okay, killofzee, xandax and jimmyhat: can anyone of you outline how you would buy, move, fight etc.?
til today i have not seen a strategy of winning this game, only a strategy - if you like to call this way - of taking london. about what happenes afterwards just the assumption that russia will definitely fall. but how???
to answer to you three properly i need to know in which manner you would like to win this game.
and: the first two turns, britain has to prepare against sealion anyway. always for two turns minimum. not earlier than UK2 it would become obvious if germany goes east or west.
@ jimmi hat: britain cannot run wild. it doesn´t have sufficient ipcs to do so. italy - in a direct-barbarossa-game - would “cover” britain in the med enough that england cannot spend as much as wanted against germany, believe me.
You’re points are all too short sighted. Losing your entire air force to eliminate the English player completely, along with gaining money and ground to make naval strikes, is worth it in the long run.
which naval strike? you will go into the baltic sea and then get bottled in by the US. no ground for naval strikes…you want to buy navy then? well this helps russia even more. well done!
Point 5: Well if America doesn’t give a F*** then you get a victory city, money and get to keep the English player out of the game
Point 6: Without the English, your navy doesn’t have any deterrents besides America, and if they’re not at war then yes, you’re navy is free to act where it wants.
is it? it is free to die fast! against the american navy there is no way out then going into the baltic.
point 1: barbarossa should start at latest on G2, so nothing about it with “much quicker”,
point 2: which is therefor well defended, not to get in with 8 troops and58 planes…,
point 3: how???
point 4: only 8, moscow is not nearby the baltic sea…well…
Point 1:You’re right, it will happen either way.
Point 2:The Russians will not have a significant force in Leningrad after 1 turn, unless they abandon, Belarus, East Poland, and the Baltic states, which means you’ll just have that much of a bigger force from Poland, Finland, and you’re amphibious attackers.
finland is two turns from leningrad, so you can count them out. as russia you can manage to have 20 infantry plus 1 or 2 artillery, maybe a tank and 2 fighters and a tactical. you cannot beat this force with 4 transports meaning 8 troops and rest planes! and even if you do so it will cost you too much to continue winning.
Point 3:The British are forced to spend only on England, which means not purchasing units for Africa, and possibly abandoning Taranto to defend the English Channel.
hmm, taranto is a must-have as britain. if not done, italy is kind of free to act. well, no.
Point 4:Doesn’t matter where Moscow is, you are able to move ground units directly from Germany into Leningrad, saving you 4 spaces. It makes it that much quicker to get into Moscow.
4 spaces? at most 3, if you go between leningrad and berlin, between leningrad an w.germany are 2 seazones, so your “speed” would only be in action every two rounds.
anyway from leningrad to moscow there 3 more spaces, after a sealion fulfilled you land on G5 at earliest in leningrad, maybe, plus 3 turns more to moscow plus one turn more holding 8 VCs.
it means in round 8 (!) you must have done it. 7 are needed by the allies to inhibit this effectively…this makes you one round short, no two!
It is neither a dead end nor a win-win, it depends on too many factors. However, it isn’t an automatic loose to invade England, especially if you actually take England, then you’re in a good position onwards. I’ve also seen absolutely nothing to indicate it is a loose strategy.
see above, please outline your strategy! then i can answer properly.
So, while I don’t think Sealion is a needed strategy, it is a neeed build process G1. For many of the same reasons outlined in the previous posts.
If you show your hand in G1 and signal clearly a Russian invasion - England will run wild and South Africa is effectively lost for Italy as I see it. If you at least threaten invasion, England has to plan accordingly and all things equal, Italy will have easier time in Africa/Med.
same thing, see above: britain has to build up home defence anyway til round 2!
Taking England offers large tactical advantage in threathening the USA and provide additional income for the Russian campaign. Russia usually needs to play defensive as well, so even with a Sealion they can’t push far enough into Germany at the risk of spreading too thin and allowing the invetable invasion to just run over them.
they cannot push in neither way, barbarossa with or without sealion. but it can harass germany a lot, e.g. in norway or romania, just to mention two examples where, not how. if sealion is done, russia can take over those mentioned territories thus delaying a german approach. blocking a landing in the baltic sea for one more turn is also quite possible, depends on the german player being attentive or not.
and yes, spreading too thin is suicide, but not only for russia.
USA will have to react to England’s capture or be push right out of European theatre thus potentially giving Japan more free reigns. Effectively Sealion forces the USA to split resources in a much higher degree than otherwise, something Japan usually will benefit from.
“potentially”…there you have it. but not really. the one way or another, london will fall soon back to allied´s hands and therefor is not this much needed to get this done. even to deny a german recapture it is only needed to take or block denmark (italy left aside here).
And if not doing a Sealion the transports can still be used in the Russia push.
i know, that is not questioned.
greetings and thanx for your answers