Scenario B would be correct. The rules specifically say that while it is legal to onload troops onto friendly transports, they must onload on your turn, and may only be offloaded on your next turn. The U.K may not offload the troops for you or you may not hop scotch using a transport.
Allied Strategy- London Calling
-
That whole scenario plus how Germany went about Sea Lion was foolish.
Even if Germany can do Sea Lion turn 3, it must not. Take Scotland turn 3. You don’t want to bring the US into the war early. You don’t need 10 transports….strategic attacks on turn 2 by the Germans are vital…so Germany needs 3 Subs parked in 109.
If you take Ireland, I am taking it with the Germans. Sea Lion is to prevent US bombers landing spots, taking out an economy in the UK and gaining a VC. I have a plan for the Italians that is pretty out of the box to help secure the European flank.There is no way UK should have had that many units in London…just being frank here
UK does Taranto…Scramble…inflict as much damage to the UK as possible. Italy will recover, UK will not.
Taranto is a waste of precious UK resources. To me Taranto is a gimmick.I also attack the French Fleet in the Med by the Germans turn 1…I leave 110 alone but take out 111. In every game that fleet in 111 has been irrelevant and by the time it could become relevant it’s too late because of my secret Italian strategy.
Go ahead US go buy bombers…that makes me happy as an Axis player. Spend all your money in Europe…again Happy Camper…if you don’t think Japan will steam roll the Pacific…eh…you must be playing some novice players.
-
If Germany strategic bombs UK on G2 and neuters them then how do you still build max units on London. This is easily accomplished by a 2 bomber sub purchase on G1.
-
If Germany strategic bombs UK on G2 and neuters them then how do you still build max units on London. This is easily accomplished by a 2 bomber sub purchase on G1.
The video in fact shows a strat bombing of London on G2.
There is no way UK should have had that many units in London….just being frank here
UK does Taranto…Scramble…inflict as much damage to the UK as possible. Italy will recover, UK will not.
Taranto is a waste of precious UK resources. To me Taranto is a gimmick.I also attack the French Fleet in the Med by the Germans turn 1…I leave 110 alone but take out 111. In every game that fleet in 111 has been irrelevant and by the time it could become relevant it’s too late because of my secret Italian strategy.
Scrambling against Taranto is a good way to lose 3 Axis planes to kill ships that would die anyway on G2.
I assume you mean that you attack 110 and not 111?
-
If the UK comes with 7 units total; I’ll scramble for sure all day long. That’s about the 75-80% UK victory chance level.
Usually the med is cleared that turn by Italy in clean up or real cheap for Germany.
-
I don’t really think there a need to do anti-Sea Lion strategy studies. I enjoy executing Sea Lion, but it’s usually a “one trick pony” against someone who has an attitude against it and hasn’t seen it successfully executed. They test me by doing an unusual buy UK 1. When they do and other stuff went right G1, then I drop transports. Also, in my successful Sea Lion games, if Japan is left alone, I win on the Pacific Board. If Japan is prevented from a mid-game win (round 8-10), then Germany eventually stabilizes Russia and makes it to Bryansk before London is liberated. Sea Lion is super deadly when done right. But it’s never planned.
UK just places 6 / 1 on UK 1. Period. No need to get cute about that. Perhaps the US flies it’s bomber to London if in the war for another hit point. But in any case, it’s just too costly for Germany to go through with Sea Lion regardless at that point whether or not the US has 8 planes that can wipe out the German fleet.
A smart Russian player is going to be stacked on E. Poland; snatching up so many NOs; buying lots of tanks to where Moscow is safe for a very long time.
-
J A P A N
-
I think the point of anti sea lion strategies its that perhaps you can do something different uk1.
-
I think the point of anti sea lion strategies its that perhaps you can do something different uk1.
I think that is exactely the point. It may allow UK to not do the 6 inf 1 fighter buy, maybe other stuff such as 2 fighter 2 inf, units out of south africa or even sub buys in the atlantic, more aggressive buys in other words
The 2 carrier, destroyer and bomber buy for USA is a good buy round one. The carriers are easily moved to the pacific round 2 if you want to, so If no sea lion, you have this option.
-
Such a buy messes with my plan to hit Norway US3 and puts it back to US4. That’s a real problem because putting it back a turn means the Soviets can be hit G4 rather than having them hit the Germans. The good point is even a massive counter attack on Yanks’ navy is likely to be very costly for the Germans.
I’ll have to have a think about it.
-
If you don’t do the 1 fighter 6 infantry buy on the first turn then you will make it easier for Germany to take London and possibly hang onto it. The choice becomes tougher for Germany to do that because the cost to them will be very high. Maybe something like 1 fighter 4 infantry and then 1 tank in SA or something like that just to mess with him and encourage him to go for it.
-
While I lack the expertise to comment on this strategy, I must say that I really like the well-chosen name you gave it.
-
They played a game up at the store this weekend, with a new guy recruited out at the staff college, and they Sea Lioned him on Round 3. I was up all Friday night couldn’t sleep–might have committed to the game if I’d only been signing up for 2-3 hours but then again, I would have been on his team and been like, UK1; 3 tanks and a factory for Egypt, round 1, I mean, I realize you’re new and all…
I don’t understand what KGF, 102 or any US presence has to do with the viability of Sea-Lion, only its rescue plan. If there is a J1 or J2, America won’t have a carrier that can sit in 102, because if they’re already at war, they can and should simply cross to 91. (this because they don’t start with one).
in straight G40;
Are you the Allies; Yes
Then KJF, 100% with the US and hold on with the rest. KGF is much harder and splitting leaves you at less than parity with Japan, which otherwise, you can destroy or cripple.Did Germany buy transports or save money on G1? No
UK can do whatever it wants, pretty much. 1-2 guys per turn might be nice. I buy 2 arty or a factory.Did Germany buy 2 transports or save money on G1? Yes
Buy 6 men and 1 fighter.Did they buy lots of strategic bombers? Yes
Well, not whatever UK wants, watch out for being bombed into submission on G2-4. buy at least a few men for protection.Did Germany buy a pile of transports on G3 or later? Or leave all its air on Western Germany where it can reach London? Is Russia going to be frustrating enough to him that attacking UK somehow seems easier?
Watch out, hes thinking about attacking you. Hopefully you bought 6-10 extra pieces on rounds UK1-4. You’ll need 15 or so guys and 2-3 air to dissuade this. 1 ship is nice, it blows his bombards. Thank goodness you go after him in the turn order and this isn’t your first game.
After G2-3, did Germany leave its air and tanks where its more convenient to attack Russia than UK? Yes
Hes bluffing. UK, Ignore him. He can build all his transports late but he cant build all the men, tanks, planes and boats on one turn no matter how much money he has because he can only drop ten pieces, like you.
Did Germany leave all its air and armor on West Germany? Yes
Hes about to attack you. Turtle.
-
Very nice video GHG, I enjoyed it.
I think you missed my point of the double AB plan but there is no need to go into that.
Actually now that I think about it.
There are at least 2 threads I could start on how bad you missed the point.
and one thread on how 2 AB is a total waste of time, IPC and air power.
Give me time….
-
Ok, Iam going to start this from going in reverse order based on GHG video.
Why it is a total waste of time building 2 Air Bases to defend SZ110?
Now the idea of defending SZ110 is to prevent the USA or UK from coming into that zone to contest the conquest of London. Deny them a immediate response and give Germany 1-2 turns to build units on London to hold it.
The bottom line is the bigger picture of the war. The Europe map is really a struggle between Germany and Russia. For Germany to achieve a global victory on the Europe map they MUST take out Russia. UK/USA are the spoilers in this big picture plan. They are trying to distract Germany and attacking them in such a way to make the “gaze” of Germany turn west and give Russian some respite.
So
Is Sea Lion a total waste of time and IPC? Well, I would agree with GHG that Germany going all out on Sea Lion is most likely a doomed strategy for Germany.
Thus if it is a doomed strategy you must go all out against Russia. That is Germany’s entire focus and just hold off UK/USA on the western front as long as possible.
Waste no time or IPC against the UK/USA besides bulking up the fortress Europa against them and everything else goes all in on Russia.
Now on G2 you still build the 8-9 TRS. Threaten Sea Lion and have the Allied players scampering around looking at You Tube videos on how to defeat it on Japans turn. You then take those TRS and move 18-20 units into Russia on G3. Make the Baltic sea a massive TRS shuck to Leningrad for INF and ART. That saves Germany 2 turns of movement to get INF/ART onto Moscow.
Bottom line for me is then Germany MUST fake Sea Lion on G2 with the TRS purchase to make the UK/USA react accordingly. Which means their focus is saving or liberating London ASAP and not doing crazy plans like middle earth or sending 12 FTRS to Moscow.
Fake Sea Lion, they have to respect it. Go all in on Moscow and crush them under your tanks.
By doing this you buy Germany/Italy 2-3 turns on the Europe map by making the UK/USA doing all the moves necessary to save London and not doing crazy plans on turn 1-2 like killing off Germany early and the Allies winning the game on Turn 10.
-
Agree, mostly. Lots of games, the Allies intend to KJF, they put nothing in Europe, even so; Germany attempting Sea Lion is still not good odds or optimal move, though in that case, UK better be playing conservatively, since they will be all alone on that map to survive while Japan gets demolished.
You don’t really have to bluff SL, though its not so bad most games. If GER suddenly builds the transports, all UK has to do to neutralize that is to buy 1 full turn of UK defense right after you do it. If you slowly build the transports, UK is even more flexible because he can do w/e in the ME while slowly countering you by buying 1-2 guys a round, or fighters, then he has choices all game.
built (Air)bases are often a waste, because they are too expensive, aren’t necessarily used often, are subject to capture, and don’t fight. The areas where they are these things, already have AB on them, for the most part.
Germany is quite overpowered in G40 as written, which is why it sometimes feels like it can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, smashing every opponent in turn.
-
You don’t really have to bluff SL, though its not so bad most games.� � �
I totally disagree good sir.
On G2 the game is still in the set piece portion of the game, where strategy videos are made and so forth. There are not strategy videos on how the Allies defeat the Axis on Game turn 19.
So Germany builds the 9-10 TRS on G2 and UK call your bluff that your are going into Russia and not UK because Sea Lion is a total waste. Well, if UK does not spend their first 2 turns defending Sea Lion and Germany calls the bluff and goes into London, takes it, and has 9 units left….Lets just say strategy videos do not cover this scenario.
Germany having a 9-11 TRS fleet in the Baltic is never a bad thing for them.
SO bottom line for me.
YOU MUST always bluff Sea Lion on G2 with TRS purchase and go through with Sea Lion on G3 if the UK thinks you are bluffing and does very minimal to defend London.
The TRS purchase on G2 for Germany is not a waste. It is a very valuable asset that can be used against Russia and UK.
-
I totally disagree with PainState. Bluffing SL without following through is a massive waste of resources which could be being used against USSR.
-
I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO
-
I totally disagree with PainState. Bluffing SL without following through is a massive waste of resources which could be being used against USSR.
Fair enough.
BUT
If you do not fake Sea Lion and spend your G2 build on a all in tactic on Russia are you not letting the UK off the hook? Letting them build that factory in the Middle East, building up in South Africa or rebuilding their navy?
9-10 TRS in the Baltic Sea is a serious threat to Russia also. You can get all your units from Western Europe to the Russian front on G3 OR if you are feeling really crazy you could stage the TRS in the North Sea and threaten to go south with all those TRS and hit Gibraltar and go all in with German Med fleet fully loaded with troops going at Egypt.
With out a full commitment of the G2 TRS purchase you are letting the UK off the hook on UK2 to do what ever they want to do.
-
@Elsass-Lorraine:
I’m with you, simon. I’d much rather have 13+ tanks rolling toward than 10+ transports sitting in the Baltic that can do basically nothing after Leningrad falls. A 70+ IPC bluff is in no way worth it IMO
What?
Hold on.
Lets just say the Baltic fleet has no worries.
You have Leningrad.
You build 10 INF or 5 Inf/ 5 ART in Germany. You can shuck those 10 units + your 3 builds in Leningrad every turn. You have in essence cut down the time of travel from Germany to Moscow by 2 turns with Inf/ART with those wasted TRS.
You see no benefit in this?
FOOT NOTE
My G1 build always has 1 DD in it. Germany needs a DD to stop those pesky Russian Subs.
Suggested Topics
