Posts made by rocknroll

some time ago i had this plan as following:

the discussion about it you can find here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20472.0

it is not absolutely clear-cut, but i think worthwhile thinking about. at the time it was made there was only OOB-rule in action. maybe it works better with alpha 2+ since fighters can scramble from any coastal territory with an airbase in it.

but, i think this one can be optimized to a real bad strategy, bad for russia, of course! :D

let us assume the britisch fleet is sunk, france conquered. the G1-build is three transports and a destroyer acompanying the fleet in sea zone 112 (Battleship, cruiser, transport). this all sums up to a considerable force able to threat the uk and russia at the same time, hoping the british is bulding up a home defence with more infantry than fleet components.

If you build a naval base in finland in G2, is it possible to use it in the baltic sea sea zone 115 as well as in sea zone 127. i am trying to plot a shuck-strategy from western germany to russia in the north sake of widening the frontline deep into the russian north.

instead of trying a sea-lion you go to finland via the baltic sea with the complete fleet in G2 buying mostly infantry with some artillery and a naval base in finland! (and subs for naval “defence”), return to sea zone 112 in G3 building the same as in G2, you can land in G4 in northern russia (novgorod, karelia, archangelsk, nenetsia).

in G1 there come two infantry to norway with the first transport. finland gets activated by the two infantry originated from norway, counts up to six infantry. in G2 more eight (maybe a tank, artillery etc.) to finland. in G3 more eight troops from germany to norway with the fleet on the way back from finland. in G4 once again, but this time to novgorod!
in total: 32 troops in scandinavia! (23/24 in karelia etc., eight in norway)

If you attack in G3 to conquer karelia and vyborg germany should have 16 troops available to achieve this. meanwhile it should be clear to conquer and trying to hold the baltic states, just for the tanks getting trough there to novgorod in G4 etc. therefor the massive infantry builds in G1 and G2.
at the same time germany should be able to bring in 15/16 troops to novgorod from the north, eight with the fleet plus troops from the baltic states, mech infantry, tanks, airplanes (all of them).
russia can sum up not more than 20 infantry, three planes (two fighters, one tactical bomber), three artillery, some tanks (depends on russian buys).

what do you think? is it a good idea or just waste of material?
what counter-strategies could be applied? is the building of a naval base in finland too obvious?
what specific buys for germany, the uk and for russia would you suggest? etc.
how should italy assist? from I1 on bringing troops to southern russia or not?

i think this strategy is useful for a real attack there or just for feint it. so it could be possibly make it a lot easier to go through the ukraine instead, because the russian troops have to mass in the north seeing a big attack coming.

if it successful, russia would have lost more than two thirds of its army, leaving a lot territories open to be conquered.

rock`n roll! :D

i only raid if i don´t need any of my bombers. sometime, even if i do not need them i won´t raid, because i don´t want to loose him to fulfill a very special and important task. after this, no problem with SBR.

but as a stratey it never worked really, did it? is it possible to take down UK, for example, by SBRing it?

rock`n roll

since russia cannot hold out until the bloody end, russia should secure as much material as possible.
since infantry is too slow to achieve this, i have been thinking about buying mostly mech inf for russia, too. what helps germany can help russia in the same manner.
mostly it comes down to germany taking leningrad first, then going via belarus, briansk - taking ukraine meanwhile - to moscow, when i am not mistaken.

IF leningrad is threatened by a decent german force, a retreat to belarus is no help, since the same force can be beaten there instead. so a retreat via archangelsk is fine or a faster force which can joy troops positioned in briansk to fortify there.

any mobile troops not lost are better then massive infantry buys lost, imho.
so, just fortifiying cities, makes no sense, except in moscow as a capital city.

greetings

rock`n roll

P.S. Cmdr Jennifer: what do want to express with the attribute “Flottentöterin”? annihilator, murderer, killer, destroyer of the fleets? i guess “Flottenvernichterin” would be better since this means annihilatress or destroyer of the fleets. :D

back again :)

thanx for replying, xandax. i hope, you don´t get annoyed by me insisting in details etc. ;) i like this discussion since it gave me some valid points worth trying something different sake of a fun game. thanx for that.

but here we go:

@Xandax:

@rock`n:

first of all, a sealion does not “get the USA out of the pacific”. why you assume this? strange to me, this is why i ask.

Because otherwise the west coast lies open to invasion forces from Italy/Germany.
The US better not continue to dump resources into Pacific if there’s no block between Germany and mainland.

hmmm…maybe i should clarify this.
it is huge difference between going 100% pacific, mostly pacific, 50/50, mostly europe and 100% europe. a large scale the US can cover. and well, most likely a sealion-maneuver will occure on G3, so the US can prepare properly. because the “cards are shown” by the germans.
well, i believe, that germany looses too much in troops etc. that the US won´t need so much to invest to get all done, what has to be done: taking back london and sinking a small german navy
what it is then exactly depends on the buys of the axis player(s).

@Xandax:

@rock`n:

second, i have to admit, that til today you did not challenge my notion in any way. you just kept repeating your opinion without any basis, just repeating that it works, what you propose, and therefor it worked, because you proposed it.

that is what i got, no offense!

rock`n roll

I’ve not really seen anything to suggest it is a loosing strategy to take England, other than it being repeated numerous times.
Taking an enemy out of the game can never be a loosing strategy.

hmm, then you have overlooked my two arguments:

a) ECONOMY: economicly spoken, sealion is a desaster. you invest too much in somewhat you loose soon after having taken. any IPCs taken from the UK-europe is not enough to compensate the loss of valuable troops, planes and your navy. you take london with a huge effort just to loose it for - in comparison to the effort done - mostly no cost to the US and the other allies.

b) TIME: you waste time in achieving which at last you have to achieve anyway. taking all three russian cities and cairo to win. you give as a present to russia 111 IPCs to 148 IPCs to build up a decent defensive force which is able to contain germany. not to win, but to contain!

c) STRATEGY: it is already hard to win on the europe-stand-alone-board. in global it is even harder. so the chances to win via sealion TEND to zero. i know there is still a little possibility to win, but only due to lucky dices, which - imho - represents NO winning strategy. too many battles with an 50/50 outcome, no sure “things” etc. so it is likely that you loose more than you win with it. (just like “special forces” commented it).

rock`n roll.

P.S.: but it is fun to take london. :D so i do this, but if i am determined to win, i leave it aside.
P.P.S.: did you study my barbarossa-scheme? what do think about it?

last, but not least. :)
thahanx for answering.

@KillOFzee:

Rock’n’Roll, on my first turn, I buy three transports, 1 sub, and 1 inf. I destroy the entire North Atlantic Fleet, Capture France, and move 15+ inf on the front line.

then you have a BB, a cruiser and sub plus three fighters for defence in w.germany or sz 112, right? i don´t know if i would risk my fleet this way…a cruiser, 4 fighters in range to attack. i´d say your fleet will be sunk. so  no sea-lion anyway. am i mistaken?
if you leave the german fleet in sz 113 the cruiser is good block for a G2-sealion.

@KillOFzee:

Second turn: If England builds 10 inf and does Taranto, i invade England with 3 tanks, 4 inf, and 1 art. I also send 3 fighters, 3 tact bombers, and 1 strat bomber.

see above.

@KillOFzee:

That’s a total combat value of 44. The English would have a combat value of (10 inf @ 2 + 4 3 fighters @ 4) 32. I also have naval bombardment. This means England MUST abandon Taranto and move to sz 112 to prevent a G2 Sea-lion.

why? the taranto-fleet (alpha 2+) is positioned at egypt the could not get to germany anyway. the cruiser at gibraltar is the counter plus planes. sea above ;) no need to abandon taranto-raids.

@KillOFzee:

If the English DID block Sea-lion than I simply invade Russia. If Leningrad is heavily defended with “20 infantry plus 1 or 2 artillery, maybe a tank and 2 fighters and a tactical,” than #1 I land in Vyborg and allow for a PENTA(?)* attack into Leningrad on Turn 3, and #2 I Send armor and mechs in south Russia to capture the more valuable territory.

okay landing, only, IF the above did not happen. another point: to split up the attacking force in russia is a bad idea, imho. it gets easily defeated there. you only have a chance as germany, if you have ony ONE BIG stack.

@KillOFzee:

So if I take Leningrad on turn 3, that only leaves 3 turns to get to Russia itself. I will also be able to ferry more units in directly from Germany into Lenningrad for more Firepower in Russia.

right-

@KillOFzee:

*My FIVE pronged attack will come from:
1. My main force in the Baltic States (9 inf, 4 art) Combat value = 21
2. The 3 tanks, 4 inf, and 1 art from England which I landed in Vyborg in G2  (C. V. = 16)
3. 6 inf from Finland to Karelia (Combat value = 6)
4. An amphibious assault with the transports, picking up units from Germany and moving directly into Leningrad, could be a combo of different units, 4 inf 4 art most likely (C. V. = 16) Plus Naval bombardment.
5. The remaining Luftwaffe, 3 fighters, 3 tac bombers, 1 strat bomber (C.V. 25)
Total Combat Value (21 + 16 + 6 + 16 + 25) = 84 Almost unstoppable
So if and when the Leningrad garrison is destroyed, it’s a clear path to Russia. I don’t care if my navy (which I only invested 27 IPCs in) is stuck in the Baltic sea. That’s all I want from it.

okay, landing on G2 in vyborg etc. is impossible sake of the russian fleet blocking. but you can land `em in the baltic AFTER the russian fleet went down and you captured the baltic states. so is no PENTA, “just” QUAD. ;) since there would not be any german transport it goes down to TRIA. and this can get made DIA if a strafing attack in the baltic is made successfully. AND russia is able to counterattack the same round the karelia-“stack”. but i wouldn´t recommend a double-counter. just one. which one? depends the outcome of G1. i´d tend towards karelia, because this way it is easier to take germany a NO away and gain points as Russia since there is no german fleet.

right or wrong? we´ll see,

greetings
rock`n roll

thanx for your answer, jimihat. i appreciate it. :)

let´s get it on…:
@JimmyHat:

After a successful Sealion I like to leave my fleet in the north sea and invade the arctic ocean so that I can reach Novgorod and save Norway/finland from the russians.  I will go through the baltic if I can hit the Russian bb in the process.  G4 is the round after the fall of England, usually my fleet is consolidating in the northsea, bringing some remaining tanks from England back to Europe.

I think the biggest thing to keep Germany alive is your G4 purchase.  Most likely you’re going to need a ftr or 2 that you lost over England, also a dd to block the US fleet when the time is right.  Everything else should go towards armor with perhaps 4 inf.  This purchase means that when Russia advances into Europe you already will have a nice counter punch. G5 and on build inf.  If Russia lunges too far into Europe, count a win for Germany, you can land in novogorod and beat his army back to Mosocow.  This happened in one of my games, he threw 8 armor and a bunch of inf into Yugo.  We traded the balkans for a while and he put a heavy threat on NItaly, but my Germ army was marching to moscow and captured it.

I also tend to get art early for Germany, I’ll actually stack more art than inf in my lead stack.  Thats because in later rounds, when I have novgorod from my trns fleet I can build inf there and mechs in Germany to use the artillery bonus.

Lastly, when you approach Moscow you might find the need to switch to a southerly axis to capture Stalingrad before hitting Moscow.  This is where mech inf are really going to come in handy, and perhaps an Italian can opener or two.

1.) you really want to invade the arctic ocean? or did you mean atlantic ocean? i hope so ;) if yes, how? subs?

2.) if a russian player is this stupid then he has to loose. as russia noone can withstand against the axis in the balcans. i´d maybe attack romania or karelia, but nothing more, because of getting defeated so easily by a newly built german force.

3.) so you build mostly infantry. ok. this means, if built in G5, as you mentioned it, G6 in leningrad, at earliest in moscow at G9, then. right? a landing in leningrad in G5 can be delayed by the russian BB. so you´ll be in leningrad on G6, not earlier. etc. but i agree with you, IF russia leaves a big stack in leningrad AND gets defeated, then the count is on.

in your case til round 10. good luck! ;) (assuming the US gets japan contained in 6 rounds, then it is going to say bye-bye to an axis win in europe too.)

rock`n roll

hello xandax,

thanx for answering. i am sorry that it took time to answer. have a “hard” weekend behind  me. :D

okay back to topic:

@Xandax:

Well, you assume Russia will fall if you go in G1 and will win the game.

no, never before G2! and yes i assume a decent attack on G2 only russia will win this game for the axis.
i write this knowing that extreme dice rolls kill every strategy.

@Xandax:

Mobilize to take England is a strategy. If you want the tactical play-by-play per turn,  then I will not give you a play-by-play of each turn from 1 to 7 simply because it is irrelevant and each move can be questioned when having the perfect information with “But why did England not do X in turn 1, so you couldn’t do Y in turn 5”. Such discussions never serve anything. It is the overall picture that we’re talking.

may be you got me wrong. i don´t want EVERYTHING in detail, but some more detailed info than everything you wrote in this thread, this post included. so i have to come to the conclusion that you do not follow a decent strategy, instead, that you follow just the buys your opponents do. i hope i am wrong!

look it is easy to do what i requested: example… G1 buy this and that, clear sea from uk, build up for xyz in you-kno-where. G2. because of this and that, and assuming the outcome of…i buy…etc. it is possible and you actually don´t need to clarify it once more, that it is not. a GENERAL outline with some aspects - call it stages, if you like - on which you would lay a focus. can you do this to me? thanx in advance. ;)

@Xandax:

It is literally simple enough. Taking England does not loose the war.
The strategy is simple. If wanting to do Sealion - do it in G2 or G3 if possible. If not wanting to do Sealion, don’t.

i agree with your last sentence, not with the first one. but we know this already. so it is getting reptitive. i stop with repeating that here. ;)

@Xandax:

It is your claim that it is an automatic loss that’s the strange bit because I’ve never once seen anything to say it is an automatic loss. It all hinges on that you can win taking Russia without taking England, but that does in no way, shape or form, infer that taking England means you can’t win.
You’re free to believe it if you want, but a belief does not make it true for anybody else.

ok, you got me wrong. ;)

@Xandax:

Seeing as you have no transport, have shown that you wish to move into Russia (possible even building the Romanian factory)- there’s no reason to defend England for two turns minimum.

well i sea a reason and i call it 60 IPCs in german hands.

@Xandax:

Buy some navy and buy some planes to rule the sea, buy some troops in South Africa. Take Norway or Denmark after a few rounds of navy just to disrupt. Fly planes to Russia to defend.

no need for repeating the same answer, but to ask, how you want to fly planes from UK to russia (except bombers)? the answer should be interesting, i guess. ;)

@Xandax:

No need to spend all your IPCs on infantry for two rounds. If England does this (buys infantry) regardless of Germany move in your games, well - then I understand why England is ignored by you because then they truly set themselves up to be irrelevant in the European scene.

well, i never wrote “all infantry”…but to build up invasion forces does not make anyone irrevant, especially not the UK in this game.

@Xandax:

If Germany starts buying transports at turn 3 or 4, it’s easy enough to build up infantry at that time after the transport purchase - unless England already rules the sea and air.
And if you wain until turn 6 or 7 or later - there’s a large possibility USA will have all but contained Japan enough that they can start fortify England with planes or put out a navy to scare off any invasion fleet or move into the Med.

this, of course, would be definitely too late, if not properly done, which means building a huge navy the same round. but actually it is not needed, because you can defend the continent in this situation quite well for some rounds. better than with navy only. so no need for transports.

@Xandax:

@rock`n:

@Xandax:

USA will have to react to England’s capture or be push right out of European theatre thus potentially giving Japan more free reigns. Effectively Sealion forces the USA to split resources in a much higher degree than otherwise, something Japan usually will benefit from.

“potentially”…there you have it. but not really. the one way or another, london will fall soon back to allied´s hands and therefor is not this much needed to get this done. even to deny a german recapture it is only needed to take or block denmark (italy left aside here).

Everything is potential in this game. It’s potential you’ll take Russia without Sealion and it’s only potential that London will “fall soon back” as well.
And even if London is retaken, you’ve forced enough dedication of resources not used elsewhere. As said - getting the USA out of the Pacific is a major boon for Japan. The USA going all-in in the Pacific is hard on Japan. Just as USA going all-in in Europe, is hard on Germany/Italy. Splitting up the US benefits both Axis sides very much.
I’m not here to convince you to do Sealion, I’m here to challenge your notion that it is automatic loss for Axis.

first of all, a sealion does not “get the USA out of the pacific”. why you assume this? strange to me, this is why i ask.
second, i have to admit, that til today you did not challenge my notion in any way. you just kept repeating your opinion without any basis, just repeating that it works, what you propose, and therefor it worked, because you proposed it.

that is what i got, no offense!

rock`n roll

@Gargantua:

It’s a dead end.  But you have to threaten it.

Unless they do something stupid.

hello gargantua,

can you please explain why you came to this conclusion? it would be helpful to this discussion, i guess.

rock`n roll

@all: thanx for joining this thread. :)

okay, killofzee, xandax and jimmyhat: can anyone of you outline how you would buy, move, fight etc.?

til today i have not seen a strategy of winning this game, only a strategy - if you like to call this way - of taking london. about what happenes afterwards just the assumption that russia will definitely fall. but how???

to answer to you three properly i need to know in which manner you would like to win this game.

and: the first two turns, britain has to prepare against sealion anyway. always for two turns minimum. not earlier than UK2 it would become obvious if germany goes east or west. ;)

@ jimmi hat: britain cannot run wild. it doesn´t have sufficient ipcs to do so. italy  - in a direct-barbarossa-game - would “cover” britain in the med enough that england cannot spend as much as wanted against germany, believe me.

@ killofzee
@KillOFzee:

You’re points are all too short sighted. Losing your entire air force to eliminate the English player completely, along with gaining money and ground to make naval strikes, is worth it in the long run.

which naval strike? you will go into the baltic sea and then get bottled in by the US. no ground for naval strikes…you want to buy navy then? well this helps russia even more. well done! :)

@KillOFzee:

Point 5: Well if America doesn’t give a F*** then you get a victory city, money and get to keep the English player out of the game
Point 6: Without the English, your navy doesn’t have any deterrents besides America, and if they’re not at war then yes, you’re navy is free to act where it wants.

is it? it is free to die fast! against the american navy there is no way out then going into the baltic.

@KillOFzee:

@rock`n:

point 1: barbarossa should start at latest on G2, so nothing about it with “much quicker”,
point 2: which is therefor well defended, not to get in with 8 troops and58 planes…,
point 3: how???
point 4: only 8, moscow is not nearby the baltic sea…well…

Point 1:You’re right, it will happen either way.
Point 2:The Russians will not have a significant force in Leningrad after 1 turn, unless they abandon, Belarus, East Poland, and the Baltic states, which means you’ll just have that much of a bigger force from Poland, Finland, and you’re amphibious attackers.

finland is two turns from leningrad, so you can count them out. as russia you can manage to have 20 infantry plus 1 or 2 artillery, maybe a tank and 2 fighters and a tactical. you cannot beat this force with 4 transports meaning 8 troops and rest planes! and even if you do so it will cost you too much to continue winning.

@KillOFzee:

Point 3:The British are forced to spend only on England, which means not purchasing units for Africa, and possibly abandoning Taranto to defend the English Channel.

hmm, taranto is a must-have as britain. if not done, italy is kind of free to act. well, no.

@KillOFzee:

Point 4:Doesn’t matter where Moscow is, you are able to move ground units directly from Germany into Leningrad, saving you 4 spaces. It makes it that much quicker to get into Moscow.

4 spaces? at most 3, if you go between leningrad and berlin, between leningrad an w.germany are 2 seazones, so your “speed” would only be in action every two rounds.
anyway from leningrad to moscow there 3 more spaces, after a sealion fulfilled you land on G5 at earliest in leningrad, maybe, plus 3 turns more to moscow plus one turn more holding 8 VCs.
it means in round 8 (!) you must have done it. 7 are needed by the allies to inhibit this effectively…this makes you one round short, no two!

@xandax
@Xandax:

It is neither a dead end nor a win-win, it depends on too many factors. However, it isn’t an automatic loose to invade England, especially if you actually take England, then you’re in a good position onwards. I’ve also seen absolutely nothing to indicate it is a loose strategy.

see above, please outline your strategy! then i can answer properly.

@Xandax:

So, while I don’t think Sealion is a needed strategy, it is a neeed build process G1. For many of the same reasons outlined in the previous posts.
If you show your hand in G1 and signal clearly a Russian invasion - England will run wild and South Africa is effectively lost for Italy as I see it. If you at least threaten invasion, England has to plan accordingly and all things equal, Italy will have easier time in Africa/Med.

same thing, see above: britain has to build up home defence anyway til round 2!

@Xandax:

Taking England offers large tactical advantage in threathening the USA and provide additional income for the Russian campaign. Russia usually needs to play defensive as well, so even with a Sealion they can’t push far enough into Germany at the risk of spreading too thin and allowing the invetable invasion to just run over them.

they cannot push in neither way, barbarossa with or without sealion. but it can harass germany a lot, e.g. in norway or romania, just to mention two examples where, not how. if sealion is done, russia can take over those mentioned territories thus delaying a german approach. blocking a landing in the baltic sea for one more turn is also quite possible, depends on the german player being attentive or not.
and yes, spreading too thin is suicide, but not only for russia.

@Xandax:

USA will have to react to England’s capture or be push right out of European theatre thus potentially giving Japan more free reigns. Effectively Sealion forces the USA to split resources in a much higher degree than otherwise, something Japan usually will benefit from.

“potentially”…there you have it. but not really. the one way or another, london will fall soon back to allied´s hands and therefor is not this much needed to get this done. even to deny a german recapture it is only needed to take or block denmark (italy left aside here).

@Xandax:

And if not doing a Sealion the transports can still be used in the Russia push.

i know, that is not questioned.

greetings and thanx for your answers

rock`n roll

hello KillOFzee,

thanx for hopping in here. :)

@KillOFzee:

@KillOFzee:

Part 1: WHAT GERMANY DOES.

The most important thing that Germany must do, is build several transports on G1, and put them in position for sea-lion. So, effectively, you could invade England with 8 ground units, and up to 8 planes. That usually wins no matter who your facing. So on G2 you could likely take England AND invade Russia from the west, using your massive G2 money for Russia.

But let’s assume low luck…you lose two fighters and a tactical bomber in your Atlantic battle, and all your subs. England still has nothing to protect his coast. You will still be able to invade with 8 ground units, 2 fighters, 2 tac bombers, and a bomber.

Part 2: WHAT ENGLAND DOES

No matter what the outcome of the first turn was, England MUST prepare for sea-lion. That means buying no less than 9 infantry to place in London. Depending on how well you did in the North Atlantic, the English player will most likely have to abandon a Taranto raid in order to protect is coast. If there are no ships in the English Channel, than Germany can just continue to land soldier in England at will.

PART 3: THE BENEFITS

Germany can control what England does in the first turn, and if the English player does not do the above moves, then London will fall. But let’s say that the English player does do well to protect himself, and defends London properly. This is just a greater benefit for Germany.

Without a doubt, a planned sea-lion is the most effective move the Germans can make. Executing Sea-lion in G3 may become risky however, to to the fact that it will take longer to invade Russia. If your invasion into England does not seem like it will work, invade Leningrad, it will be nowhere near as well defended as England.

@KillOFzee:

• If London is not defended

-Sea-lion can take effect
-You will receive 30 IPCs from London, and another 8 per turn from the territory
-You eliminate an English player
-You free up Italy in Africa and the Med
-You force America to attack England instead of mainland Europe later on
-Your navy is free to act where it wants to***

@KillOFzee:

• If London is defended

-Barbarossa will come much quicker.
-You have that same attacking force to invade Leningrad***
-You free up Italy in Africa and the Med.
-You can mobilize more units along the Baltic sea.***

any game reports?

turn 2, massive builds of mechanized infantry helps solving problems in reinforcing german troops. any turn later makes it real hard for winning as germany.

(and IF japan does not attack earlier then J3, it keeps the US far away from any war in europe.)

to xandax and any other one interested in discussing the viability of sealion etc.:

i don´t want to fill this thread with more “off-topic”, therefor i created another one, come on over here.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23612.new#new

greetings

rock`n roll

okay let us continue over here…coming from here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23503.0

my thesis is:

i am not convinced that building up a german navy is a wise decision. sealion is a dead end! once planned and bought this way, germany is doomed to loose the game.
i think it is a dead end, because of way too much ipcs invested in effectively  - economically spoken - no gain. well, uk can be cut out from game for two rounds, that is a good thing. no way to argue. but meanwhile russia gets too big to be conquered. (as russia i would not suggest attacking any german territory in range of the sealion-fleet.) in the long distance, imho, sealion is no game-winner.

only with lucky dices…

another important point is: TIME!
you just do not have sufficient time as germany to do sealion AND barbarossa! calculate 3 rounds for sealion, two turns to get all material from the UK to russia plus minimum 4 more turns to conquer russia - heavily fortified. you need to hold 8 VCs for one turn (london will fall to the USA, so you have to go moscow anyway), which in this phase of the game is nearly not possible.
only due to lucky dices. summa summarum already 9/10 turns.

rock`n roll

P.S.:
@Xandax:

@rock`n:

<snip>i do not agree, as you know already. never seen sealion work AND the axis winning afterwards. that sealion works, no doubt, but only with the price of loosing the european board.</snip>

That you’ve not seen it happen is not the same as it a) can’t happen and b) can’t win the game.

well i agree with you in a), with b) only, if your opponent must have been sleeping. sorry, no offense.

@Xandax:

The only time I’ve won OOB as Axis was with Sealion. In that game, removing England caused Italy to become very powerful, very fast - even to the point where it was throwing tanks into Calcuatta, had taken South Russia, the entire Africa and was playing catch with the USA.

okay, get some more details written, please. which round happened what?

@Xandax:

Sure, the game might have looked different if I got diced on Sealion, but well …. you can plan with the dice, but you can’t control them.

this is kind of obvious, isn´t it? :D

@Xandax:

I’m sure you can win the game without, but well - that’s not really the issue and frankly, I do not care that people win doing only Barbarossa. The issue is that you claim it is a “dead end” and will cause you to loose the game. Well, others disagree, not just me, and use the tactic to great advantage.

you are right, that was never the issue. but as i told you from the beginning on, that i am not convinced, that an axis-party doing sealion wins afterwards. so please, convince me! when you do what? how? etc.

i hate it to repeat myself, but i will do it for you:
could you please outline your “viable strategy”? all i have read is: “sealion then barbarossa then victory”

without any details! (where you go with what? in which turn you want to achieve which conquest etc. maybe with some estimated numbers of units you throw in there etc. …)

@Xandax:

And no, the game isn’t poker, but that does not change the fact that if you’re a one trick pony, and always visible go for Russia, it’s much much easier to counter, than if the enemy doesn’t know which direction you go and must plan accordingly. And heck - I’d find it a very dull game if it was always a rush for Russia. Doubt I’d even play it much then.
So I’m glad Sealion is a viable alternative for me.

i concord with that. it would be dull, otherwise i realized that sealion is - imho - a loosing strat.
so once more: how many games you played in total? how many with sealion? how many won with sealion? (okay the last you answered already, one game.)

P.P.S.:
hoping you read my barbarossa-strat, how would you counter that?

EDIT:
when i speak of barbarossa i mean a G2-attack consisting of all infantry in the east, massive builds of mechanized infantry, some tanks. moving to eastern poland, pausing one turn, then belarus, bryansk, moscow. if not G6 then G7. builds are til G4 mostly mech, a sub per turn. after G5 only defensive builds and  etc.
leaving yugoslavia to italy, taking finland, bulgaria, greece, helping with planes in the med.
better described here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0

@Xandax:

It’s as much a “viable strategy” as saying Barbarossa, but it isn’t as such a “play-by-play” strategy, but more opening up different possibilities and then capitalizing on the opportunities as they arise.

what do you mean by play-by-play? i do not understand it clearly…

@Xandax:

You’re also much more able to pressure the Allies into making tactical mistakes if you do not go one route only. If you only open up for Barbarossa, England is “safe” and will build accordingly - if you make a move which indicates both, you force the Allies to plan accordingly and open up for the tactical blunders.

i understand this point, but it is too costly in this game to poker, i think. time is the answer, IF having two more rounds being able to “blunder” - yeah - come on sealion! . but as it is, it is not the case…so i prefer the safer way…going directly with fast units, just crushing in. check put here, post #10: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0

@Xandax:

So I generally do the pretty standard opening with Germany aka kill off as much navy as possible and all that, and I do buy 2 transports. Then if England opens herself up I can move for a quick Sealion in G2 or G3 or use the transports to hit Russia or …. and so on. 
And if you get London - Italy will have a much easier time in Africa (until the US potentially comes along) and you can then use Italy to push Syria -> South USSR or even push Persia -> India.
Heck - my last game, I had Italy landing troops in central America, just to goat the US into the European theater as they were pounding hard on Japan and Japan was about to crumble. It worked.

well too many “IFs” in here. as UK you have always to prepare against a german landing. so there is no G2-landing-option. if G3, then italy is mostly in vain trying to get out of 10+x ipc-area. but then the us can get in the game. and well, if you “push” against persia, then africa is free from italian soldiers. you cannot have both, except the british player does not see, what is coming.

@Xandax:

So as said - it’s more about not closing yourself off too fast. If showing your hand in turn 1, you can effectively plan the entire game, baring dice luck.

this is no poker-game here…!  8-) :-D

@Xandax:

Sealion works as well as Barbaross and I have seen nothing to indicate that it is a “dead end”. In fact, it looks to open up the game so much more.

i do not agree, as you know already. never seen sealion work AND the axis winning afterwards. that sealion works, no doubt, but only with the price of loosing the european board.

so…same questions to you:
how many games did you play? how many with sealion? how many did you win?

@Young:

When I take London, I do so with the satisfaction that I will confiscate over $25 from my enemy and I hold London with the satisfaction that my enemy will never again place units on the board. You can understand that advantage alone. I get the whole 8 VC thing but our group games last 12 hours and most times we are no where close to the end game outlined in the rule book, therefore we accept and offer surrenders.

that is one point. a game doenst need to last 12 hours equaling 12 rounds. you can get it done in 7! ;) by the way, without sealion… pressuring the allies, speeding up the game with the axis. it has an interessting effect on allied buys. :)

@Young:

Yes Africa is huge and I have seen Italy take it all in three games and have heard stories of other games where the same thing happened. In one case Italy (with income & bonuses) was the richest power in the game, but I’m not saying its easy or won’t take a lot of turns. I’m just saying that its more than possible.

i have to admit, i can not imagine this! it is unlikely that this happens, not impossible, though, but a good allied player gets italy contained.

@Young:

As for Russia, I know I said 4 buffer zones but now that I think about it, I can easily take and hold Baltic States, Eastern Poland, Western Ukraine, and Bessarabia, and with my 10 transports (11 including my startup) I can take Leningrad in one well planned attack. As for the Ukraine IC, it will only be a matter of time especially if I strategic bomb it. I can do all this because of the boat load of money I am making each turn ($10 for Britain and Scottland + $5 NO for holding London).

for how many turns? you know that taking denmark an uk in the same turn, denies a retaking-manuever by germany? for two turns at maximum then…which means, 90 IPCs invested to gain 45 IPCs…

@Young:

By this time (2 am) the UK is out of the mix and the US can’t land because of a strong Italian military and if they do there is no support from the UK and their supply line is way to long. even if the Japs are pinned to their Island, the Axis are in a strong position to get a surrender even without Moscow.

about which round you are talking?

@Young:

Conversely, if I don’t attempt operation sea lion, I stand to lose a lot of money including my NO for holding london, Britain will continue to build and could easily take away my Denmark NO and collect their no submarines NO in due time. I would be so spread thin by trying to take Moscow that a back door invasion would be all to threatening.

actually you don´t loose in a manner. and britain taking “easily” anything, who said that? not me… ;)
and back door invasion? hmmm-…actually everbody awaits an invasion. it is a matter of time only

@Young:

With Sea lion being such a standard no brainer for Germany, I have a strategy to get it back at all cost when I play the allies or the UK, because I understand how devastating it is to my war effort if I don’t, and the players I play against also see the advantages of sea lion when they play germany.

no problem with that.

@Young:

you see sea lion is a whole lot more than just a cool maneuver, but I am interested to hear in detail how a Barbarossa operation instead of sea lion plays out. Do you still wipe out france and what happens to your west coast after you head east, how much money are you collecting from turn to turn, and more in line with the topic of this thread…… what are you buying?

pleas check out here:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0 from reply #10 on…

it began as oob-variant, but can adapted to alpha 2+ without any problems, since germany has more troops availabe. italy as well. britain gets pressured, russia, too. russia in a fast game very soon, G2.

in this play, britain is too slow to stop a german advance into russia, a “backdoor”-invasion is welcome, as this helps italy getting valuable places in n.africa and the middle east

please read it first, than lets discuss more on.

but i have some questions: how many games did you play? how many with sealion? how many you won with that?

greetings

rock`n roll

@xandax:
russia will turtle anyway. the point is, how much time you give her! i´d say as less as possible…

but could you please outline your “viable strategy”? all i have read is virtually “sealion then barbarossa”, without any details! (where you go with what? in which turn you want to achieve which conquest etc. maybe with some estimated numbers of units you throw in there etc. …)

another thing: it is even not doubted that the UK and the USA will be able to take away some african possessions or even get into the normandy etc. the point is, how to deal with it. is it possible to delay that or to deny the allies any advantages out of that like the ability of producing etc.

@ grasshopper:
leaving german units in london helps russia even more! taking london is without any doubt a cool maneuver, but, imho, does not help winning this game, which is done holding 8 VCs in Europe OR 6 in the pacific. the latter is more difficult to achieve, i think.

and did you realize, that africa is huge? you cannot get it in just three or four turns! i have never seen an allied-free africa in any game! or italy even taking south africa…and therefor you don´t have to buy three tanks a turn as the british, two inf minimum already can do.

what countries do you mean by “buffer zones” to be hammered? and when i am not mistaken, all russian ICs are minimum two steps from germany´s border away.

@both: did you ever win with sealion and etc.? ;)

edit: i refer myself to this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22840.0
originally made for OOB, but still valuable for alpha 2+ since germany and italy have more units than before. please countercheck it first, then post answers. there you will see my “evolution” in german buys…

i understand your point. i - some time ago - thought for myself the same way, but i realized the following mistake in thinking you clearly stated:

@Xandax:

If you can’t take England and keep Russia at bay, I doubt you can’t take on Russia and keep England at bay.

thanx for that, by the way.
it is a kind of a logical error which you proposed. the logic seams right, but only in logical thinking, not in fact. it is not germany alone who keeps the uk at bay. it is the axis, italy AND germany. it is this very special task for italy to do so.

as germany it is well more possible to have troops on land against russia and winning this european theater, than having a navy which cannot be defended well against a determined allied force and used only once after britain fell. more than 90 IPCs wasted to gain 30, if lucky 60??? nothing for me…

another important point is: TIME!
you just do not have sufficient time as germany to do sealion AND barbarossa! calculate 3 rounds for sealion - optimistic version - two turns to get all material from the UK to russia plus minimum 4 more turns to conquer russia - this time heavily fortified. you need to hold 8 VCs for one turn (london will fall to the USA, so you have to go moscow anyway :D), which in this phase of the game is nearly not possible, only due to lucky dices. summa summarum already 9/10 turns.

and even if sealion will be staged, the USA can afford to invest fully in the pacific for two rounds just for keeping up the pace with japan. turn three and four investing mostly in europe won´t stall this process. it is the AXIS who has to CONQUER territory and the ALLIES to DEFEND!

i think it is a dead end, because of way too much ipcs invested in effectively  - economically spoken - no gain. well, uk can be cut out from game for two rounds, that is a good thing. no way to argue. but meanwhile russia gets too big to be conquered. (as russia i would not suggest attacking any german territory in range of the sealion-fleet.) in the long distance, imho, sealion is no game-winner. only with lucky dices…

it takes germany at minimum three rounds to fulfill an operation sealion. 111 ipcs for russia to spend with no risk of loosing, positioning well etc. even if japan attacks on the other side…who cares?

and : a sealion forces the US to take action in the european part of the game, but with its huge income it is no problem for them to deal with this, isn´t it?

now it is your turn… ;)

okay, opinion accepted.  :-)

but can you do me a favor, please? can you outline why it is “most definitely not a dead end?”

without this it is just a lone shout in a dark forest anywhere… ;)