I’ve only played one game where Italy raged, it was glorious. No Taranto I believe. Axis win in Europe
Does an A+3 Sealion = Axis victory?
-
I always sent a few planes to Paris, tacs were great, and spared the sz111 fleet for G2. I don’t think I’ll be sending any to Paris now, instead hitting with all ground and Normandy/fleet with air. Getting to playtest Alpha3 for the first time tomorrow. If I draw Axis I think I will abandon a G4 sealion for a G2 barbarossa, similar to what my opponent has been trying lately which is a G1 barbarossa with CV 2 trn build. We are already going to amend the Mongolia rule to–Mongolia joins Russia if Japan attacks a neighboring territory. Italy will support in Europe and harass in the Med and Japan will still try and blow through Siberia to present a second front to Stalin.
So now we are talking about G4 sealion? Good to know, I think the only chance England has is to strafe Scotland which is going to vary wildly the results of the G4 invasion. I could be wrong and a continued turtle or retreat might be valid options.
We use lvl bmbs in the same way then, as nails in the coffin. I like to use them to show my opponent that indeed the game is over in just a few rounds. I don’t see why you want their bombing ability increased. Why is that?
“That’s why I’ll try any wild, hair brained idea in fun game (ie non-league/tournament) and try to find alternatives…”
That’s why I am willing to try the aa gun change. It might end up being awesome, it might end up being game breaking and need a rewrite of the entire starting board units. I’m down for the challenge. I also don’t see Sealion taking a punch to the nuts with these changes, but I also do not believe it was a slam dunk every game move in Alpha2. G2 Barbarossa was scary too!***there’s a great Fortress America java game out there called WebFA. Created by a computer programmer, most of the players are heavy math nerds, but the program does not involve downloading(last I knew), is streamlined for online play and has lots of extremely tough competition. If that doesn’t work try Taulbee WebFA as a search.
-
Interesting, we came to the same conclusions. My new plan does involve sending 1 tactical to paris.
3 infantry, 3 fighters and 1 tac to Normandy!
I always sent a few planes to Paris, tacs were great, and spared the sz111 fleet for G2. I don’t think I’ll be sending any to Paris now, instead hitting with all ground and Normandy/fleet with air. Getting to playtest Alpha3 for the first time tomorrow. If I draw Axis I think I will abandon a G4 sealion for a G2 barbarossa, similar to what my opponent has been trying lately which is a G1 barbarossa with CV 2 trn build. We are already going to amend the Mongolia rule to–Mongolia joins Russia if Japan attacks a neighboring territory. Italy will support in Europe and harass in the Med and Japan will still try and blow through Siberia to present a second front to Stalin.
So now we are talking about G4 sealion? Good to know, I think the only chance England has is to strafe Scotland which is going to vary wildly the results of the G4 invasion. I could be wrong and a continued turtle or retreat might be valid options.
We use lvl bmbs in the same way then, as nails in the coffin. I like to use them to show my opponent that indeed the game is over in just a few rounds. I don’t see why you want their bombing ability increased. Why is that?
“That’s why I’ll try any wild, hair brained idea in fun game (ie non-league/tournament) and try to find alternatives…”
That’s why I am willing to try the aa gun change. It might end up being awesome, it might end up being game breaking and need a rewrite of the entire starting board units. I’m down for the challenge. I also don’t see Sealion taking a punch to the nuts with these changes, but I also do not believe it was a slam dunk every game move in Alpha2. G2 Barbarossa was scary too! -
Actually, we did run the counter to a G4.
-
I think sea lion is possible I’ve been able to pull it off on every board that says Axis & Allies except the Pacific from 2000. On the older boards certain conditions had to exist for sea lion to take place and you had to buy into that strat. and hope they didnt counter your move or hit to well
It should be interesting to see -
Sure it’s possible, but the question is whether or not it is a good idea. The NO for holding UK is gone, Germany has a tougher round 1, and UK has 4 extra hits on london.
The odds are now under 40% for Sealion success for G3 against a proper UK defense. G4 is a coin flip now.
-
@mantlefan:
@suprise:
I think sea lion is possible I’ve been able to pull it off on every board that says Axis & Allies except the Pacific from 2000. On the older boards certain conditions had to exist for sea lion to take place and you had to buy into that strat. and hope they didnt counter your move or hit to well
It should be interesting to seeSure it’s possible, but the question is whether or not it is a good idea. The NO for holding UK is gone, Germany has a tougher round 1, and UK has 4 extra hits on london.
Read the thread title. It never said “good idea” it said “possible.” We are discussing whether or not it is POSSIBLE to win a Sea Lion strategy.
-
I want to say yes, but I think my first few Axis games in Alpha 3 are going to be the old tried and true assault on Moscow plan. Sealion was too risky for my blood in Alpha2, but until my opponent figured out how to stop it…well…
-
Klop is not a dog. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!!
-
Klop is not a dog. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!!
-
Klop is not a dog. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!!
-
@mantlefan:
What’s the point of a thread that determines whether or not a strat is possible? EVERY strat is possible with good dice/ big gap in player skill.
Here’s the difference in the thread development, regardless of what it’s titled:
- Is Sealion possible anymore?
Answer: Well, obviously yes, since Germany could send 1 inf against 20 units and still POSSIBLY win. - Is Sealion a good idea anymore?
Answer: Well, there are numerous answers, viewpoints, considerations, and tactics that go into answering this question. Plenty of food for fruitful conversation.
So really if the thread is to progress according to how you set it out, everyone should only be allowed to post Yes (or, if they feel like being a stick-in-the-mud, they can say no)
So what’s better, discussion about whether or not sealion is a good idea, or one word answer that is objectively “yes”?
My intentions for this topic was to determine weather or not a successful Sealion operation would eventually contribute to an axis victory.
- Is Sealion possible anymore?
-
I am playing an Alpha+3 game as the Axis this Saturday against a very capable opponent. I want to plan a Sealion strategy for a G4 landing, however, my experience is 100% in G3 landings. I am also contemplating the possibility of supporting both strategies (Sealion and Barbarossa) and landing on London eventually in say G5 or G6. I don’t want to abandon Sealion all together and focus only on Moscow (regardless of Alpha +3 and Larry I still believe that losing London really hurts the Allies, maybe if I lose a few games, I will convert). As for Japan, I am still going to Attack Amur with all I got and allow Russia the 6 new infantry. However, I may need to commit more troops from the south and evacuate China before my drive to Calcutta. I guess my question is, does anyone think I can win an A3 game this way?
-
You may be right about G4 being the absolute dead line for Sealion. I’m going to attack the crap out of Amur J1 and push further into Mongolia and far east Russia J2 and J3 regardless of where the Russian player stacks their infantry R1 or R2. It’s purpose will be to deal with the Russian units while taking a few territories, but without the expectation of threatening Moscow. My Japan strategy demands that I eventually take Malaya and hammer Calcutta, probably J5.
-
Is Sea Lion reasonably possible? Yes.
On G3? Maybe.
On G4? Definitely
Is it impossible to get Sea Lion (with reasonable results?) No.
Is it smart to do Sea Lion? Depends on what your opponent does, if he turtles, probably not, if he focuses on fleet/S. Africa, probably yes.
-
@Cmdr:
Is Sea Lion reasonably possible? Yes.
On G3? Maybe.
On G4? Definitely
Is it impossible to get Sea Lion (with reasonable results?) No.
Is it smart to do Sea Lion? Depends on what your opponent does, if he turtles, probably not, if he focuses on fleet/S. Africa, probably yes.
So if you were going to wait and find out what the UK does before committing to Sealion, what would your G1 purchase be? (I’m guessing an aircraft carrier, a fighter, and an artillery).
-
@Cmdr:
Is Sea Lion reasonably possible? Yes.
On G3? Maybe.
On G4? Definitely
Is it impossible to get Sea Lion (with reasonable results?) No.
Is it smart to do Sea Lion? Depends on what your opponent does, if he turtles, probably not, if he focuses on fleet/S. Africa, probably yes.
I repeat, as I have run the odds for you.
G3 is less than 40% with a proper defense.
G4 is vulnerable to a hit and fade attack on Scotland.
-
@Young:
So if you were going to wait and find out what the UK does before committing to Sealion, what would your G1 purchase be? (I’m guessing an aircraft carrier, a fighter, and an artillery).
Submarine, Fighter, Infantry, Artillery, Transport
or
Aircraft Carrier, 2 Transports (If I want England to get paranoid)Jim, I think a hit and run attack by England would be in Germany’s favor. You can blow a lot of infantry killing my infantry (and maybe Artillery) and I can just pull out my tanks if the battle went bad for me. However, if the battle goes bad for England, it’s game over London. I say pull out tanks because I doubt any hit and run will kill any of the defending tanks and might quit before hitting the Artillery for fear of leaving London open.
The transports are not wasted, they can land 26 units in Arkhangelsk, or Novgorod or a mixture really which is what would probably happen, or Russia would have to open a front in the North to prevent it, leaving the south vulnerable to a complex in Romania and transorts in the Black Sea.
-
I’ve never been a big fan of Sealion anyway, so this new version isn’t a change for me. I’m quite skilled at keeping UK down with Subs and other tactics. Spread your subs out, make UK hunt them down individually - UK hates chasing subs down the coasts of Africa. What is a change is the Mongolia rules for Japan to have to navigate. I am used be Japan being able to take 5+ IPCs away from Russia each round making Russia easier for Germany to crack.
-
Here’s how I see it. England has 2 rounds to build before it can attack on England 3 (prior to Germany 4) with their 3rd round being placed after their combat moves.
England starts with: 3 Infantry, 3 Fighters on itself.
England CAN get 2 more fighters and 1 tactical bomber from the Med bringing it to 3 Infantry, 5 fighters, 1 tactical bomber.
Assumptions:
Germany destroyed the British fighter in Normandy on round 1.
Germany sank the destroyer in SZ 109 with 3 fighters, 3 tactical bombers, 2 submarines and a strategic bomber
Germany sank the destroyer in SZ 106 with 2 submarines
Both British transports are sunk, no Canadian units are brought to England for defense/offense.
London is a higher priority than France for Germany. (France might be allowed to fall to Italy, if necessary.)England starts with 28 IPC, that’s 9 Infantry Save 1 on Round 1.
Round 2: England has 34 IPC (28 + 5 original territories NO + 1 saved) assume +9 Infantry, +1 Armor, save 1.
England has, on round 3:
Infantry: +3 + 9 +9 = 21
Artillery: +1= 0
Armor: +1 = 1
Fighters: +3 +2 = 5
Tactial Bombers: +1 = 1
Strategic Bombers: 0 = 0
AA Guns: +4 = 4(AA Guns cannot be used to attack, so they are not relevant to a British hit and run on Scotland.)
Germany brought 13 Infantry, 7 Artillery, 5 Armor, and 1 AA Gun to Scotland.
I will use Frood’s calculator. If we change the parameters and state that at least 1 defending unit must be alive at the end of the battle we get:
Attacker: 30%
Defender: 70%Average units left for the Attacker: 2
Average units left for the Defender: 6
Average number of rounds: 4.6If we alter it so that at least 7 Attacking Units survive (theoretically that would give England 10 Infantry, 1 Armor, 1 Tactical Bomber, 5 Fighters and 4 AA Guns to defend London with) we get:
Attacker: 100%
Defender: 90%Average units left for the Attacker: 9
Average units left for the Defender: 11
Average number of rounds: 2.5
Therefore, I really do not see Strafing as an option, Jim. Then again, I believe you originally ran your numbers assuming you could get the 4 ground units from Canada and had the fighter in Normandy. I am assuming those units do not exist (but the Battleships do exist.)
-
Oh, more assumptions:
Germany built 2 transports on G1, 10 on G2
Germany got France R1 and Normandy R1
England built as many infantry and armor as possible (up to 10 units maximum capacity, converting extra “infantry” into Armored units until cap was reached)
England built nothing in S. Africa or Canada
England lost objective for all original territories on Italy 1
England got C. Persia on England 1
Suggested Topics
