Group defense of sea zones using island airbase ?

@weddingsinger All I was trying to say is that parking your US fleet in SZ 6 is a recipe for disaster, when it can be in every space around SZ 6 and be much safer. You can however, park as many subs there as you want because 1) once you control that area, you can screen out destroyers who could come 2) he cant build ships in SZ 6 unless you threaten that build, so any destroyers that are built can be blown up before Japan’s next turn 3) the subs can’t be hit by either kamis or planes, whereas your surface fleet can usually be mopped up by Japan’s abundant air force returning home plus some kamis on the carriers to defeat the air support

When our group gets together, we usually have 6 players:
#1 = Germany
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC
#6 = Italy

5 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China
#3 = Japan
#4 = United States/France
#5 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC

4 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = Japan
#4 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

3 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States
#3 = United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

2 Players:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan
#2 = Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

1 Player:
#1 = Germany/Italy/Japan/Russia/China/United States/United Kingdom/India/ANZAC/France

Okay, that last one was just a goof. It’s late and I’m getting silly now. Later all.

Ummm, yea it is trapped.  The Japanese (as knp said) generally move fleet to sz 36 J1/J2 which would include carriers (you’ve heard of them right, planes fly off and sink ships etc……). Japanese bmrs could also be with-in range as well  from Kwangsi. If the Brit BB goes to Hong Kong UK1, Japan can get into position on J2 to kill it anywhere it moves w/o question if it wants to. Even if the Japanese keep their fleet home in sz6, or move it out to the Carolines J1, they can move to sz 36 J2 and trap it.

Thank you all for your  help

@corporal:

ofcourse having those transports in the Baltic makes for a great way to dump troops into Lenningrad if you opt for Barbarossa instead. Make sure you protect those transports near airbases that way you can scramble as well. I like to have 5 transports just outside of Lenningrad and 5 in SZ 113. That gives you 10 new units to drop into Lenningrad plus what you build there.

I once got a Sealion of opportunity that way. I bought a carrier and 2 transports G1. UK 1 fighter and 6 infantry for London, plus my subs in SZ 106 failed so he brought over that DD and transport with 1 infantry and 1 tank. I decided that Sealion was a “no-go”. On G2, I bought 2 more transports along with some planes, ships and land units. On G3 I attacked Russia and used those 5 transports to hit Leningrad. All was successful and I was making good gains against the Russians.
UK saw this and got a little careless. He didn’t buy any more for London and used up his stack of men in invasions of Normandy, Holland and Norway. All were successful, but I also took them all back. I had to use those 5 transports to take Norway back with men and artillery/tanks from W Germany. My Baltic fleet plus planes also sank his transports and their escorts in SZ 112. This was round 7 when I took Norway back.
The US was mostly occupied with Japan so they weren’t doing much in the Atlantic, mostly bombing my factories and building an invasion force to hit Italy, but it was still in E USA at this time. This was when the UK made a fatal error. Instead of dumping a stack of men to protect London, they replaced the lost transports and a couple of warships for escorts. London was relatively lightly defended, mostly with tanks and men to go on the transports. So, on G8 I loaded my 5 transports and hit London and took it, which also got rid of the US bomber threat.
A couple of rounds later, the US did manage to get over there and liberate London and even sank my fleet, but Italy had gotten to Cairo and I took Moscow by that time. Next round I took Stalingrad and we had an Axis win on the Europe board.

The allies can always make sealion next to impossible if they really set their mind to it (UK build infantry, no Taranto, bring ships home, get Canadians, prepare US airstrike).  If they do everything in their power to make it costly and Germany still goes for it, then Germany will be in bad shape after the sealion “victory”.  In that case, losing London is bad but not necessarily a total disaster.  Suppose the opponents don’t really like playing Japan and they’re not very good at it.  As long as USA, USSR and remnant of UK can hold the line against germany, the axis are placed in the crummy position of having to win as Japan.  In that case, it might actually be preferable to intentionally allow a (costly) sealion in order to put the onus on Japan.  If its a team game and the guy playing Germany is more skilled than the guy playing Japan, then coaxing them into a costly sealion might work out OK for the allies.

I agree that Japan should be split, and have two sz"s.

Then we could have Sea Lion on the Euro side, and Sea Serpent on the Pac side.

Just played a game of Global A&A today. I played Japan and Italy, and a friend of mine played germany. I (being used to europe 1940 A&A) said sea lion is a money trap. Now in my opinion sea-lion is twice as effective as a Russian attack, this is because it can eliminate a major allied power very soon in the game. On the other hand if Russia is invaded, than it can offer two quick VCs to the axis cause where a sea-lion would only offer one. So my opinion is split. The one thing I can agree with is that Sea-lion is very viable plan to destroy the allies unlike the lack of time in Europe because of the undivided american attention.