Note: These games included no bid, no tech and no national objectives.

I have been successful in performing Operation Sea Lion 3 out of 6 times on round 3 but only conditionally if the UK and US are not expecting this and especially if the US moves all its fighters to the US West Coast or Pacific. The key to this strategy is appearing to commit to the Eastern Front to dissuade the UK and US from stacking the UK round 1, while preserving 8 Infantry and all 8 Tanks for Operation Sea Lion round 3.

Germay Basic Strategy:

Round 1 :

Build: 1 Aircraft Carrier (only)

Combat Move:

1. Attack UK Battleship and transport in Seazone 3 with 1 Fighter (Norway), 1 Bomber (Germany) and 2 Subs (Seazone 7).
2. Attack Ukraine with 3 Infantry (Bulgaria), 1 Artillery (Bulgaria) and 1 Fighter (Poland).
3. Attack East Poland with 1 Infantry (Poland), 1 Artillery (Poland), 1 Tank (Bulgaria), 1 Fighter (Germany).
4. Attack Baltic States with 3 Infantry (Poland), 2 Tanks (Poland), 2 Tanks (Czech), 1 Tank (Bulgaria), 1 Infantry by sea (NW Europe), 1 Artillery by sea (Germany), 1 Fighter (NW Europe).
5. Move 2 Infantry (Norway) to Finland.
6. Move 3 Infantry (Germany) to Poland.
7. Move 1 Tank (France) to Poland.
8. Move 2 Infantry (France) to Germany.
9. Move 1 Infantry and 1 Tank by sea (Libya) to Balkans.
10. Move 1 Arillery (Libya) to Morocco.

Non-Combat Move:

Move 1 Fighter (Baltic States) to Seazone 5.
Move 1 Fighter (East Poland) to Seazone 5.
Move 1 Fighter (Ukraine) to Poland.
Move 1 Fighter and 1 Bomber (Seazone 2) to Norway.

Place: 1 Aircraft Carrier in Seazone 5.

Round 2:

Build: 7 Transports, 1 Infantry

Combat/Non-Combat Move:

1. Move 7 Infantry and 8 Tanks into Poland and Germany.
2. Move 1 Bomber and 1 Fighter (Norway) to Germany.
3. Pull back all but one Infantry or Artillery from the Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine into Poland and Bulgaria to preserve units from the coming Russian counter attack.

Place: 7 Transports in Season 5 and 1 Infantry in Germany.

Round 3: Sea Lion

Build: Max (Up to 10) Ground Units based on PUs available.

Combat Move:

1. Attack UK with 8 Infantry and 8 Tanks (Germany), Entire Fleet with 2 Fighters (Seazone 5), 2 Fighters and 1 Bomber (Germany and Poland). (If necessary take 1-2 Infantry from Finland)

Notes:

So long as the UK was not stacking the UK during round 1 and instead focusing on Naval Units and or Factories this will be possible to win.

Also it may be necessary to have the Italian’s sacrifice their fleet during round 2 in Seazone 12 to wear down the UK and/or US airforce pre-UK invasion.

If successful and depending on how many German ground units remain, the US may be immediately able to take the UK back that round which is why Germany will need the ground units purchased in round 3 to possibly invade again on round 4.

If the attack failed, retreat with all available aircraft to preserve the German fleet and build a second aircraft carrier next round. With 8 German transports the UK is at constant threat of invasion forcing the UK to waste PUs on stacking the UK and not doing much else for a few rounds. So long as Japan is aggressive against Russia, Russia will exhaust themselves on the Eastern Front due to a lack of offensive units and not be able to take Germany.

This strategy can be adjusted slightly based on game conditions but the basic elements remain;

1. Build 1 Aicraft Carrier round 1 to preserve the German Fleet.
2. Build 7 Transports round 2.
3, Preserve 8 Infantry and 8 Tanks during round 2 for a round 3 UK invasion.

@Imperious-Leader said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

“just waiting for someone to come up with a valid explanation for buildings giving magical movement to planes and ships. No one has done this yet.”

Thats the easy part of the problem… centers of logistical support (Rail, Fuel stocks, Quick industrial pathways, established airports that can handle the numbers of planes, centers of trade, population centers of the military industrial complex).

A Batteship cant just park at the Malibu pier and fuel up. If it did , it would have limited range unless Malibu can supply 4 months worth of food, fuel, ammo, etc. It has to go to San Diego or Hawaii, or Puget Sound.

A B17 cant land at Santa Monica Airport and have anything available. It as to go to Paterson, or a military base where an airport with sustainable services exists.

So the real movement of ships is 3, the real movement of planes is +1, the fact that sometimes a Stuka takes off from my driveway, means it has less range than leaving Tempelhof. You and people like you are looking at everything backwards. Planes are being held back in movement and their full capabilities are only seen in terms of range, if they leave an established centre that provides support, parts, fuel, ammo, training, Tikka Masala,etc

Do you not understand now???
None of that adds magical movement to ships or planes. Combat air bases can provide fuel, food and ammo. Cargo ships can supply fuel, food and ammo. If you want to model in logistics then add that in but magical movement does not do that.

Air and Naval bases are mainly supply hubs with repair facilities. Since capital ships can be damaged naval bases serve that function.

Centers of logistical support? What centers were there in the Caroline Islands or when a territory is surrounded?

Why would a fully fueled undamaged Stuka taking off from your driveway have less range than from an air base with paved runways?

I am not looking at anything backwards, the game has no logistics built into it outside of generic IPCs, blockading and the Burma road.

A US Naval fleet can attack Japan from Hawaii but the same fleet cannot attack Japan from sea zone 13 even though they are both the same distance and there is no logical reason why. Ships don’t get more propulsion from leaving a port.

Of course I am looking at the magical movement because that is what is different in the game. Air bases do not allow planes to fly farther.

@Panther said in A&A Anniversary 1941 Sea Lion Strategy:

@Poptech said in A&A Anniversary 1941 Sea Lion Strategy:

Whatever moves I put under “combat move” were allowed in TripleA and all moves listed were allowed in TripleA.

Just for everybody’s information:
TripleA is not rules compliant in many aspects. Allowing NCM during CM-Phase is one of the non-rules-compliant behaviors of TripleA.

TripleA-players always should keep in mind:
“Don’t always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start TripleA … and better check what TripleA has done.”

I am aware of that and the Europe, Pacific and Global TripleA maps restrict that kind of movement. I understand the idea behind restricting it but it is more for unit movement tracking in the board game. When playing digitally it only makes it easier to forget to unload or reposition troops.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@general-6-stars

Considering Poptech’s behavior I wouldn’t be surprised if they were banned.

Nope, just waiting for someone to come up with a valid explanation for buildings giving magical movement to planes and ships. No one has done this yet.

@Smoke

Whatever moves I put under “combat move” were allowed in TripleA and all moves listed were allowed in TripleA.

Northwestern Europe is adjacent to sea zone 5 so the move is no different than taking an infantry from Germany. The purpose is to move as many units as far east as possible while still saving 16 ground units near sea zone 5 for round 3.

Any good Japan player is going to roll through India if you waste all you money money on a UK navy instead of defending India.

Most UK players attack the German navy with the UK’s starting fighters and bomber turn one but the German carrier negates that.

Even if the UK focuses completely on their navy, Germany can continue to build up their navy (with mainly subs and the two carriers) and not leave sea zone 5 but statistically be able to win any naval battle against the UK. This certainly means the UK are not defending India or Africa and that will let Japan get out of control.

If the UK builds up in sea zone 6, then Germany simply builds a second carrier and as many subs as necessary to counter the UK instead of transports, this usually leaves left over PUs for infantry. The UK cannot statistically wipe out the German navy on their own this way.

The advantage here to Germany even without sealion is they now have 4 free reusable offensive units (fighters) to relentlessly attack Karelia, Baltic States, East Poland, Belorussia and Archangel and counter attack into Poland, Czech, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway, NW Europe, France and the Balkans if necessary with cheap infantry. This will eventually wear Russia down, especially once Japan starts attacking Russia from the east.

This also allows Germany with subs and the 4 fighters be able to keep sea zones 3, 6 and 7 clear of everything but a very large naval presence.

In most games by the time Germany buys the 7 transports the UK and US will be out of position to defend against it because they only have one turn to do anything.

It is easy to say what you are going to do knowing what I am doing but the whole point is most people are not going to know.

@govz said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

In that case can we add UFOs?

Would they get a bonus movement from an airbase?

I am going to refer to it from now on as magic movement.

Also they should allows tanks to be able to blitz 3 spaces if they leave from a factory something that happens in real life because you can strap fuel cans to the back.

@superbattleshipyamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech

Sure. Of course they can refuel in normal fields.

But there are significant benefits for having an airfield, which is why the countries built one in the first place.

Those “advantages” have nothing to do with magically allowing planes to fly hundreds to thousands of miles further.

Honestly even removing the bonus movement still keeps it unrealistic. If you think one plane moving is the equivalent of one flight, then it doesn’t make sense for strategic bombers to fly from Perth to Kenya in one turn. Even the B-29 is off by 500 kilometres (using ferry range), to say nothing of lesser planes. The Indian Ocean is bigger than what the game simulates.

I never said removing the bonus movement made the game “realistic”, I said it made it more realistic which is something a larger version of this game should being move towards not away from. Everything else you mention are additonal problems.

@superbattleshipyamato You can put more barrels of fuel in a plane anywhere it can land. Here is an aviation fuel dump in China during WWII;

Show me any documentation that planes leaving from an airfield can now magically travel hundreds to thousands of miles further.

@farmboy Actually no the bonus movement is not an abstraction of anything, it is a magical power. Something you find in fantasy games.

The game is largely unbalanced because of Japan and Russia and a total lack of proper play testing. When people do not know how to design a game they add in nonsense instead of fixing the actual problem.

It is not about prioritizing realism, it is about making things semi-logical. Nothing about bonus movement has been argued successfully by anyone here.

@govz said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

the most unrealistic thing

It’s a game. With little plastic pieces. That uses dice to simulate combat.

In that case can we add UFOs?

@imperious-leader said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech LOOK. Airbases are established centers of aerospace logistics. Bombers don’t fuel in open fields, fighters don’t get supplies of ammo and payloads of bombs they precision drop on tanks from mountaintops. Centers where military airbases are located need to be featured in some detail in a game like this. Military bases are not civilian bases. Bombers need long runways to fly off with tons of bombs.

Also, you need some mechanism to damage them just like factories. The idea is not unrealistic. Naval bases have a similar function.

I would have taken it a step further with railroad concentrations that can also be damaged.

Go to Ukraine and see the problems associated with keeping an airbase operational during wartime.

But never complain about this again until you do.

That is nice except you just need a road and supply trucks to make a combat airfield and in most cases just a flat open field.

The German’s had no problem refueling bombers in open fields.

All of your arguments are about WHERE aircraft can take off NOT how far they can fly.

The shipyards already have a useful function, repairing capital ships which is historically realistic and the airfields allowing for a scramble ability is fine. Those do not break the game with fantasy movement.

Ukraine is a second world country with modern jet aircraft not WWII Germany or Japan. The aircraft they have was not designed for combat airfields like WWII aircraft. WWII airframes were built far different than modern aircraft outside of modern aircraft like the A10.