You can find units silhouettes in the Unit Identification Cards I posted here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/21626/a-a-unit-identification-charts/10
Each chart can be expanded in size by clicking on it.
Sealion? Is there a perfict set up?
-
Good point
-
@ghr2 - very good point. And it may be by buying all ground you tip UK to send the air to the Med.
-
Yeah, but as soon as Germany buys those 10 transports round 2, UK will just fly all their air right back to London. Plus, with no carrier to protect them, those transports will have to be built in SZ 113 to be out of reach of any UK fighters. They can still get to London, but with less warships to protect them, if UK even has 1 ship around they can send it to SZ 112 to block. Either that or UK will scramble and you will have to use more air to fight the scramble planes which means less Luftwaffe for the actual battle for London.
Not saying it couldn’t be done, but it would be harder for Germany. Maybe creating one of those pyric victories. -
I am suspecting that the air sent to the Med will be to supplement the attack on Italy’s BB and wont be coming back. But even if they move to Gib. they can’t make it back in time to attack sz 112. The fighters land in London and then Germany performs Sealion on G3. The risky part about doing a Sealion without a CV is you rely on Italy to bomb the Airfield. I would rather do Sealion in steps and buy 2 CV’s and 6 TTs over 2 turns. At least this way I don’t invest in 10 TTs for one move and I know my Navy will survive before and after the attack. Plus if I abort Sealion I can always move one of the CV’s and TTs to the Med to help Italy or to get Germany’s Egypt NO.
-
There is something else that I don’t understand. I have seen a number of people mention Italy using it’s bomber to attack Britain’s air base so they can’t scramble when Germany comes in with it’s invasion force.
I don’t see how this is possible. If Britain has fighters on London, and they usually do have around 4-6 fighters there, wouldn’t England send up those fighters as interceptors if Italy tries to bomb the air base? I know sending fighters up as interceptors can sometimes really suck, especially if the attacking bombers and/or escorts get some lucky “1” rolls. However, Italy has 1 bomber and 2 fighters to escort. If Britain has 4-6 fighters, wouldn’t it be a good choice for them to send them up as interceptors since they greatly outnumber the Italians? It seems to me like the Brits stand a good chance of wiping out the Italian air force.
Even if the interceptors don’t get the bomber, it still has to face the AA fire from the UK base. Granted, AA fire is weak @ 1, especially if you are only rolling 1 dice, but hits do happen.
If Germany is relying on Italian success in bombing the UK air base for Sealion to happen, it just seems to me like that is just too sketchy.
So I take it the reasoning behind this idea is that it releases more German air units for fighting in London if the Brits can’t scramble. Then if the Italians fail, and some of the Luftwaffe has to be diverted to protect the transports, if UK scrambles then that’s three less fighters defending London itself. The worst part in this situation is Germany commits “X” number of air units to fight scramblers and then Britain doesn’t scramble. Then they have total fighter defense but the Luftwaffe is coming up a little short. Germany could even lose the battle.
This is why I hate trying to plan out Sealion. Too many variables. If this happens, AND that happens, AND the other happens, then it will be a German victory. If one of these things fail, then Germany is screwed.
Of course, I guess you could decide to cancel Sealion and use all those transports to invade Leningrad, although 10-11 transports full of troops and equipment plus Luftwaffe support kind of seems like overkill in taking Leningrad unless Russia really tries to defend it heavily. Then I guess you could always have those transports hanging around in the Baltic to launch a surprise Sealion later on. Maybe you will make the UK so nervous, they never really get a good offensive steam against Italy. At least until they have around 35-40 defensive units sitting there to repel an invasion. -
Knp - Very true! Its very risky for Italy to bomb that air base. They can send their fighters but they are not in position to use them on round two usually. ANytime you try to bomb your taking a risk. On Germany’s second turn if you bought the TT(x10) then you also are sending the s.bombers and t bombers to hit their facilities but UK will repair their air base. I only do a sealion if there is 2 or less planes in UK. If they have 4-5 then its definitely in their favor. I guess if you bought the TTs and then aborted on G3 you could keep the TTs in the Baltic to keep London in check. This is why I favor the CV for protection so I don’t have to worry about Italy bombing an AB with 4-5 fighters.
-
I agree with Cyanight about the RAF. Once flown in to kill Italy, they won’t be back on time. However, the UK can base its med-air in Gibraltar without attacking Italy -yet. UK can, just as much as Germany can, hold the options open.
As GE I wouldn’t worry about possible UK blockers in 112 if the UK went agressively into the med. Because after GE1 all the UK has left to block should be 1 destroyer in SZ109 + 1 CA in SZ91. And they are facing (on average) a German BB + sub + the entire luftwaffe. And UK cannot place new ships around GB those first few rounds because of Obvious reasons.
Italy should indeed bomb the British AB to make sure no scrambler can pop out of it. An action with a little risk involved, because the AB has a built-in AAA which has a 1/6 chance to kill the Italian STR. GE moves first so it has to buy its 10TRS and then wait and see if Italy can get the job done. If Italy fails, those 10TRS are almost bought for nothing. Not completely because they can… just for 1 turn… but that’s another story ;-).
Assuming the Brits built the safe 6inf + 1ftr, London has 3 interceptors max (they did Taranto, which is the whole point of buying 10TRS GE2), leaving it only up to the AAA fire of the AB itself. If the UK looses valuable Spitfires versus the Italians in a dogfight, this is even better for GE. Less FTR to fight over London. On top of that, what are the odds of 3 spitfires hitting 3 times @1 (in order to hit the Italian bomber they must score 3 hits). Even with 6 Spitfires this is unlikely enough to even not take it into account…IMHO Germany (as well as the UK!) should make a calculation every turn: if GE can take London with 15 survivors -meaning all of its Luftwaffe (survivors of the British AAA-fire) plus 5 to 6 ARM- then it is worth attacking for Germany. Surviving the battle for London with less than 15 units will result in the US liberating London US4/5, making it pointless to take… except in those cases where Japan can force the US to spend more in the Pacific, leaving the US less investments for Europe. Germany can take London in such a case with, say 13 or even 11 survivors…
For Germany, having a strong naval defense against the approaching US, preventing it from retaking London is also pointless because this means GE has spent too much IPCs on naval units to also ward off the Russians. -
Very good observations. You can land the Italian fighters in France to escort the bomber. I usually send a sub, 2 fighters and the s.bomber at the French fleet off southern France. So yes you can bring the fighters with the bomber and I agree if UK tries to intercept they are only hurting themselves. If they lose their planes there is almost no reason to bomb the AB, lol.
Germany at first was winning the war over Britain by not bombing their factories but by getting their fighters to intercept and bombing air fields. The Germans would send a bombing raid with lots of escorts designed to take out their planes. Proper organization of the anti-air defence and the high quality of the British fighter planes contributed to the Luftwaffe’s losses so much that the Germans abandoned the idea of destroying the British air forces. They switched to bombing of the ports, as well as industrial, political and administrative centers. Göring hoped that a victory in the air would be enough to force peace without an invasion. The campaign failed, and Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940.
As for the cost of the sealion.
Round 1:
CV + 2TT = 30ipcRound 2:
CV + 4TT = (44) ipc vs 10TT = 70ipc
So you see the Carrier approach is cheaper than the 10TT and you can use them in multiple situations when the 10TT are built for one purpose. -
Uhmmmm, Cyan, 30ipc + 44ipc =74ipc. This is not cheaper than 70 :-P.
Well, those 4 ipc are not worth mentioning anyway. I agree though, I’d prefer the 2-step approach over just buying 10TRS at once for the reason you mentioned.
The difference remains:
the 2 step approach telegraphs your itentions as a huge disadvantage but with the advantage that you’ll have (and keep) a real multi-purpose fleet should you decide not to Sea Lion.
Buying 10TRS at once has indeed the huge disadvantage that it is more likely than not one use, one shot only but with the advantage that you can surprise the UK without weakening your position against Russia GE1.I think it comes down to what you prefer; both cases see the German position against Russia equally weakened but with different options in the process and the aftermath (of either attacking or not attacking London).
-
I haven’t seen anyone mention -
Can’t you surprise Russia with a Sealion fleet? Land tons of units right on Leningrad? And some more shucking after that?Yes you’re telegraphing Sealion with 2 transports on G1, but you are also gonna scare a lot of opponents off of attacking the Italians in the Mediterranean, without following through on Sealion plans
-
Uhmmmm, Cyan, 30ipc + 44ipc =74ipc. This is not cheaper than 70Â :-P.
Well, those 4 ipc are not worth mentioning anyway. I agree though, I’d prefer the 2-step approach over just buying 10TRS at once for the reason you mentioned.
The difference remains:
the 2 step approach telegraphs your itentions as a huge disadvantage but with the advantage that you’ll have (and keep) a real multi-purpose fleet should you decide not to Sea Lion.
 Buying 10TRS at once has indeed the huge disadvantage that it is more likely than not one use, one shot only but with the advantage that you can surprise the UK without weakening your position against Russia GE1.I think it comes down to what you prefer; both cases see the German position against Russia equally weakened but with different options in the process and the aftermath (of either attacking or not attacking London).
Very good point! I forgot to add in the first round buy. You are correct it is a bit more expensive but I do believe its more useful than 10 TR.
-
I haven’t seen anyone mention -
Can’t you surprise Russia with a Sealion fleet?  Land tons of units right on Leningrad? And some more shucking after that?Yes you’re telegraphing Sealion with 2 transports on G1, but you are also gonna scare a lot of opponents off of attacking the Italians in the Mediterranean, without following through on Sealion plans
I have no experience with this but I’d say it should be possible. Although I doubt Leningrad is the preferred target of such a surprise, because Germany can only get 25-30 units into Leningrad (#TRS*2+ARM+MECH), but Russia starts the game with 41 units and has 2 turns of production backing that up. So it depends a big deal on what your opponent does (i.e. how much force he has in Belarus for a counterattack).
Last time I played as Japan, I observed the possibility to surprise the Russians for my German buddy who was set-up for Sea Lion. The Red army positioned themselves too far forward so GE could have destroyed the Russian army in Eastern Poland, blitz with just 1 ARM into Leningrad and unload all his TRS there. Invading Leningrad is Always a little risky because of the Russian subs, unless GE buys a DD.
Ofc my buddy attacked London and who can blame him with a predicted (and achieved!) win with 19 survivors ;-). Left me only with the question “what if…”. -
Very good observations. You can land the Italian fighters in France to escort the bomber. I usually send a sub, 2 fighters and the s.bomber at the French fleet off southern France. So yes you can bring the fighters with the bomber and I agree if UK tries to intercept they are only hurting themselves. If they lose their planes there is almost no reason to bomb the AB, lol.
Germany at first was winning the war over Britain by not bombing their factories but by getting their fighters to intercept and bombing air fields. The Germans would send a bombing raid with lots of escorts designed to take out their planes. Proper organization of the anti-air defence and the high quality of the British fighter planes contributed to the Luftwaffe’s losses so much that the Germans abandoned the idea of destroying the British air forces. They switched to bombing of the ports, as well as industrial, political and administrative centers. Göring hoped that a victory in the air would be enough to force peace without an invasion. The campaign failed, and Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940.
As for the cost of the sealion.
Round 1:
CV + 2TT = 30ipcRound 2:
CV + 4TT = (44) ipc vs 10TT = 70ipc
So you see the Carrier approach is cheaper than the 10TT and you can use them in multiple situations when the 10TT are built for one purpose.That’s an interesting idea I hadn’t thought of. So you would end up with only 7 transports total instead of 11, but you would also have 2 carriers protecting them. It’s unlikely anyone would be able to sink them. And it is a little more flexible.
If UK goes heavy defense, you could use them on Leningrad.
Or, if that doesn’t seem good, you could even send them down and take Gibraltar, maybe even do some stuff in the Med.
It does seem to give Germany a few more options. -
By the way, Germany taking London with not very many units left, assuming they still manage to keep at least most of the Luftwaffe, may not be quite so bad if Germany has enough on the Eastern Front to keep the Russians from going hog wild.
The US will take at least 2 turns to get over there and liberate London. Then it will take another couple of turns for UK to collect money, buy new units and deploy them. That may be enough time for Italy to get ahead in Africa and/or the Middle East. By the time UK can get anything down there to confront them, Italy may have rolled up enough territory to be making some good money. -
Been there, done that. Germany winning London with a handfull of units aint going to cut it for the axis. UK should know this and play on it. Loosing London isn’t the killer some people think it is, as long as GE bleeds for it.
Admitted, first time it happened to me I handled it wrongly with the allies, allowing Germany to have London for a full turn longer, loosing 3 US STR before even liberating it and letting Italy take Egypt strongly (which the Indian RAF could have prevented). Even after those mistakes I managed to wrest Africa from Italy with the liberated UK. Russia made mistakes as well and was forced to retreat but once in Bryansk/Smolensk, much closer to its own major IC, forced the Germans to retreat once more, while at the same time liberating China (they were that much stronger)!
You see, 1 of the serious problems with Sea Lion is that Russia  will have an income of 60 or even 70 IPCs per turn for a turn or 3 (or longer if GE bought more ships) and never dropping below 50. Germany on the other hand will have problems to even get above 40IPCs a turn for that same amount of time. After they take London (and loot it) they will briefly enjoy 56IPCs income, then quickly drop to 38IPCs once Norway, Finland, London and Scotland permanently fall into allied hands. Taking London does not grant them new conquests every turn.
Driving back Russia for a couple of turns later (if at all!) only gets Germany on the same level as the Russia again (but only briefly).All this with the US only spending on the European map the 2 starting turns. Now if the US cannot liberate London because the German Garrison there is too strong, things might go the other way but Germany must not be forced to spend more IPCs than the extra ones from Scotland + London on their fleet or the Garrison to achieve that. They need every DMark to fight the Russians…
-
Been there, done that. Germany winning London with a handfull of units aint going to cut it for the axis. UK should know this and play on it. Loosing London isn’t the killer some people think it is, as long as GE bleeds for it.
Totally agree with this. Be careful what you wish for, Germany
I put the 5 NO for London back in, in my houseruled game :-)
-
Yeah, now that I think about it, you are right. Even if Italy manages to spread out in Africa, the most they will be making is around 35-40 IPCs and that won’t mean a lot if their big brother Germany gets pounded by the Allies. I have even seen a couple of games where Germany got beat first then the Allies turned on Italy. It wasn’t pretty for Italy then.
-
If London falls then it will be turn 5 or 6 before its liberated. It could actually be round 7 or 8 if Germany or Italy uses DD for blockers. It works better for Italy to use blockers since Germany is tapped out on round 2 buying TRs. Italy can block SZ 106 and 102 unless USA is sitting in 102. This buys you 1 more round. If the block is successful then Germany can put up another block on SZ 107 and 103 now you just bought another turn.
If Japan does not have India by then, I guess they are chasing the Chinese. If India falls on turn 5 and London has still not been liberated then India is done and the middle east will fall to Japan and Italy. There is no perfect strategy for the game and that is great otherwise it would be no fun. But if the allies show weakness like sending too much to the med from London then you can act on it. A successful Sealion requires all the axis to be on the same page.
-
Wholehartedly agreed about the need for being on the same page!
US4 should see the liberation of London already. Remember the fall of London is a casus bellum for the USA so it can start making combat moves US3 regardless of what Japan does or does not. US4 can reach SZ109 with 3CV[5ftr, 1tac]+1BB+3CA+2DD+1sub+3STR+7TRS[7inf, 1arm, 2art, 4mech]. With blockers the axis can delay this force taking London for 1 turn to US5 at best.
Note that the GE1 buys should have alarmed the UK into blocking off and reinforcing the rock UK1 (only to jump into London OR Africa UK2, depending on the GE2 buys) so IT won’t be able to get their hand on Gibraltar on time. -
Been there, done that. Germany winning London with a handfull of units aint going to cut it for the axis. UK should know this and play on it. Loosing London isn’t the killer some people think it is, as long as GE bleeds for it.
Totally agree with this. Be careful what you wish for, Germany
I put the 5 NO for London back in, in my houseruled game :-)
I realize this isn’t the place for “house rules” but this came to mind as I was reading through what if……
A while back (between Alpha+2 & Alpha+3) I had suggested to Larry that all VCs be worth 5 IPCs per round to whomever captured them (must be enemy controlled). To add to that I also suggested a 1 time 5 IPC bonus to liberate a VC back to your side (to offset or give incentive). This was when the community/Larry was looking to have an NO incentive for the US/UK to liberate Paris (rarely does this happen in the game even now). I believe London was an NO for Germany at this time too. This idea got a lot of positive response from the community, and Larry even made a comment that was encouraging at the time, but didn’t make the cut for Alpha+3 (maybe there just wasn’t enough time to play test this theory).
Most of the VCs are part of the Axis NO’s anyway (Russian cities, Japanese targets), and others are linked to Allied NO’s if they keep them (like Phil, or Hawaii, now Paris). I just figured it would be easier to explain the NO’s to newer players because many of them would be marked in Red on the map. You would have a handful of others to explain, like the Ita Med NO, but the list wouldn’t be quite as long as we have now. Now some of the VC are bonuses to the axis, but only if certain axis powers take them. I find it funny that if Italy or Japan takes Stalingrad, that axis (Germany) don’t get paid extra, but if Germany/Italy manages to take Calcutta then the Japanese get 5 IPCs?
You would need to re-draft the currant NO’s to accommodate, removing some and tweaking others. Japan would even start the game with one enemy VC (Shanghai), and some others would be easy conquests for the axis (Paris, Kwangtung). This would ratchet up the axis income base, so some of the fluff NO’s could be reduced, or eliminated (like the 10 IPC Japan gets not to take FIC could be reduced to 5 IPCs etc…). We have played a couple games with this in the past, but haven’t played enough to really see what it would offer. This idea kind died, but I think it could still make for a very cool variant if tested properly.
Suggested Topics
