• What do you guys think about the sealion ?
    When I talk about sealion, I mean building a fleet in the Baltic (usually 1 AC + some trn) and moving the BB and trn in the Med to SZ 13, taking Gibraltar in the process (Not to let UK kill those ships !). Planes going to WE and Norway, ready for an attack on London. There can be some variations for the number of trn build in the Baltic and the number of ground units build. It is followed by more Germany ship builds.

    Personnally, I think it is a terrible opening. I am seeing it a lot online and I am on quite a win streak against that. My plan against it is VERY simple. Let’s put it in point form:
    -Protect Egypt with ground units and put your fleet in SZ35 ot SZ15 (AC + 2 Fig + Cru + Trn). This will assure you to keep Germany IPC low, UK IPC high, and to threaten the German Med fleet. You can leave only 2 units on Ind.
    -Build planes with UK and bring one US fighter to London. Build some Inf if necessary to keep the German amphibious attack on London under 20% chances of winning at all time. Hopefully less while the time goes.
    -Block SZ12 with the US Cru. Just to buy some time, 2 less ground unit threatening London is necessary.
    -Disembark a bunch of units on Alg on turn 1. Taking Africa is very important and the German trn in the Med could live for a while. You just need extra units.
    -US should build a massive fleet in the Pacific and put his builds there. Japan will be able to take a bunch of territories in Asia with UK ignoring him, likely going to 40 IPC, but it will be forced to build a massive fleet not to die to the US. The pressure it will put on Moscow will then be very limited and easy to handle for the Russians.
    -UK building planes will get him some Bombers on the board. Bomb Berlin with that, this will keep Germany on low IPC (Germany will need to buy more ships not to lose it’s Baltic fleet). What is therefore happenning in the Atlantic is Germany building a fleet that will never get to London if you are watching every turn the odds on London. While UK is building planes that have the multiple uses to put pressure on the Blatic fleet, protect London and bomb Berlin/Rome. Germany will at some point not have enough IPC to protect his fleet (After the 3rd AC, the fleet costs a lot since 14 IPC doesn’t put 10 defense on the sea anymore but more like 4).
    -When Germany can’t protect it’s fleet anymore… well that should be good game.

    I have NEVER lost against a sealion using that strategy and I played against it quite a bunch of times (I’d say around 10 times online). If anyone thinks he can offer an Axis strategy that would counter my allied strategy and give good odds on the sealion to win, I’d be glad to listen and maybe even try it at some poitn with Axis :)


  • Allow me to ask you a question.

    What do you think of an XBox 360?

    Well, you may say, um, it’s an entertainment system.  Perhaps you don’t care for it.  But you know what it is, and it’s good enough for some people, even if not yourself.

    But I say bah.  Because WHEN YOU TRY TO USE IT AS A HAMMER, IT IS NEAR USELESS.

    Yes.  It may surprise you that this supposedly amazing piece of technology UTTERLY FAILS AS A HAMMER.  But I can assure you that is the case.  As far as I am concerned, it costs 300 times as much as a hammer, and lasts mere moments.

    But I do not say that I am an authority in these matters.  If anybody thinks he or she can offer an, ah, strategy that will let me use an XBox 360 as a hammer, I would be most interested in your view.

    On a related topic, AN XBOX 360 IS ALSO NOT MUCH USE AS A GUN.

    I have tried loading it with revolver bullets, shotgun shells, even BB pellets.  But it simply will not function.  In fact, the only way you can use an XBox 360 to fire shells is when you jam the shells into the disk tray, and throw the XBox 360.  I ask you, is that any way to build a gun?  When you have to throw the gun to get some real effect?

    XBOX 360 = FAIL.

    I have spoken!  :-D


  • To be serious, though -

    In Axis and Allies Spring 1942 edition, Sealion fails to take London against any sort of skilled Allied player.  But it is not the purpose of Sealion to take London.  Saying Sealion “failed” against you because the Germans did not take London is like saying an XBox 360 fails as a hammer.  It is entirely besides the theoretical point of the Sealion, aka German Baltic navy build to take London.

    Evidence of fail?  G1 build is limited to 5 transports.  Say precondition is Russian fighters out of range to fly to London.  So grant this much.  After the 5 transport build, UK sees invasion coming a mile away, so responds appropriately.  So will US.  In particular, US response is to block the Med fleet and move in 4 ground units.  Germany can stop this 50% of time with sub vs cruiser and two transports at Eastern US.  But UK can also use its battleship to block.

    So let’s say Germany gets REALLY lucky and both kills the US cruiser AND sinks the UK battleship with fighter and bomber, taking no losses.  This is all really loaded dice for Germany, but let’s just pretend, for this wonderful fantasy.  Germany then has 2 starting transports of material, plus all its fighters and bomber, plus G1 build.  What is G1 build?  No carrier means UK kills entire fleet, so 14 IPC on that, then 3 transports is all Germany can afford.  So that’s 5 infantry 5 tanks 6 fighters 1 bomber, against 1 AA gun, 2 bomber, 3 fighter, 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 2 tank, plus the UK1 build, which is limited to 6 inf 2 tanks (so defense 2 bomber, 3 fighter, 8 infantry, 1 artillery, 4 tanks  But remember, this involves a lot of dice fracks for the Germans.  But OK, let’s say AA guns have no hits.  Now we say UK builds infantry and tanks.  The battle is now 32% odds for Germany.

    And just what did the Allies do that was so smart?  Fighters to London and reinforce, obvious!  And what are we assuming?  Favorable odds for Germany at everything!  50% sub vs carrier.  16% odds killing UK battleship with no loss.  28% loss no losses on AA gun.  Carrier is mandatory, 4 more ground units on London drops German chances to 2%.  Avoiding air loss is useful, but not completely mandatory, dropping a single fighter still cuts Germany’s odds to around 18%.  So we’ll just fudge numbers and assume 1 fighter got lost between the battleship and AA guns, which is frankly ridiculous (considering the 16% odds on the UK battleship), but that still means a 18% battle and a 50% battle, giving G1 Sealion a 9% chance.

    And remember - the Allied player doesn’t have to not be stupid to win Sealion.  All Allied player needs to do is

    1.  Make sure Cthulu doesn’t roll dice
    2.  Feed cat.  Important to feed cat.

    Another exciting post coming up.  yeh i kno u can hardly wait!  :roll:


  • OK, so we establish G1 London oriented Sealion fail on odds.  So what is the POINT of a G1 Baltic naval build, if it is NOT to invade London?

    Again, this is Spring 1942.  Transports are noncombatants.  Important.

    The theory now, as I understand it, is that the carrier gives fighters landing zones.  This carrier therefore allows fighters to threaten the spaces around London, preventing a London naval build.  If US sails a fleet in, Germany uses its range to kill it.  Only solution, US sails fleet in, then UK reinforces, or UK drops a huge navy.  But US doesn’t have a fleet that can take that damage in range until US2.  (US1 build, US2 move).  UK can’t afford that kind of navy easily either, particularly on UK1.

    Germany uses that carrier to protect the transport that feeds infantry directly from Western Europe or other inconvenient places to Karelia.  So the time delay in building a carrier is offset by the saving of a turn’s worth of movement for infantry.

    Additional compensation comes with a far stronger grip on Norway, giving Germany additional income and denying it to UK or Russia, both of which are key early opponents.

    So you see, Germany is not peeing its pants trying to invade London.  That’s not the point at all.

    So you SHOULD see Germany trying to crack Anglo-Egypt Sudan, plus most of the other “usual suspects”.  The single difference is that you typically won’t see as many German tanks on G1, allowing Russia to make some early progress, and that you may see 2 fighters at Anglo-Egypt Sudan (IF the Med fleet headed west to Gibraltar, which there’s a good chance it did; the 2nd fighter allows the Germans to commit less ground to the battle.  This makes holding Ukraine with its German fighter another possible precondition to a G1 naval build.

    But the problem with Russia is not Russia’s early progress, as the UK and US.  Once the UK/US transport chain sets in, you have 12-16 units, at least, being dropped into Russia every turn, on the German side, in a territory adjacent to Moscow.  The Axis cannot withstand that.  Every turn, 16 ground units get dropped closer and closer, if the Allies get it going, the Axis cannot hope to win, completely impossible.

    Germany’s G1 build is only meant to STALL the Allies while Japan slaughters Russia from the east.  If Russia’s running rampant in the west, it matters relatively little as Japan pushes from the East.  Russia is forced to retreat the bulk of its forces east to deal with the threat, and Germany can press forwards again - very little, but enough.  Germany can let the Allies move into position in the Atlantic to get time to make the final push.

    So that’s how you’re SUPPOSED to use a German Baltic build.  I still say a German Baltic build is no good.  Too easy for the Allies to counter too quickly, because Baltic zone is only place to put new units, and it’s a dead end.  Far more, I prefer the idea of a Mediterranean carrier, which I haven’t seen yet in play, or even an article on.

    So I will call it the “Bunnies Carrier Plan” with pride.  Although I know d*** well others have tried it.  Not that I’ve seen it, but I can hardly think that I’m the ONLY one that has been struck by the following.

    1.  Mediterranean women are hot.

    Wrong list

    1.  Mediterranean is adjacent to Ukraine, Balkans, and Caucasus.  Baltic only Eastern Europe and Karelia.  Using transports from S. Europe to Caucasus saves TWO turns of walking, not just one.  And Caucasus is a key target.  No matter how far the Russian lines stretch, Caucasus can never be lightly defended with the possibility of German capture and Japanese fighter reinforcement.  (This is around J3-4 of course; J1 requires targets be hit, J2 fly back to Asia, J3-J4 they start to get in range.)

    2.  Mediterranean is adjacent to Africa.

    3.  Southern Europe produces units AND has an easy zone to retreat to.  Two, in fact.  A threatened fleet can retreat while Germany puts down a destroyer block.  Control of AES means the German fleet can literally just get out of there completely if necessary.

    4.  Mediterranean battleship easy to destroy with air.  Mediterranean battleship and carrier much much less so.  Particularly with Japanese fighters in the area.

    5.  Mass sub builds to control Mediterranean fail to destroyer/air normally, but battleship/carrier can protect subs.

    So you can see how 2 transports, carrier, and a battleship could really wreck Africa and the Caucasus, while with Axis control of Africa, would restrict Allied landing zones to the point of being quite difficult to cap out the German fleet.

    Granted, carriers are expensive.  But if the German battleship is going to be destroyed soon, and the Germans are having trouble in Africa, why not?

    Additionally, the Germans can start shuttling units into Libya (not Anglo Egypt Sudan).  Doing so leaves them in range of any heavy Algerian landing, and protects any sub builds.

    Where do the Germans get the paycheck for all this?  Hopefully Africa.  With 2 transports, it should not be long before Germany runs through Africa.  With subs, they can stall an Algeria landing.

    That doesn’t deny that the E Canada/London - London/Europe chain is the one that’s really a problem.  Africa’s nice to have.  But Archangel/Karelia are the game.

    Still, as far as the Baltic goes, I think it’s a dead end, for reasons I have posted elsewhere.  Briefly - minimal German build risks air / sub attack, massive German build risks destroyer block with mass subs on UK2 (even after a UK1 air build).  Barring extreme G3 naval build that leaves Russia in a great position after a weak G1 and G2, I think the Baltic fleet drops.  This is not an awful thing for the Axis, in that Allied subs are useless against German ground targets.  But it isn’t nice to drop 3 carriers and a destroyer either.  That’s a LOT of infantry.

    BTW, Sealion Baltic often includes transport to threaten 3 transport invasion of London with Med fleet.  That threat must be taken seriously by Allies; they cannot skip straight to mass air response.  Ground units must be built.  My feeling is that the UK1 response to the 3-transport threat allows some air to be built with the ground, forcing a G2 Baltic build or potential sacrifice.  You’ll then see the Baltic fleet pinned in place; if it moves, it gets whacked, if it doesn’t move, the Allies just keep building up against it.  Again, contrast with Mediterranean, where control of the canal allows the Axis to slip away at WORST.


  • @Bunnies:

    Allow me to ask you a question.

    What do you think of an XBox 360?

    Well, you may say, um, it’s an entertainment system.  Perhaps you don’t care for it.  But you know what it is, and it’s good enough for some people, even if not yourself.

    But I say bah.  Because WHEN YOU TRY TO USE IT AS A HAMMER, IT IS NEAR USELESS.

    If you use it often, after a certain amount of time, a red ring will appear on the Xbox 360. And, then, using it as a hammer is about the only use you will have for it.

    Like Bunny implies, Sealion is simply a threat. Just 2 TRN in the Baltic makes the UK player think. He knows you probably won’t do it but… he can’t ignore it either. It is worth mentionning that threatening to use an Xbox 360 as a hammer to hit someone in the head usually makes that person think. The person knows that you probably won’t do it but… that person usually doesn’t ignores it either (and often calls the police, for some eason)…


  • Well obviously the point of the sealion is not only to threaten London. Hence my plan to beat it that I will state again here in a nutshell:
    -US goes after Japan.
    -Russia goes after Germany.
    -UK goes for Africa and building lots of planes.

    The point is to not build a fleet in the Atlantic. Why ? Because by doing so Germany is losing IPC. The first German fleet builds won’t be expensive because Germany has a bunch of Fighters to lend on his new AC, but quite fast Grmany will be spending IPC to build a fleet that won’t attack anything, while UK planes after they destroy the German fleet will still be usefull (unless both sides just keep building which would be good for the allies, since UK will ALSO bomb Germany, US should match Japan while Russia will slowly overwhelm Germany). Obviously, if the allies starts building a fleet in the Atlantic, the sealion becomes good (well playable). You should really raed my plan on how to beat the sealion. I’m not saying it can’t win. Just that it has terrible odds against the right strategy which is NOT building an Atlantic fleet (see the first post for details).


  • @GCar:

    What do you guys think about the sealion ?
    When I talk about sealion, I mean building a fleet in the Baltic (usually 1 AC + some trn) and moving the BB and trn in the Med to SZ 13, taking Gibraltar in the process (Not to let UK kill those ships !). Planes going to WE and Norway, ready for an attack on London. There can be some variations for the number of trn build in the Baltic and the number of ground units build. It is followed by more Germany ship builds.

    Sealion is a losing strat, unless the Allies leave London undefended.

  • '16 '15 '10

    @GCar:

    -US should build a massive fleet in the Pacific and put his builds there. Japan will be able to take a bunch of territories in Asia with UK ignoring him, likely going to 40 IPC, but it will be forced to build a massive fleet not to die to the US. The pressure it will put on Moscow will then be very limited and easy to handle for the Russians.
    -UK building planes will get him some Bombers on the board. Bomb Berlin with that, this will keep Germany on low IPC (Germany will need to buy more ships not to lose it’s Baltic fleet). What is therefore happenning in the Atlantic is Germany building a fleet that will never get to London if you are watching every turn the odds on London. While UK is building planes that have the multiple uses to put pressure on the Blatic fleet, protect London and bomb Berlin/Rome. Germany will at some point not have enough IPC to protect his fleet (After the 3rd AC, the fleet costs a lot since 14 IPC doesn’t put 10 defense on the sea anymore but more like 4).
    -When Germany can’t protect it’s fleet anymore… well that should be good game.

    I have NEVER lost against a sealion using that strategy and I played against it quite a bunch of times (I’d say around 10 times online). If anyone thinks he can offer an Axis strategy that would counter my allied strategy and give good odds on the sealion to win, I’d be glad to listen and maybe even try it at some poitn with Axis :)

    I think this could work.  The Baltic navy strategy you describe is effective in Revised but less effective in 42.  I believe a large number of Allied counters could potentially work because the strat is economically unfeasible to begin with.

    I think moving the bb/tpt to 13/Gib is a bad decision overall.  Sure, you will catch people by surprise sometimes and take UK G2.  But for the most part, if you are building German fleet then you want to grab ahold of Africa and prevent Allies from landing there.  So you want to land in Africa ASAP–namely G1 and J2.  More to the point, in Revised it was possible to combine in 7 G2, but in AA42 it is unlikely that a combined Kraut fleet could survive unless Germany invested in 2 acs G1.

    If Axis is effective in capturing Africa while also using Baltic fleet to dominate UK sea zones, then the decision to go 100% Pacific with the USA could be bad for Allies.  Germany could acquire enough income to add sufficient acs and figs to hold off the RAF and enough infantry to keep Russia back…until Japan starts biting into Russia’s income as well.

    I prefer KGF as a response to fleet strats.  By investing in fleet, Germany makes it easier for Allies to break Germany down piecemeal and slowly grind it to nothing.


  • On a similar but a bit different subject, what do you guys think about the AC build on G1 in the Baltic, but with a regular G1 Egy attack ? In my opinion, building planes is a better way to defend the coast for Germany.


  • I still like the Baltic AC. It really puts pressure on Allies to go ALL navy for a turn (and still being at risk), or hold on their IPC for an extra turn.

    And it is still an investment of only 14 IPC that your opponent will have to sink eventually, risking a DD or a FTR.


  • @coorran:

    I still like the Baltic AC. It really puts pressure on Allies to go ALL navy for a turn (and still being at risk), or hold on their IPC for an extra turn.

    And it is still an investment of only 14 IPC that your opponent will have to sink eventually, risking a DD or a FTR.

    I don’t agree there, if UK builds all planes, YOU will have to build more fleet to protect your AC+DD+Trn. See previous post on IPC efficiency for Germany vs UK in that build up fight.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

37

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts