Ok here goes, here are some numbers.
Income and Purchase Assumptions:
Let's say that in the first 2 turns Germany has $95 total in income to spend. That's conservative. This assumes a few things: a) Germany takes Paris turn 1 and therefore gets French money b) Germany collects 2 NOs in turn 1. It's not unreasonable to say, therefore, that Germany could build and fill a total of 10 transports ready to attack London on Turn 3. 9 transports is $63, $16 for a carrier and the rest in ground troops. Very doable.
UK purchases 9 infantry in turn 1. And they purchase 10 infantry in turn 2. UK moves the plane and Inf from Scotland to London. In turn 2, UK moves the Inf and Tank from Canada to London too.
1) Germany reinforces southern Italy with 2 fighters in Turn 1. This is very doable. This makes a UK attack harder on an Italian fleet.
2) Germany destroys all but a single destroyer near London in SZ109 in their initial attack. Seen this happen every time (or worse) for 4 games.
3) UK attacks the Italian fleet (as Kobu has suggested). How about SZ95? Let's get those transports, right? Ok.
4) Germany may or may not choose to scramble, depending on the odds of the battle. Let's take a look at that SZ 95 battle possibilities.
Possibly 3 fighters
2 Cruisers (one from Egy and one from Gibraltar)
1 Tac Bomber
Possibly 2 fighters from London that can attack and land on the carrier in SZ 95
UK must assume that the Italian and German fighters COULD scramble, so UK must bring enough into the battle to win in a scramble situation. The battle WITH the scramble but WITHOUT the UK fighters from London OR the British carrier to soak up hits is an 18% win. Very bad. Add the carrier for HP. Now it's a 43% win. Still not a good attack. Ok we add 2 fighters from London, that's 86% - not great...still a chance of losing. Mostly likely UK will win with heavy casualties. Let's say what survives is...the UK carrier and 2 planes. The planes could land on Malta or on the carrier. That UK carrier and 2 planes are ripe for Italian counter attack OR German air attack, and will likely be destroyed in turn 2. This was your idea right Kobu? So that means UK is minus its Med fleet as well as 4 fighters and a tactical bomber. Germany lost 2 fighters helping Italy. A really funny thing for Germany to do would be to NOT scramble. The Italian fleet will be lost BUT the only place for those 5 UK planes to land is in Malta or on the carrier. Either way, the UK fighters can't make it back the next turn to London! (count it) However, the Germany planes in Southern Italy have 2 turns to get back up to participate in Sealion in Turn 3. The UK is out of position....OMG, funny stuff. We'll keep that in mind in Turn 3 in London, that none of those 5 UK planes made it home, for whatever reason.
Back north Germany still has a fleet, cause UK shot its wad in the Med and didn't attack the Germany battleship in SZ 112 - it had scramble protection as well as a carrier ! Germany spends turn 2 finishing off whatever sea forces remain around the British isles with Luftwaffe, the German battleship, and any subs that are still alive. Germany *could* land in Scotland also, with coverage from that carrier and battleship, but let's not factor that in just yet.
Turn 3 - the attack.
UK has built all infantry. Also has reinforcements from Canada and Scotland, and those French people. Here's the count.
1 AA gun
1 French fighter
1 British fighter (who very much misses his friends who died in Italy)
The UK has ZERO possibility of blocking an amphibious bombardment with warships. If UK moves it's Canadian destroyer to SZ109 in turn 1, the destroyer will be sunk by the Germans and their new aircraft carrier in turn 2. The entire UK med fleet died in Italy, so there is no blocking unit in SZ110. If the UK chooses to , they could scramble a single fighter to meet the oncoming armada. This would negate bombardment, but lose a fighter. Probably not a good mathematical bet.
What's the Germans got? They started with 26 infantry. Let's say they lost half of them destroying France, that's being really dramatic, it's probably more like 10 losses, but whatever. Germany started with 9 tanks. Probably not many losses there, 7 left? Point is, there is no shortage of ground troops. What about air? Germany started with 5 Fighters, 5 Tac Bombers, 1 Bomber. Let's say we lost almost half of that are are left with 3 Fighters, 3 Tac Bombers, and 1 Bomber. All of those units can fly from Western Germany and/or Belgium and fight in London. If Germany was building REALLY aggressively they would buy zero ground units and replace air losses, but let's assume Germany bought no air units in turn 1 and 2.
3 Tac Bombers
1 Battleship bombard
1 Cruiser bombard
That's a 70% victory for the Axis.
Here are some alterations. Let's say UK sneaks in a destroyer or cruiser SOMEHOW in turn 2 into SZ110 to prevent bombards. This is unlikely, but I'll entertain the possibility. Assuming the Italian player has no planes (or b***s) to sink it in Turn 2, there is a fight in the channel. That takes away 1 fighter to fight the battle (just in case of a scramble). Now the battle i nLondon is a 47% - bad news.
But on the other hand, from the original scenario if Germany avoids SZ110 getting blocked up and musters just 1 more transport (total 11) with an Infantry and a Tank, the battle is now at 78%! If Germany similarly buys just 1 more tactical bomber, the battle rises to 78% too.
If the Germans did my "not scramble" trick in Italy, they add 2 more fighters, for a total of (4 Fig, 3 Tac, 1 Bomber) making the battle a 79%.
Keep in mind if the UK screws up EVEN slightly in any of the following ways: buying tanks instead of infantry, buying technology, buying ships, buying planes, buying anything in S. Aftrica for pete's sake, the UK is even more hosed than they already are.
You can see there are many things that Germany and Italy can do to help their chances, and not much more UK can do, with the fleet having been sunk in the Med, or at the very least UK fighters stuck in the Med without time to return home before Sealion.
So the alternative for the UK is to retreat its fleet to the channel in Turn 3. This makes things very difficult for the Axis to do a sealion. Luckily though, there is still TURN 4. Germany lands infantry in Scotland (protected by 1 or 2 carriers, and its navy) in Turn 3, buys a bunch more ground troops, and then converges on London in Turn 4 via land and by sea. UK has 9 more infantry. Germany has um, a lot more than that? - an even more decisive advantage.
Play it out on the forums over a few games as I suggested. There are quite a number of people who have tried multiple variations on it and it overall seems to be a losing move. If you can pull off an Axis win consistently by committing to Sealion, you'll change a lot of opinions. A lot of people tried it with the new setup and encouraged by the new NO, and came away with the same opinion of the strategy as before.LoafOfBread wrote:Ok, so the burden of proof is on me, is that what I am reading into this? I'll accept that challenge. By the way, is that because you, Kobu, by default are right? Important question: what will it take to convince you that you are not right? Let me know the rules of this game please.
For your UK attack scenario, it's a battleship at Egypt, not a cruiser. There's also little need to send in two fighters from England. Odds are with UK to sink those transports with German fighters there or not. In some games, the attack will fail, but that's the game. In most games, UK will have something left, Italy will counter-attack, and France can attempt to do some more damage. Germany may risk some more planes, but usually that's a good thing too for the Allies. SZ 95 is a possibility too, especially if the cruiser has been sunk.
Numbers for Sealion I'm not much interested in. I've run them several times myself. Turn 3 is usually iffy, turn 4 is usually a guarantee. The question is what the Allies do for the rest of the game. If they've allowed Italy full reign of the Med from the start as you suggest, I predict they will be in for a rougher time.
There is no battleship in SZ98 in Larry's "rules under consideration" which is what we tested this last Saturday, just read the setup. We always play the latest "proposed setup" so we can give feedback to Larry. And if you do the math on the SZ95 battle, you will see that my math is correct - I double checked it. If you add a battleship, sure things go better for the Brits, but still not a sure thing (70%)
I get it, you don't think I'm right, a lot of people say Sealion is a losing move, I get it...ok? Let's just chill out for a while and I'll test again.
Anyone tried this?
If this is the case, won't one submarine do the trick? Of course, Germany can still land in Scotland, building a destroyer or two for invasion of UK the next turn. Still, if a single sub can delay the invasion of UK by a full round, that is a major advantage to UK, if a strange one historically.
I'm probably missing something, but I don't see how the sub build automatically protects against sea lion, and I fail to see how anything other than building infantry in London as well as to recall to England as many of the air force and naval units that it starts the game with (out of the med and canada) is the optimal way to defend against sea lion - that is, unless you want the Germans to attempt sea lion, investing big bucks in navy when they should be preparing for a Soviet offensive, because you want the Soviets to be the sole liberators of Europe thus making Orwell's nightmare a reality? One thing for sure, is that if the Germans aim their entire economy at Britain, they will eventually have a plausible chance to take London, however, the Russians will have Berlin by the time London is liberated by the USA. The only time to do Sea Lion if you want to win, is if the English let their guard down and let the Germans take it cheaply, or after Moscow has been captured and the Soviets no longer a threat to Germany.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests