Turn 3 Sealion with Turn 3 Calcutta crunch. Thoughts?

In my opinion, both G3 London and J3 Calcutta are opportunities to be taken, not strategies to pursue. Keep your options open, but if the Allies are determined to prevent one or both (or make prohibitively expensive, which is the same thing), they can.

Wholeheartedly agree with the consensus here.

With the Uk completely gone, USA must destroy the kriegsmarine US3 and after that the game looks as as follows:

• Japan versus the USA + ANZAC + China + Siberians (no need for them to retreat to Moscow during SL) -> loosing proposition for Japan.

• Germany (after taking heavy losses) + Italy versus Russia -> loosing proposition for Germany. Maybe stalemate, which is also bad because once Japan is done, the USA joins the fight.

No need to liberate London. In fact, if the USA does do that, Hawaii will most likely also fall into Japanese hands (too much spending in Europe from the USA). That’s a tip for Japan right there ;-).
Calculate what the USA is spending in Europe and if there’s >120IPCs from the USA spent there (so not counting units that were already there during setup), Japan can swing east and J9 grab Hawaii as well. The chance of that is very good if the USA wants to liberate London. Buying enough to sink the Kriegsmarine (if protected)/have a decent escort, costs the USA >110IPCs already…

So if you want to ‘play the player’ and you know your USA opponent will (most likely) try to liberate London, go for it and have fun winning in the Pacific  :-D. Just don’t overdo it in Europe by trying to protect your kriegsmarine at all costs. This just invites Russia into Berlin (too much fleet spending from Germany). Or, if done carefully enough, it causes the USA to spend even more in Europe, further ensuring a Japanese victory in the Pacific  :evil:.

Be wary of the USA player though, who is able to spend/send TUV worth hundreds of IPCs to London (liberating it), then swings back all the units into the Pacific to arrive at Hawaii US7…
So, ‘know thy enemy’ looks very important to me if you want to do this.

I’ve done this strategy before, took London and Calcutta turn 3, and what ItIsILeClerc said is exactly what happened. Germany got into a stalemate with Russia, and Japan got slowly overwhelmed by the USA.

It would all depend on what the bid was and how much stuff uk can get on london. If germany only wins the battle with 10 units left then the allies probably win, but if germany comes out of the battle with all his tanks and 10 planes (two lost to aa fire) then the allies are in trouble. People often underestimate italy in these scenarios. Have italy take all the territories back that russia takes and germany will eventually be a monster and steam roll russia. Without the troops

From my experience, if the allies destroy the kriegsmarine it doesn’t really matter with how much land troops Germany wins. For Russia, since they’re stuck in London anyway.
For Liberating London it matters, ofc, but as said, it’s both optional and dangerous for the allies to do that (the 6VC win of Japan).

In the worst case scenario, Germany looses >2 air during Sea Lion and (figuratively speaking) every plane lost is an additional millstone around Germany’s neck for the turns to come.

In the best case scenario (<= 2 lost air in London), Germany can indeed push the Russians back with Italy’s help. IIRC, this stops as soon as the axis’ supplylines have become longer and that of the Russians shorter (i.e. closer to Moscow). Approximately, Leningrad and all areas along its longitude seems to be the furthest the axis can get in Russia. That’s why people call it a stalemate, I guess (at least why I do).

@ItIsILeClerc:

From my experience, if the allies destroy the kriegsmarine it doesn’t really matter with how much land troops Germany wins. For Russia, since they’re stuck in London anyway.
For Liberating London it matters, ofc, but as said, it’s both optional and dangerous for the allies to do that (the 6VC win of Japan).

Big IF though.  American bombers should not have a place to land.  Keeping the kriegsmarine alive is a must, to move those units and trannies back into the Baltic to keep a threat on Leningrad.

In the worst case scenario, Germany looses >2 air during Sea Lion and (figuratively speaking) every plane lost is an additional millstone around Germany’s neck for the turns to come.

In the best case scenario (<= 2 lost air in London), Germany can indeed push the Russians back with Italy’s help. IIRC, this stops as soon as the axis’ supplylines have become longer and that of the Russians shorter (i.e. closer to Moscow). Approximately, Leningrad and all areas along its longitude seems to be the furthest the axis can get in Russia. That’s why people call it a stalemate, I guess (at least why I do).

With London, Germany doesn’t need Moscow though.  Without UK purchasing Italy should be able to control the Med and take Cairo.

@IKE:

@ItIsILeClerc:

From my experience, if the allies destroy the kriegsmarine it doesn’t really matter with how much land troops Germany wins. For Russia, since they’re stuck in London anyway.
For Liberating London it matters, ofc, but as said, it’s both optional and dangerous for the allies to do that (the 6VC win of Japan).

Big IF though.  American bombers should not have a place to land.  Keeping the kriegsmarine alive is a must, to move those units and trannies back into the Baltic to keep a threat on Leningrad.

In the worst case scenario, Germany looses >2 air during Sea Lion and (figuratively speaking) every plane lost is an additional millstone around Germany’s neck for the turns to come.

In the best case scenario (<= 2 lost air in London), Germany can indeed push the Russians back with Italy’s help. IIRC, this stops as soon as the axis’ supplylines have become longer and that of the Russians shorter (i.e. closer to Moscow). Approximately, Leningrad and all areas along its longitude seems to be the furthest the axis can get in Russia. That’s why people call it a stalemate, I guess (at least why I do).

With London, Germany doesn’t need Moscow though.  Without UK purchasing Italy should be able to control the Med and take Cairo.

US bombers bought on US2 (in response to G2 tt buy) can zap 110 and land in Eire US3 if London mech takes it UK1.

Good point about Cairo>London in a Sealion, though. The tough part really is holding Leningrad/Stalingrad against a powerful Russia.

@TheMethuselah:

US bombers bought on US2 (in response to G2 tt buy) can zap 110 and land in Eire US3 if London mech takes it UK1.

Great idea, that would be a first for me.  Ofcourse any US surviving bombers are likely killed next G turn but worth the sacrifice I’d think.

Painful decision, but if it looks like the USA will loose their bombers anyway the next GE-turn, might as well take bombers as losses first (USA can also attack with carrierplanes from #102).

Furthermore, German bombers seem to be the only planes that can reach Eire the next GE-turn so it depends on how many Germany has left and how many FTR the allies can get in Eire for protection.

@ItIsILeClerc:

Painful decision, but if it looks like the USA will loose their bombers anyway the next GE-turn, might as well take bombers as losses first (USA can also attack with carrierplanes from #102).

Furthermore, German bombers seem to be the only planes that can reach Eire the next GE-turn so it depends on how many Germany has left and how many FTR the allies can get in Eire for protection.

Interesting, another Allied trick.  Our group never stages in sz102.

Most dedicated sea lions build a carrier and 2 transports. They then land in Scotland Turn 2. This makes it hard for US bombers to mean much of anything. That is because Germany can always just send 1 infantry from Scotland into Eire, or he could buy enough fleet to protect himself. He’ll already have a carrier 2 fighters and a cruiser as protection. If US only has 5 bombers then all Germany would need is another carrier. True that is 16 that Germany isn’t investing into land against Russia, but those 5 US bombers aren’t going to be nearly as cost effective as 10 subs would be against Japan.

5 Bombers might not be as cost-effective as 10 subs, but since the US won’t be at war, they’d only be able to place 3 units in the Pacific per turn anyway. Early bombers also generate threat on SZ6 before Japan has the ability to build naval reinforcements elsewhere. And if Germany spends extra money defending its transports, Russia will be much more successful even though Germany can move its surviving ground back. 4 inf and an art is a huge difference when holding off the Russian horde.

ROC, you didn’t mention a G destroyer buy.  Couldn’t UK2 just build a sub for sz109 and sz110 then scramble a plane bringing the sub up, now the G trannies can’t offload.  G3 vs G4 sealion can also make a huge difference when holding back Russia.

I do build a destroyer a lot with my sea lion builds, but a sub doesn’t stop sea lion. Germany just puts 3 planes in his sea sector, so even if you scramble with your 3 planes and a sub it isn’t enough vs Germany’s 3 planes, Cruiser, Carrier, and any subs that survived.

Good point.  I was thinking as if there wasn’t a CR & CV, then the planes couldn’t hit the UK sub and the offload couldn’t happen.

@IKE:

ROC, you didn’t mention a G destroyer buy.  Couldn’t UK2 just build a sub for sz109 and sz110 then scramble a plane bringing the sub up, now the G trannies can’t offload.  G3 vs G4 sealion can also make a huge difference when holding back Russia.

I thought you could only scramble planes from island airbases and the United Kingdom is not considered an island according to page 25 of the Europe 1940 rulebook. Was this changed in the 2nd edition?

I think Sealion round 3 makes it very easy for Russia to stop round 3 Calcutta crunch.
That makes it not playable by default unless allowed to by opponent.

@Anonymous:

I think Sealion round 3 makes it very easy for Russia to stop round 3 Calcutta crunch.
That makes it not playable by default unless allowed to by opponent.

Really? That would be interesting…

I mean, I have a lot of experience with ‘surprise SL’ where Germany only buys a lot of TRS by surprise. After buying only landunits GE1, for example, to fool the allies into thinking (and acting like) Germany is going full barbarossa.
After London is taken, I know with this ploy Germany + (very crucial) Italy can barely hold Hungary -which is a better position than Poland I suppose.

So yes, during a more dedicated SL, where Germany also buys ships for protection GE1 (or GE3, placing them off Normandy), I assume Germany cannot hold any eastern European area.

But does this more dedicated SL leaves Russia that much stronger that they can send troops (planes in particular I guess) to India, and still be able to contest or even permanently take eastern Europe? I’m really guessing here since it’s been a very long time since I’ve seen any German bothering a dedicated SL. I’ve seen some in my rookie-years but those don’t count. With todays knowledge, those games can be classified as irrelevant to serious strategy discussions nowadays ;-).

@madscientist:

@IKE:

ROC, you didn’t mention a G destroyer buy.  Couldn’t UK2 just build a sub for sz109 and sz110 then scramble a plane bringing the sub up, now the G trannies can’t offload.  G3 vs G4 sealion can also make a huge difference when holding back Russia.

I thought you could only scramble planes from island airbases and the United Kingdom is not considered an island according to page 25 of the Europe 1940 rulebook. Was this changed in the 2nd edition?

Yes, 3 planes can scramble from any coastal airbase.  UK could actually scramble 6 planes into sz109 making it a great spot for early UK navy depending on how much of the Luftwaffe can reach it.

Another option is build up the transports for sea lion, but then attack Leningrad first turn.