@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Scamble and amfib attack:
I believe so.
calling in the big guns :)
How to counter sealion attack
-
Sometimes I just feel lucky and it is something I want to do. It worked out the two times I did it, global is not a game I play in person often, because it takes too long… and when I do play it, everyone starts the game off at war. There is no politics, because it takes too long.
So I have to have pretty good G1 attacks in general to do sea lion including the ones against russia and enough hits on defense to know I can setup sea lion and keep Russia back.
-
yestersday, i ve played once more 1940 global game and find that there is still problem on destroying Germany transports after sealion operation.
As i mention before, the germany plan is build transports on round 1, capture scotland on round 2, capture london on round 3.
If i abandon scotland on round 2, i will also lose Eire on round 3 and this caused the US bombers cannot attack seazone 110 after sealion. Without the US bombers, it is unlikely i can destory the germany transports using just the fighters or T bombers from seazone 102. (US still not at war with everyone on round 2). If i defend scotland, i am in great danger of losing london on round 2… Need help. :?
One more question is that should UK attack seazone 97 if germany bought 3 transport round 1.
-
Attacking sz 110 is difficult with usa bombers anyway, usually germany can build on normandy.
You really want to bring your naval over to retake london. All that pacific stuff so you can retake london, once that is done you can go back to the pacific and hopefully make it in time.
-
@kku:
yestersday, i ve played once more 1940 global game and find that there is still problem on destroying Germany transports after sealion operation.
As i mention before, the germany plan is build transports on round 1, capture scotland on round 2, capture london on round 3.
If i abandon scotland on round 2, i will also lose Eire on round 3 and this caused the US bombers cannot attack seazone 110 after sealion. Without the US bombers, it is unlikely i can destory the germany transports using just the fighters or T bombers from seazone 102. (US still not at war with everyone on round 2). If i defend scotland, i am in great danger of losing london on round 2… Need help. :?
One more question is that should UK attack seazone 97 if germany bought 3 transport round 1.
You have a weird way of doing Sealion. 3 transports for Germany round 1?
Here is the way I usually do it:
Round 1 > Germany buys 1 carrier, 1 destroyer and 1 sub. Take out Royal Navy with Luftwaffe, subs and battleship. In SZ 111, I go in with 1 sub, 1 BB, 1 fighter, 1 Stuka and 1 bomber. I try to “strafe” them and retreat everything to SZ 112. With any luck, I will destroy the UK destroyer and cruiser and just leave a damaged UK battleship surviving with all of my planes and my battleship damaged. If the UK gets 3 hits, then I have to either lose the battleship or the fighter. If Germany wipes out ALL the UK ships, then I lose the battleship because it will just be a damaged target for the British on UK 1 and I can use the fighter. However, if one or more of the UK ships survive, then I will lose the fighter and retreat my battleship for better fleet protection and use for clearing the channel or even a bombard for Sealion.
Round 2 > Germany buys 10 transports. Move every land unit available to W Germany to equal at least 11 infantry and 11 other land units (22 total) and get all Luftwaffe to the airbase at W Germany or Paris.
Round 3 > Here is a choice. You can either go for Sealion now, depending on British defenses, OR you can take Scotland and hit London Round 4. If you choose the latter, you need to build land units in W Germany and Normandy to refill those transports, and get a few other land units from other areas since 22 units exceeds the build capacity of W Germany and Normandy combined. You could bring the 4 extra guys from Finland. In this case, you need to plan ahead so during Round 2, you should have moved some other land units into range of W Germany. This way you can hit London with 44 ground units plus your Luftwaffe and you should have enough naval power to defend against if UK scrambles (1 BB, 1 CV, 1 CA, 1 DD).The main problem with a round 4 Sealion is Germany is using a LOT of resources and will be weak along the Eastern Front and Russia will be calling. Also, the US will be in the war by this time so your navy could be at risk depending on what the US put in the Atlantic. If your navy gets sunk, all that German armor will be trapped on England and Russia will say “Whoopie!”
-
You can indeed safely assume that with a G4 assault on London, Russia dominates eastern Europe and the Balkans. Berlin will be in serious trouble as well, because A), Germany spent 2 complete turns buying ships only and B), Germany brings 44 Land units over to London. The USA may or may not Liberate London, that doesn’t really matter. Like Cyanight stated before, the USA must prepare to destroy the Kriegsmarine (at least all the transports) immediately after London falls, first priority. And with a G4 this should be easy for the USA. Russia alone can handle Berlin from that moment.
Therefore I’d think a G4 on London should be an automatic loss (of the game, not of London ;-)) for the axis.So I think the optimal time window is a G3 assault on London, especially if the Japanese waited with their DOW on the western allies. This reduces the immediate IPCs the USA has available (during the first 2 rounds) for preparing to go after the kriegsmarine. Calling in the aid of some warships/transports from the pacific may be necessary… but this can be very dangerous due to the Japanese 6VC threat.
The fun part is that a belated JDOW also decreases Japanese chances to get that 6th VC in time (loss of tempo).The J1DOW, in spite of being a much larger threat to get that 6VC sudden allied death, however gives the USA more early cash and a landing spot for the USAF in London/Eire. End of story for the G3 assault on London, unless the UK makes serious mistakes.
Either way, as long as the USA does not move (from the Pacific) or produce for London with a higher Total Unit Value of ~110TUV (J1DOW) or ~150TUV (JlaterDOW), the 6VC sudden death in the Pacific should not be happening.
@kku:
(…)One more question is that should UK attack seazone 97 if germany bought 3 transport round 1.
This is a difficult one. Much debate has already been done on this forum regarding this ‘Taranto’ raid. If you search for ‘Taranto’ on this forum you can read all about it.
Personally I think it is a matter of preference, as long as the UK can make sure the G3 on London is a Pyrrhic victory at best. This means only a few German land units surviving and if the UK can make it so that the G3 assault also costs Germany >=4 aircraft… perfect. -
I know that Germany can build ships in Normandy, and make it to where US bombers can’t take out the German fleet, but that is less ground for Russia to deal with. US can then just move those bombers to the pacific side of the board and have Russia take on Germany and Italy by herself if Italy isn’t too strong. Russia should be making more than Germany for a while, if not forever.
-
Why prevent it!? Let Sea Lion succeed, your job as England in Sea Lion is to do as much damage as humanly possible to Germany. Once London falls, the United States is IMMEDIATELY at war. If the United States did not neglect the Atlantic, he should be in prime position to liberate England in two or three rounds, meanwhile, Germany’s lost a lot of air, armor and infantry units taking London so Russia should be pounding them hard on the right while the US comes in with a left hook.
-
@Cmdr:
Why prevent it!? Let Sea Lion succeed, your job as England in Sea Lion is to do as much damage as humanly possible to Germany. Once London falls, the United States is IMMEDIATELY at war. If the United States did not neglect the Atlantic, he should be in prime position to liberate England in two or three rounds, meanwhile, Germany’s lost a lot of air, armor and infantry units taking London so Russia should be pounding them hard on the right while the US comes in with a left hook.
The problem with putting enough US forces in the Atlantic to get England back is that Japan will surely win. I think US just needs to have a “threat” of killing Germany’s fleet to force more money to be put into navy, but go all out against Japan. Russia should be stronger than Germany and Italy combined, unless you somehow lost England on T3 and Germany has most of her planes left.
-
I do not believe, unless tactics have changed THAT MUCH in the past half year, that it takes that much to liberate England from an early Sea Lion. Since you still have the naval bases up in Canada to rush over, it should be two turns if you stage it right. First turn, Germany cannot build in England. Second turn they COULD land their airpower there, but then Russia is not facing them, more likely, they won’t in which case it shouldn’t be too hard to liberate England with a few (maybe half dozen max - which is probably overkill and more a pre-amble to D-Day) transports could liberate England and thus Germany has cost itself either position or just lost too many troops to really push back against the onslaught of Russians.
So why not entice an Attack? Make the odds 45% England / 55% Germany and see if you can get the Germans to commit - especially if France did not go great for Germany on round 1.
-
Interesting plan to LET Germany take London. While I agree it usually makes Germany too weak to fend off the Russians, what about Italy? If London is taken, that means no income and no new units for UK for 3 or 4 rounds at least and the US will be busy trying to liberate London.
Once Italy manages to sink the UK Med fleet and take Egypt, they can really spread out and get pretty strong. It’s hard enough for UK to keep Italy in check when you have to prevent Germany from taking London by buying defensive for a couple of rounds. -
The way I see it.
1) Germany takes the treasury.
2) America gets in position with the units they were going to use in Africa
3) American liberates EnglandIf Russia doesn’t own SE Europe by then, then Russia’s getting diced to hell and back lol. Italy might free and clear in Africa, or not, depends on bid I suppose and what India is/was doing. But Germany’s down a LOT of hardware:
10 Transports - 70 IPC
1 Aircraft Carrier + 1 Destroyer to defend those Transports - 24 IPC
Ground troops lost in and over England, so probably another 40-50 IPC
But has gained the NO for 3 roundsThe US isn’t out anything, if anything, it goes to war sooner and is plus all those NOs.
Russia isn’t out anything, it should be way up - all those troops off the front, the planes out of the way (or at least delayed a turn or two) and they should have the SE Europe territories or be trading them.I don’t see a downside really to losing London early. Late or midgame HUGE downside, but early?
-
unless you somehow lost England on T3 and Germany has most of her planes left.
I don’t see how London could fall before T3… mind explaining?
-
And while explaining, is Japan just sitting around in the South Pacific eating bonbons? ;)
I have yet to lose a game as Axis after a successful sea lion. Of course, I would never go for a 55/45 battle, but gimme 90/10 and I’ll hit it… and I just don’t see how you stop Japan. And, if you are stopping Japan with the U.S., then the Allies are short an ally…
-
I seen london fall on G2. It was funny stuff. All you have to do is buy 2 transports and a carrier round 1. Then move inf/arty on west germany.
Most people buy some kind of defense…. you can still dice someone. You can also attack with Italy bomber to soften it up or bomb the airfield.
-
And while explaining, is Japan just sitting around in the South Pacific eating bonbons? ;)
I have yet to lose a game as Axis after a successful sea lion. Of course, I would never go for a 55/45 battle, but gimme 90/10 and I’ll hit it… and I just don’t see how you stop Japan. And, if you are stopping Japan with the U.S., then the Allies are short an ally…
What if US ignores Europe all together and goes 100% after Japan? Also, how much are you winning the battle for England with?
-
What if US ignores Europe all together and goes 100% after Japan? Also, how much are you winning the battle for England with?
Well, that may be the difference. I wouldn’t want to have a toss-up battle in England. Hence, when I say with 90/10 odds, I would in the middle of the expected results want to have 8+ land units left, and those tanks can be dispatched back to the mainland over several turns while building 3 inf/turn in the UK (until that is no longer necessary). If the US is going 100% after Japan, then the UK needs very little defense, so this transfer of attacking units back to the mainland will happen much quicker. At that point, you can even split off part of your German Navy to help Italy quickly dominate Africa. With all of those extra IPC’s, I don’t see how it is possible for Russia to break through all by her lonesome.
I’m not even sure that 8+ land units is necessary to have remaining in the UK, I’m only using that as a rough guide.
Winning Egypt is a given, and then attacking from both the south (through the Middle East) and the north (in both cases the boats are still useful) is all the Axis has to do. Japan could go down in this scenario and it doesn’t matter – hence, building a few mainland IC’s and then sending fast units West can be part of the plan when needed, temporarily ignoring the U.S. threat.
Italy simply fills in the gaps where necessary, including holding the Med. Of course, if the U.S. is going 100% towards Japan, there isn’t much of a threat to the Med. Even if Russia were to be at 55 income, with Italy (with NO’s) pulling in over 30, I don’t see how the Allies are winning that kind of game…
-
I think you misunderstand, the United States uses those forces it normally builds in the Atlantic to liberate England a mere two rounds after it falls. The only difference is now there are very few Axis war planes left over Europe to threaten the American navy and impede the Russian army. With a good aggressive game, the Russians could well be on Berlin’s door step before Japan can get rolling into Asia and certainly before Germany recovers from losing 200+ IPC over London!
Japan I assumed was doing that which Japan does…aiming for the Dutch East Indies and India while bogged down in a quagmire in China.
Italy is making a choice, EITHER go Africa OR help Germany try and keep out the Russians. Generally, I see my opponents go the latter despite England’s inability to put more units into Africa to slow them down. Just because Italy needs transports to do it and that takes even more time and money while England probably has a good beachhead in Egypt to stop a breakout.
A couple rounds later and England’s not really in THAT bad a spot. Yea they lost 4 planes, half a dozen infantry and some AA Guns they don’t normally lose, and a couple rounds income, but it’s still far less than Germany lost in the trade.
I’ve only ever see Sea Lion be successful and that’s because it was never done before and the person surrendered instead of fighting through it. For Sea Lion to succeed and for Germany to still win the game you need Cow like dice. Or for that matter, Jen like naval engagement dice (yes I routinely get 10 hits with 10 submarines in naval engagements, have you met Emperor Mollari? No? He gave up, no one engages me at sea. lol.)
Not saying it cannot be done, just saying, it is not the “I win” move that is feared. Especially not when Russia gets 3 IPC for all those pretty little grey territories the Germans used to have. Trade you those 1 IPC ones in the Far East for the 6 IPC ones in Europe any day. lol. (3 for Poland + 3 IPC NO = 6 IPC - just an example.)
-
Cmdr Jennifer - Yea, those bovine dice can be crazy.
-
The problem to speculation, of course, is you can never test FOR a strategy or AGAINST a strategy. The Strategy has to be organic, if your opponent KNOWS what you are going to do and you are locked in, he can ignore other avenues and claim (when you deviate to win) that you cheated.
That’s a trap I fell in a few times. Of course, it’s my opinion that if you have to alter yourself in such a way to stop a strategy from succeeding that you allow your opponent to alter her strategy and exploit you in a more conventional manner, then the strategy worked because she still won. :P
For instance, had a situation back in Alpha 2 where America could bloody well forget Europe altogether and run rough-shod over the Japanese like a Panzer II blowing through a wheatfield as its only resistance. Sure the Panzer got stuck in the mud sometimes, but it generally won against the amber waves of grain! England and Russia could just hold out long enough for the Americans to erase Japan as a threat (notice, I never said Japan itself was taken) and then America, with more income than Germany and Italy combined and more power than can possibly be imagined could get to Euro/Africa fast enough to prevent a VC win by the Germans. After that, it was a matter of time.
So I started seeing people test that theory and they’d do crazy shizzit like fly the entire Japanese airforce to suicide against Russia and push infantry to islands in the pacific to defend against American transports. Neither event happens in a routine game, nor would any player do this if they thought America might start dumping more forces in the Atlantic to compensate for drastically reduced resistance in the Pacific. For instance, one guy thought it was legitamite to suicide the entire Japanese airforce on Egpyt to bust it open so the Italians could drive through - okay, sure, but the ENTIRE Japanese air force? And while America has 3x the war material in the Pacific than Japan because Japan focused on airforce only purchases to fly to Europe? Not a standard strategy. It worked though, and I thought it was cheap as heck, but the Russians fell the same round I decided to just take Japan (because Japan had 6 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 armor on it for defense after literally spending 100% of their income making planes and flying them asap to Europe)
So basically, its impossible to test for a specific strategy, rather, you have to go research games in which a strategy was employed and then discuss the merits on that basis.
-
Very well said Cmdr Jennifer. I have been doing most of that lately. It kinda reminds me of learning chess openings ;)
Suggested Topics
