Let's talk about what happens AFTER Sealion, from my experience.
1) Germany loots UK's money, instantly reimbursing the cost of 3 to 5 transports. Germany gains $13 per turn as long as they can hold London, which is guaranteed at least 2 turns cause USA can't get there before then. (new rule about transports)
2) The Allies lose UK's building for 3 turns, generally between $25 and $30 per build.
3) Germany has several units in London, which will be likely be needed to fight against the Russians. Luckily there is a huge fleet of transports to get them back to Germany right away!
4) Germany has $80 to $90 to spend at the beginning of the turn after taking London. That's a large build of tanks and infantry to fight Russia.
5) Russia is at LEAST 2 spaces from Germany's capitol, giving Germany 2 full turns to build and consolidate a defensive force in Berlin.
6) If the UK was defensive minded, the Italians are in the $40 income range by turn 4 or 5, and ready to help against Russia or the USA fleet.
7) With an experienced Japanese player whooping a%% in the Pacific, the USA has been building heavily in the Pacific to protect Honolulu and Sydney. USA player has had a chance to be several transports and a carrier or two in the Atlantic. This is sizable, but not a match for the combined forces of Italy and Germany, because it will take a few turns to build a regular supply of troops landing on Europe.
I've seen Sealion succeed, Italy become strong, and Germany hold of the Russians, even push them back. Experienced players on all sides.
Compelling supporting arguments.
One game I played USSR and the other UK-E. In one game UK-E took an aggressive approach in the Med attacking Italy. This of course made Sealion easy for Germany to do on Turn 3. In the other game UK-E took a defensive posture, building infantry in London and retreating the fleet to UK home waters. Sealion was lined up for success on Turn 4 (after a Scottish invasion on Turn 3).
In both games Sealion succeeded (or would have succeeded on the very next turn - by a wide margin - based on calculations of the units currently on the board) had we had time to finish the game. The Axis were still strong, measured in income not far behind the Allies. Russia was, militarily speaking, on par with Germany, despite having massed forces in the Baltic states and prepared for a full assault on Berlin.
I admit we didn't take the 12 hours to finish either of the games nor write play-by-play turn reports with detailed moves. Maybe that is what is required on these forums, but I don't have time to devote to that.
The argument could be made, I suppose, that "yeah Sealion can work, but it's not worth it"... "Sealion works but is a fool's errand". I don't have the data from dozens of games to refute those claims, but I know what I saw...
Regardless, do we really want a game to play out so that UK's *only* choice to even TRY to prevent Sealion is to retreat all forces to UK home waters and build infantry for the first 3 turns?
Firstly, Sealion is hard to do without a plan. Japan has to seriously threaten America or at least Hawaii, maybe even Mexico. Japan has to make America focus all their efforts on Japan.Captain Crunch wrote:Just finished a game where sealion took London. London left their fleet in med to clear Italian fleet knowing US would be able to liberate London in 2-3 turns. Germany was in a whole lot of trouble with pressure from Russia and the Axis eventually conceded. I don't see how Sealion could possibly be a good thing.
Secondly, it's imperative (at least to me) that 13 transports are built to allow for maximum damage and to make sure no tanks are killed.
Thirdly, this force of 26 units or less has to seriously threaten Leningrad at the exact same time on G2. (after Germany just built 10 transports on G2 and two from the turn before, and one from the start). The Russian player has to be terrified of moving it's bulk out of leningrad or else Sealion might instead be Operation SeaBarborossa. Maybe, the Russian player will still move forward, but maybe they will pull back to Leningrad, and if they do then you've bought yourself a turn. (I know the Russian player in my game was scared of Leningrad getting taken like this).
Lastly, by the time the Russian player was in E.Poland, Germany was able to transport the bulk of the Sealion units back to Germany and build 10 infantry in Germany and 10 in W.Germany (which again threatens SeaBarborosa).
These are ideal above and not likely going to happen if tried every single time.
BTW, the best part is if you take England from Seazone 109, then you threaten Canada also. The troops have to go back to Russia, but it might make the American player overreact.
On the forums so people can actually see what you mean. I'm more than a little skeptical of your points. Even on paper, none of it sounds right. Italy collecting 40? Russia not building an insurmountable lead in troops? There are a lot of people posting head-scratchers here and we've only got their descriptions of local games to go on. Maybe you're right, but none of the games I've played and watched would put that in the realm of possibility.LoafOfBread wrote:I was there, that's what I saw...how shall I "show you"? I do have a couple of photos, but not in great detail.
One tweak that I would like Larry to consider as a result of Loaf of Bread's analysis is to allow the US to declare war if Scotland or United Kingdom is invaded. I think this is both historically plausible and a small way to push back against a well designed Sea Lion while not negating Sea Lion as a serious option.
Finally, the issue of the timing of the game is an important underlying factor that should be addressed head on. If one has 20 hours to complete the game, Sea Lion is less devastating because there are so many turns for the US's great production to help the Allies catch up against the Axis. If one would like the game to last no more than half that time, say 8-10 hours or less, Sea Lion is going to be devastating because the Allies won't have time to fully recover. Although not fully playtested, I don't believe that USSR will be able to take Berlin against a good German player who has taken UK in that time frame. So, the question of Sea Lion is much different depending on the play time available. If Loaf of Bread and his friends have the shorter playing time, I can see their frustration with Sea Lion. I am still not certain that it is as inevitable as he suggests, but it is darn likely and almost certainly the Axis's best option in a short game. My main suggestion in this case is that Loaf of Bread not play Global 1940 if he only has a short time at his disposal. Either reserve Global for those few times you have lots of time on your hands or try my 1942 start for the Global Boards. I am still tweaking the start, and someday I hope Larry will post his own 1942 start set up, but this is what my friends and I play when we have 5-6 hours only available to us, which is most of the time. You can see the thread here: http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/ ... =40&t=2614
Well, unfortunatley for the Axis, I was playing the UK. I smelled Sealion and purchased all infantry on all turns. First attempt to take it failed but the second German attack was successful. He lost so much though that any defense anywhere else was very limited. I don't believe in our playgroup Sealion will happen again because if Germany shows it the UK player will only stack up the infantry know that, major dice luck excluded, Germany will be so badly hurt financially that recovery is out of the question.QuakerGeneral wrote:I agree and disagree. Yes, I think that Russia advancing on Germany is a big factor and that the USA can retake England eventually. No, that taking UK is always a bad idea. If UK can be taken early, the benefits of the income won by taking the capital and knocking UK out of production for a few turns are worth it. I believe that the optimal strategy is to essentially abandon England after taking it, swing all the surviving troops back around and into the Russian theater. Meanwhile, hopefully Italy is doing well in the Med because of the fall of the British and can start to help in Eastern Europe and push on Russia's southern border. German navy can either swing down into Med. to help Italians out or block and delay US retaking of England. It should take US a bit of time to retake because of the new rule about Minor complexes before they enter the war and their inability to load troops prior to war. This means that, barring an early Japanese attack, they can't liberate UK until Turn Six at the earliest I should think.Captain Crunch wrote:Just finished a game where sealion took London. London left their fleet in med to clear Italian fleet knowing US would be able to liberate London in 2-3 turns. Germany was in a whole lot of trouble with pressure from Russia and the Axis eventually conceded. I don't see how Sealion could possibly be a good thing.
Bottom Line: I do think it depends on how well England is defended. If it is defended very well, the costs of successful invasion may indeed be too high. However, if the British player has not pursued an optimal defense, taking England on Turn Three should be relatively easy to accomplish and worth it.
Take time from your busy day to play Axis & Allies and to eat a bowl of cereal.
He has to take overwhelming force on G3 if England buy 9 infantry. Anything less and he'll be slaughtered by Russia in R4. G2 attack only works if England does not buy infantry. Don't let him be discouraged by not winning well with Sealion. England should always buy some infantry on UK1. Not doing so just encourages the Germany player to drop 9-10 transports on G2.Captain Crunch wrote: Well, unfortunatley for the Axis, I was playing the UK. I smelled Sealion and purchased all infantry on all turns. First attempt to take it failed but the second German attack was successful. He lost so much though that any defense anywhere else was very limited. I don't believe in our playgroup Sealion will happen again because if Germany shows it the UK player will only stack up the infantry know that, major dice luck excluded, Germany will be so badly hurt financially that recovery is out of the question.
I wonder if's a bad thing that UK Europe always has to buy men? I don't think so. I mean this is May 1940! You might be invaded England. Prepare for defense!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests