going to be putting money into your Western defenses, so not every single unit you build in the West is going straight to Russia
Every buck counts in this game and having 70 sitting in the Baltic waiting to be destroyed by some British planes after you choose to not attack London is not using that money effectively.
PainState staggers off to the local pub and gets drunk at this point, muttering to himself about how does Germany take Moscow on G6 again? He is sure that 8-10 TRS in the Baltic is the key to that plan.
I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again-carriers, bombers, destroyers, and transports are not a waste of money for the Americans. Nobody is forcing the the US to buy them for no reason. If Germany doesn’t go Sealion then America did it’s job and they can position their units wherever they deem necessary. They were not going to attack anyone anywhere in the first 3 turns anyway unless Germany puts 10 transports in SZ 110, in which case they are going to sink them. They simply can’t reach anyone else worth attacking before then with enough force to matter on either side of the board. Calling London allows them to put units into place on the first 2 turns that can at least have some influence on what the axis decides to do. Other than that they have no influence on them at all.
Well what if on G3 they go with 20 units into Scotland?
USA is not at war until USA4 which means Germany can reload said TRS and hit London from both Scotland and SZ110 with up to 40 units. Now granted USSR will have some issue with this on USSR4 BUT London has fallen and fallen to the point that the USA might not be able to liberate it.
This goes back the give and take of the first 4 turns of the game. Axis do this and Allies do that.
Well what if on G3 they go with 20 units into Scotland?
USA is not at war until USA4 which means Germany can reload said TRS and hit London from both Scotland and SZ110 with up to 40 units. Now granted USSR will have some issue with this on USSR4 BUT London has fallen and fallen to the point that the USA might not be able to liberate it.
This goes back the give and take of the first 4 turns of the game. Axis do this and Allies do that.
That gives the UK one more turn to build units on London. Sure, Germany would still have their transports and could bring more units over but at that point it costs far too much to assault London. One more turn for the Bear to sharpen his claws too. I had already thought of that and several other ways to assault London besides what you seen in the video. So far I’ve yet to come up with anything that makes Sealion a good idea for Germany if the Allies counter with London Calling. They are far better off faking on turn one and then committing to marching on Moscow.
Once you realize that what a player could do is so much more threatening than what they actually do, the game changes. Why is a stack of bombers so good? Why does the Axis feel so overpowered at the beginning? It’s all about power projection, and to an extent, forcing responses.
As Germany once you commit to a non-mobile force, your power projection plummets. If you drop 70IPCs into TTs G2, the range of moves you can do diminishes greatly. The more Germany can do on its opening turns that threatens both London and Moscow the better. This is why the 2-bomber opening is so good, as are variations where you buy only 1 bomber and save or save everything. Those bombers can either bomb London, or hit the Eastern front. These moves force UK to not play greedy, and still lets every IPC turn around and hit Moscow.
Sounds like to me that PS and GHG should do a two best out of three….
Fun times!!! :x
