So you’re saying that extra 60-90 IPC’s denied the Allies justifies Sealion? Or are you just disputing one of my supporting points?
Not disputing - just pointing out a fact. Sooner or later, Germany will be fighting those units that UK builds UK 1 and 2 anyway - likely in France. To say that killing those units is a waste … well I don’t see it that way. The only argument I would accept is that the timing is off.
If you are ONLY talking $ then:
Germany - likely casualties and $ spent:
11 inf, 4 art, 4 tanks, 10 TTs, 1 CV, 1 fht
$169
UK
20 inf, 1 tank, 3 fht, 1 tac
$107 + $28 captured = $135
- let’s say UK held for 3 turns for an average of $25 per turn of lost income
$135 + $75 = $210
True, however a medium sized Russian stack sitting in Belarus can make it pretty hard for you to do more than snatch Leningrad for a turn on G5. The Russian will be able to get away with splitting his stack between Belarus and Bryansk since the German army is smaller than his own by virtue of Sea Lion.
I can land with 22 units on either Nenetsia, Archangel, Leningrad, Baltic States etc…
Or just buy lots of inf and get them up to the front 1 - 2 turns sooner than walking them. That can make up for not having bought on the Russian front, too.
Do you feel this is more profitable a strategy for Germany to pursue early game rather than focusing on Russia?
I haven’t fleshed out post Sealion yet, so I can’t say. It is not a game ender as the India Crush. And in the linked game, I think the Allies have the advantage anyway.
I do the game was not designed to allow such a high probability of Sealion - and I think there is something screwed up if I just lost the game by conquring UK - its like saying that taking Italy out loses you the game.