Calvin found a loophole in Sealion that invalidates the UK naval block!

[HolKann]

@Imperious:

Nobody inside the US military goes by this.

Don’t force your believes onto other people, the abbreviations you propose are counterintuitive, and not used by anyone but some hard core “A&A should be about realism instead of fun” forum members. CA for cruiser when most people use AC for Aircraft Carrier is only introducing confusion, both for new players and veterans. Using AP is just ridiculous, half a year ago you used trn just fine like everybody else. If you like threads to get disrailed by people commenting on these abbreviations, then keep up the confusing naming scheme. Or even just people going “what does abbreviation X mean?” will also pollute discussions. Besides, this is not the only board on the net, lots of people here also play tripleA or at DAAK.org. So even though you might find it cool to refer to a cru as CA, or a trn as AP, acknowledge the fact that for the overwhelming majority of A&A players, it’s just unneeded confusion and clutter.

So just keep the naming scheme intuitive, so that even noobs can easily know what unit is meant by seeing an abbreviation. One exception I think most people can live with: BB. It has been like this for more than 20 years, and served its purpose well. (and looks more impressive than sub or des, which it should). So plz, just keep it like this:

inf
mec
art
arm
ftr
tac
bmr
trn
sub
AC
des
cru
BB
mIC
IC
AA
NB
AB

Thanks!

[jeffdestroyer]

I am used to the proper military designations, but I often switch back and forth for lesser known designations like AP.

CV,BB,CA etc.  have been used for years on this forum. Most players are avid readers of history and should be familiar with most designations.  If they are not, they will learn after reading the forum.

I remember someone posted the terminology for others years ago.

[souL]

@Latro:

The cruiser block simply isn’t enough. If you go for a 3 transport build, they will fall prey to an air attack from the UK, landing on a newly built carrier. In G2 you could attack the carrier with subs (the air units land in the UK), also aircraft (you lose more air units, or also the battleship (losing protection for a new transport fleet) … neither of these options gives you better odds for operation Sealion during later rounds.

This is the linchpin in sealion’s failure.  I played a game last night, picked up on it, and hoped to bring it up.  I’m glad someone did, but you’d gladly sac the 26 IPC for Ger’s 28.  Not only is the IPC cost weighted slightly to the axis, it dramatically halts the protection of Scandanavia.  I’m glad 113 isn’t safe as long as there are british planes in UK.

[special forces]

@souL:

@Gargantua:

STOP with the 2 letter acronyms please.

there are NOT 2 B’s in Battleship. and no V in CARRIER.

and WTF does AP have to do with TRANSPORTS?  Or does AP stand for Airplane? which would then require a designation for fgt, bmb, or tac.

Use 3 letters to standardize everything with letters and terms that actually make sense.  It’s really not that hard.

1 ACC 1 BAT 1 DST 3 TRN much easer to figure out than 1CV 1BB 1 DD 2 AP

Don’t make Axis and Allies a foriegn language for no reason.  3 letter acronyms are used in battlemap for territories for obvious reasons as well.

You’d have thought CA might be for carrier?  Nope, try a c word with no a’s.  I thought this was voted on some time before I joined the boards so I kept my mouth shut.  I figured as long as the system was uniform, I could learn them and protest silently.  Now all of the sudden I was gone for a bit and the transport turns into AP?  Musta missed the vote again sigh.  If people want to use the 2-letter acronyms, there should at least be a legend stickied to the top of a board.

when i first came to this forum i  was looking for a legend sticky or topic.

I think it’s a good idea.

[LuckyDay]

@HolKann:

Don’t force your believes onto other people…
…just keep it like this:

wow, outta both ends, nice…

and isn’t tan(k) so much more intuitive than arm(or) or what about bom(ber).  And when did we slack off with using lower case letters when talking about units as ok?..

[Bruda_Iz]

hmmm this thread seems to have gotten a little off topic

[Imperious Leader]

If this is correct, then how would a newly built carrier in SZ110 not matter?

-  The UK can now launch an air attack on SZ113 with 1 or 2 fighters (depending on if a destroyer was also built in SZ113) and kill the entire transport fleet along with any hopes of a G2 operation Sealion.
-  Depending on any surviving UK naval unit it can also launch an additional attack on either the damaged (?) battleship or the lonely cruiser with the remaining fighter in the UK and 1 or more destroyers.
-  Finally the main attack on the Italian fleet can still go ahead as planned … and depending on G2 builds, the air units used can fly back to the UK the following round to assist against a possible G3 Sealion.

… all that for the cost of one carrier? Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

It is correct except UK can still attack 1 BB, 1 CV and my 2 Fighters with 4 planes. The CV build stops that. It is necessary. MY APs are placed with the CV and protected.

odds are like less than 10% for him to win.

3/3/3/4 vs. 4/2-2/4/4/0/0