Operation Sealion a Possibility with AA1940 Europe?

[maverick_76]

Yeah so back to seali..oh look a bird!

[SgtBlitz]

K, so...

Consensus is that taking capitals DOESN'T get you all the fallen side's income, plus DOESN'T knock the opponent out of the war (i.e., we want the person playing France to do more than get drinks for everyone the next 90% of the game...)  So, seeing this, it may NOT be in the Axis' best interest to shoot for the capitals at game start with these rule changes/additions.  Maybe Paris, but definitely not London.  If the UK is getting 40+ IPCs at game start taking 8 IPCs for the capital will barely make a dent in their production, even with losing a turn's worth of IPCs and needing to build factories elsewhere.

Operation Sealion is definitely not a possibility then.  Only if there was some rule that allowed the Axis to change history by seizing the French fleet at Marseilles intact or allowing the Germans to invade/garrison Spain to strike Gibraltar would it even be barely viable economically.  Otherwise the risk in building fleet and transports just isn't worth the cost.

So, perhaps starvation, limitation of resources would be the only viable strategy; i.e., the traditional Axis and Allies game where the Axis gradually tip the world's IPC balance in their favor over many many turns?  With this mindset in place, the game will definitely end up being another dragged-out game of attrition that will play pretty much the same as all our old games... 

BLEH.

[idk_iam_swiss]

idk about that. That axis are outnumbered Germany can and will crush france. but after that you have a huge dillema. Attack the USSR, who will be building up a force to crush you, or step in and stop the landing bad for the allies. Africa wont be the sterotypical "two fights determine who gets it dealeo" Italy is going to have its hands full. Remember Larry ditched the "vichy ����" That extra 8 IPC that is normally sooo easy to grab, wont be that way. Its going to be a race, a huge race. Not a buildup. If tha Axis stop pushing they start getting sqeezed. America makes a TON in this game. It shouldnt be a WWI knock down fight, Unless you plan to lose. AND not have fun. you can still build a minor IC in africa and torment the little italian guy.

[maverick_76]

Ok guys sorry about the last post, I was well....distracted lol.

But I think we should instead implement victory cities, just as cities are the lifeblood of economy and manufacturing so shall they be the lifeblood of a power. I think we use historical powerhouse economic centers for VC's in the game, and every one has a IC of course. The territory that the VC is in has an IPC value and only that will be lost if the VC is taken. The country can still fight on regardless if Moscow or Stalingrad were taken, just as they would in real life. Also another bonus would be that we can shorten or lengthen games based on how many VC's there are on each side. We could either do total war where the Allies fight until they are annihilated or the Axis as well. Then from there we could scale back the game to fit everyone's time needs; some people have only a weekend with maybe an hour a day to play to be able to finish a game while some people play 12 hour sessions, finishing multiple games in that span. So with this we can all finally play a game that could fit anyone's time requirements. Also we could still do the game in a traditional manner and if two allies fall Axis win and if the Axis all fall then allies win, regardless it all works out, everyone is a winner!!! 

[Adlertag]

you are still off topic

[Brain Damaged]

No Aldertag, this is on topic, they are debating the importance of taking over capital cities, which is what could happen if Operation Sea Lion is a success.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Actually idk about that. The UK is divided into two territories now. Idk if London is in the top or the bottom half.

[Brain Damaged]

It's on the bottom half.

[SgtBlitz]

you are still off topic

How is finally concluding that Operation Sealion is NOT a possibility with AA1940 Europe possibly off topic???

[LuckyDay]

K, so...

Consensus is that taking capitals DOESN'T get you all the fallen side's income, plus DOESN'T knock the opponent out of the war (i.e., we want the person playing France to do more than get drinks for everyone the next 90% of the game...)  So, seeing this, it may NOT be in the Axis' best interest to shoot for the capitals at game start with these rule changes/additions.  Maybe Paris, but definitely not London.  If the UK is getting 40+ IPCs at game start taking 8 IPCs for the capital will barely make a dent in their production, even with losing a turn's worth of IPCs and needing to build factories elsewhere.

Operation Sealion is definitely not a possibility then.  Only if there was some rule that allowed the Axis to change history by seizing the French fleet at Marseilles intact or allowing the Germans to invade/garrison Spain to strike Gibraltar would it even be barely viable economically.  Otherwise the risk in building fleet and transports just isn't worth the cost.

So, perhaps starvation, limitation of resources would be the only viable strategy; i.e., the traditional Axis and Allies game where the Axis gradually tip the world's IPC balance in their favor over many many turns?  With this mindset in place, the game will definitely end up being another dragged-out game of attrition that will play pretty much the same as all our old games... 

BLEH.

The Sgt. makes some great observations.

As to the idea of the capture of capitals, I wonder that since the new games have 2 types of factories, that to both keep powers in the game longer and to still give some interest to capitals, which are often victory cities as well, what if the capture of a capital:
- did not take you completely out
- did not sap all your IPCs
- did limit you to building only minor ICs and
- turn any other ICs you own into minor ones.

In the case of Sealion, the topic at hand and such, this would give Germany a valid reason to go after London as it would cripple Britain industrially but would allow Britain to still retain some play ability as they seek to both help the Allies and liberate London.

If Britain started with 40 and lost 8 for London on G2, they still have 32, not a small amount.  But what can they build and where?  South African Complex maybe, but it's a minor.  Canada? would have to be minor?  Anzac and India in a Global game would be separate and a minor, respectively.
Britain's still in, but they are a long way from their former glory.

Germany has gained more than just 8 IPCs as well.

As to the thought of France and Vichy, I'd still love to see something about Vichy territories going to the Axis with a Paris takeover, whether set or by die roll.

[maverick_76]

That is exactly what I was saying. With only VC's and no capitols we can see games where London can be taken and knock out much of the UK's income but not eliminate them from the game. Same for Russia. Think about it, would the UK or Russia really quit if their capitols were taken? NO! They would fight until everything at their disposal was exhausted, thus my reasoning that a power fights until it loses all of it's IC's (located at VCs) and all of it's forces are destroyed as well.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Thats how I have actually always played. however in group games the person that loses thier capitol typically loses the will to play the game, and it isnt fun anymore.(try UK without its major Capitol tell me how fun THAT goes for you) You can play that way, however it would only be enjoyable in one on one games.

[maverick_76]

Yeah but that should be factored in. If the UK player loses his will, he can surrender and quit until his capitol is liberated again. That  is what makes this game so much fun, we are given total control over a power at the start of WWII and we do with them as we see fit. We want to quit after our capitol is captured, so be it.

[Brain Damaged]

The only reason that they want to quit is that rule about giving up all of your ipc's which should go away in my opinion.

[WILD BILL]

We are all debating how England would find a way to continue the battle through its commonwealth, and set up a gov in exile in Canada had Germany invaded and conquered the UK . IMO I think thats right. However Hitler offered an armistice several times and did bring England to its knees. He obviously thought that a deal was possible. He also approved the plans for Barbarossa at roughly the same time for the following spring. I would think he thought that both the European allies would be out of the picture by then, as he already took Paris and had London on the ropes.

If a deal was worked out would it have been simply for UK to stay out of German affairs and more or less become neutral, or would it have been similar to the French treaty. If a treaty was to be reached would it have allow a partial German occupation of The Island Nation (I would think not). Would such a treaty lead to a split in control of England itself and the Commonwealth. A divided English Rule would have caused chaos in those uncertain times, as many of those countries were actively seeking independence or would have felt betrayed. Even at this darkest hour the US still didn't give its total support. I think negotiations would have been just a stall tactic by England to catch its breath, but who knows when politics come into play.
 What about its fleet. Would the terms have forced ships to return to English ports, or would English admirals have headed straight to the US or other friendly ports like the French did earlier in its confusion.
Just some food for thought.