West Canada naval base.

@vodot

Shoot, my sentence was in the wrong order. I edited it to mean what I wanted to say.

Sounds good. I think I’ll go with that.
Thank you all for the input.  :-)

@GeneralHandGrenade:

All it takes is a commitment to attack by Germany.

Germany buys 2 transports on turn one and 5 on turn 2. Turn 3 they put 16 infantry and 8 tanks plus the air power on London. They will already have that many tanks without having to purchase any so they still have money left over to commit to the eastern border. They take UK’s income and drop the ground units in the east that they didn’t on turn 2 or reinforce London with the transports they already have and infantry they purchase with UK’s money.

If they don’t get it turn 3 they can hit them again turn 4.� � Every single game.

GHC, just friendly debate here :) Buying 7 transports is a lot of IPCs in the critical 1st few turns.

If London has to be hit again on turn 4, I really don’t know how the Axis could win at all. The US will have to be kept of the war through Japan’s turn 3 which means India and ANZAC have enough time to build sufficiently to take care of themselves for a long time. Maybe only China is destroyed during this time, which I believe very critical. The US can fully concentrate on liberating London.

Yes, GHC, don’t get me wrong. Just saying…I like pulling off Sea Lion, even if I lose the game :)

It’s fun to sack London! I know how to execute a Sea Lion. I’ve done it successfully in 2 games (taken London a total of 4 times). In the 2 games London was taken, but not successfully, Germany could barely hold Russia back in both of them; planes had to be taken as hits just to get 1 tank on London. In the successful games, Moscow eventually fell, but in all 4 games London was liberated. The US can easily liberate London regardless.

I agree and already wrote in a previous post that no matter what, London can be taken. Have you ever experienced sacking London against a fully defending UK? If the UK player is able to put 16 infantry on London plus a fighter (UK 1 and UK2). Germany can still take it like you said. But Germany having to drop lots of ground while losing a whole turns worth of purchases is very taxing. The sacked treasury is often barely enough to stabilize and push Russia back. I go for Sea Lion only if everything goes right G1 and then the UK player gets too aggressive. Some people less experienced think a G1 purchase of 1 bomber and 6 infantry signals Barbarossa.

In the situation you describe, an experienced Russian player is going to get bonuses in Hungary and Romania, maybe Russia gets pushed back to their original borders, but Germany won’t be going much further for a very long time. A smart Russian player will have more tanks on the board than Germany and stacked on E. Poland.

Therefore I’m arguing that the HR idea of this thread is still not overkill for the Axis or at least in the situation of Sea Lion as you describe. This will mean though that a smart UK player will have to place 6 infantry/1 fighter on London UK1.

“Germany could spend every penny on executing Sea Lion and still successfully do it, even if the UK is putting everything on London, but at that point it’s too expensive; especially if Germany has to take plane hits to conquer London…”

You might find useful some of the information in the British section of my G40 map analysis:

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36590.0

Egypt, for example, was technically an independent country during WWII, though there was a lot of British influence.  It was also somewhat unstable; some members of King Farouk’s inner circle were a little too pro-Nazi for London’s taste, and in 1942 the British Army actually staged a mini-coup to get rid of them.

I agree that if the UK itself had been occupied the rest of the British Commonwealth’s self-governing Dominions, who in 1939 had declared war in their own names (rather than being automatically dragged in by Britian, as was the case in 1914), would have continued the fight on their own.  The British colonial territories are a more complicated case, with no clear answer.  India is particularly problematic to speculate about; if Britain’s homme territory had come under Nazi occupation, the independence movement in India would probably have been given quite a boost.  Even if India had, however, declared itself independent from the UK, this would hardly have translated into India surrendering to Japan, since that would have undercut the whole point of being independent in the first place.

Sounds a mad game.

If you plug them into a combat simulation ( online) the odds give you these results.

cruisers cant get too cheap, or powers that dont deserve them will get to buy them, like Germany, ANZAC, and Italy. Sure they can buy some, and use the unit, but its expensive now for a reason, so they dont buy a gazzilon.

Boat prices have to be high, because only wealthy powers deserve big fleets.

if you want to add something neat to destroyers add my Sonar/Radar tech to games

“In addition to Radar as normal, a power with this breakthrough is also granted Sonar, Destroyers now fire pre-emptively on the first round of combat at submarines when both attacking and defending.”

I was also thinking maybe transports could carrymoney to other nations.