Sea Lion...If and When Poll

[Spitfire38]

As I've been playing A&A Europe 1940, I've been wondering about Operation Sea Lion... The advantages, disadvantages, why, etc. I tend to lean towards Barbarossa for a few reasons, mainly because I feel that amphibious assaults are very limited in their striking power and that they require too much air and naval support for the attack and defense of the supply lines. If other people have different opinions or something to add, that would be great!

[astonvilla22]

If you can get rid of most of Britains navy by the time you invade and bring lots of air units, usually you will win, leaving only the US and ussr.  capturing great britain makes it easier to win, and if you already have paris and cairo, you only need 2 russian cities.  However, you need them quick before the US can get transports near britain, which then reguires you to build more defense, halting the russian campaign.  All in all, it depends on the skill level of player your facing if you attempt it or not.

[Spitfire38]

I tend to agree with you... The only problem is I can never seem to get rid of the British navy for good on G1. I usually use the planes for my French assault and start setting up Barbarossa. Any thoughts on how to neutralize the UK navy quickly?

Thanks for the input!

[Cmdr Jennifer]

For me it all depends on two things:

1)  Am I facing a new player or one that I know invests money with America into the Atlantic?  If so, then I probably won't invade because it won't make financial sense. (Lost all the territory to convoy damage, but you would still get the NO.)

2)  Did England get creamed by my round 1 attacks?  If so, I might have a better than average chance of winning.  If I got creamed, I need to look at Barbarossa instead.

[Endeer]

in one off my games, i was playing uk, russia and france, germany took france on turn 1, than on turn two took UK because of good rolls. however even with this excellent start, russia had rounded up enough force to roll into berlin on turn 6 because of american pressure in holland. this leads me to think that sealion is not a good idea till after russians are dealt with.

[Cmdr Jennifer]

in one off my games, i was playing uk, russia and france, germany took france on turn 1, than on turn two took UK because of good rolls. however even with this excellent start, russia had rounded up enough force to roll into berlin on turn 6 because of american pressure in holland. this leads me to think that sealion is not a good idea till after russians are dealt with.

Considering most American players focus on Japan, it's usually not an issue.

[Endeer]

My bad. This was a AA 1940 europe game which in my opinion is very one sided.

[special forces]

in one off my games, i was playing uk, russia and france, germany took france on turn 1, than on turn two took UK because of good rolls. however even with this excellent start, russia had rounded up enough force to roll into berlin on turn 6 because of american pressure in holland. this leads me to think that sealion is not a good idea till after russians are dealt with.

Considering most American players focus on Japan, it's usually not an issue.

in my Europe games Japan is usually not an issue 

[Endeer]

lol

[Cmdr Jennifer]

in one off my games, i was playing uk, russia and france, germany took france on turn 1, than on turn two took UK because of good rolls. however even with this excellent start, russia had rounded up enough force to roll into berlin on turn 6 because of american pressure in holland. this leads me to think that sealion is not a good idea till after russians are dealt with.

Considering most American players focus on Japan, it's usually not an issue.

in my Europe games Japan is usually not an issue 

Nah, in Europe we just assume they fell and give America all the neat stuff early..../argh.  Thought it was a Global thread.

[Endeer]

I think its stupid as well, brings uneven balance to the game. At least the Europe game.