Operation Sealion + other queries

[Will95]

Those of you following mine and Ash's AAR will see that I managed to pull off Sealion (ie the invasion of Britain), and I have a few questions.

- Would it not make more sense for the British Isles to automatically come under German control, following the successful taking of both London and Manchester? Because the British technically don't surrender, but move their capital to Egypt/Canada, I was left in the awkward/annoying position of having to manually move an army all over Britain manually 'liberating' each city and supply source one by one, which feels neither efficient or particularly realistic. I'd understand if the answer was that it's for balance reasons to prevent a too-quick shift to Barbarossa, or simply impossible to code as the Brits don't actually surrender, but I think it would make a lot of sense and save the very unintuitive and time-costly process of running all over Britain in crap supply, especially if you've managed to pull off the operation in the first place.

- This is just more of a general inquiry, but the reaction upon the loss of London, and then Manchester, by the USA seemed a little odd to me. You guys will know a lot more about the period's history than I do, but I was half expecting the USA to instantly enter the war, or at least reach a very high rate of mobilization, when the British come under attack directly, and especially after they lose their capital. They seemed rather indifferent, which struck me as amusing although odd

One last thing, totally unrelated: what's the deal with bombing train lines? I've heard people talk about how they are the lifelines of armies etc but is there anything to be gained by actually hitting them with bombers when there's other targets available (like supply sources)?

[AshesFall]

I'd like to expand a little on Wills' query here. I'm curious about the reasoning behind the USSR's near total mobilization upon the fall of Britain, as opposed to the indifference of the US?

Also, what is supposed to be the point of Sea-Lion within the context of the game? I imagine that it would in fact have been an awesome blow to the Brits if Hitler pulled it off in real life, they might even have surrendered, though speculation differs on that one. In this game, you need to conquer both England, and their secondary capital to get the Brits to surrender. as far as their secondary capital goes, you need to already have a plan in motion and have taken significant steps to strengthen your presence in North africa, ready to attack the Brits there. Unfortunately, if you have made gains in NA, the brits will just move to Canada, where you basically cant attack him.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on these things

[Strategiclayabout]

Sealion

- For England that's fairly simple: if Brits decide to make a stand in Scotland whatever the reason, that would kill their supply. It would also complicate a lot any evacuation of UK units or reinforcements coming in and that wouldn't be realistic at all.

- Furthermore, there is no way all of England (and especially Scotland) would submit to Nazis just because some unimportant city in the south has fallen . More seriously, just consider there are many military bases and some like Scapa Flow wouldn't just surrender without even seeing a single german soldier around. You wanted UK ? You have to take it !

Diplomacy

- Only my opinion there but you can consider taht Stalin was happy as long as Hitler was busy far away but begins to worry big time when UK falls because where could panzers go if not East after that ?

- For USA, they're already busy in China with agressive Japan, so the fall of England can be seen as an incentive to matter their own business and leave Europe alone as any sane isolationist would do . Wouldn't it be better to support Hitler in a nice anti-communist crusade hmmm ? And after all, it wasn't even 150 years ago that Brits were at war with USA !

Patch

- Anyway, there's a patch coming for SoE it seems so things may change for Sealion and other points.

[AshesFall]

Pretty much what I thought, most contemporary sources cite that Stalin was aware that the war would come from the moment the Molotov Ribbentrop pact was sealed. Perhaps he hoped it would not, or that it would take longer, but he was prepared. With England invaded, where indeed would the blow fall next? Fairly sound reasoning regarding the US, I suppose their reaction to the axis threatening Gibraltar is due to the fact that it was a major international trade route, that affected them most palpably?

In that patch, maybe add "travel arrows" to the red sea and that other sea near iraq off the western coast of Africa, at the very bottom edge of the map? seems reasonable to have them there...

[Will95]

Fair point about Scotland, but my thoughts having done SL were basically that it wasn't worth it;

- It cost a huge amount to amphib troops across

- The British didn't seem all that worried, they just meandered over to Egypt

- Stalin suddenly gets all worried and I'm left exposed while I desparately try to operate more troops to the east

My whole gameplan was basically to appease Stalin so I could focus on the West and North Africa, but that sorta goes out the window when he insta-mobilizes

Whereas I could've just sent everything east, blitzed Russia having had him over a barrel regarding M-R pact and Lithuania and left in a low state of mobilization, and be back in time for tea and biscuits with the British in 1944 (maybe that last bit is a tad fairy tale)

[AshesFall]

I kinda agree with Will. Sealion is probably worth it if every single move you make from turn one is part of the grand master plan, building to strike both and either of Canada and Egypt immediately when they shift their capital, focusing on the fleet to combat the British, and then have a good bit of luck. On the other hand, pull it off, and it's an instant win isnt it?

Do you guys have different thoughts on it?

[Strategiclayabout]

- I'm of the same opinion: Sealion isn't very tempting especially when you know Stalin will come after you just behind. And if you fail it's even worse ! Taking London allows to reach higher victory levels though...

- Sure if you get it to work, Spain is in the bag and you get a flow of MPPs but the timetable for Barbarossa let only a very small window to do it right and if weather is bad (some rain turn in summer) you're done.

- One thing in your game is Axis probably overdid it while UK spent many MPPs in France that were missed later.

- Losing England complicates things for Allies (Overlord and co) but it is in no way an insta win. Axis can't possibly guard all the coastlines from Scotland to Gibraltar and beyond. Any MPP invested in Kriegsmarine won't face USSR and in the long run that makes quite a difference.

- Once in Egypt, UK has various options to recover and usually weak Italians just came closer to the Lion's den .

[AshesFall]

You mean that the axis dont auto win if both england and france has surrendered? I thought that was the case... when do you check victory conditions?

[Strategiclayabout]

Ah sorry I meant "England" as the lands north of the Channel, not the Major country . Striking Canada is very hard for axis and all of USA's forces will be nearby. Going for Canada when transfering UK capital is the safe choice but limit Brits options.

Attacking both Egypt and Canada after pulling a Sealion is very close to impossible.

[AshesFall]

Yeah.

I wonder though, about the victory conditions. Is there an "insta win" condition with the surrender of two of the major allies (UK/France/USSR) or is it just "hold objectives until a certain date". If so, which date? 45, or 47?

[Strategiclayabout]

- If I'm not mistaken, you have until the end of the campaign to play so there is no insta win. In the victory conditions window you have the end date which is 7th May 1947 .

- Looking at the manual, Majors can be liberated after being "eliminated", it's not limited to France:

After surrendering, a major will automatically have its National Morale reset to 50%. On liberation, this may be boosted up to 100% so that the liberated country can play a full part in the war.

Any Major that surrenders and is then liberated will not surrender a second time if their National Morale were to once again reach zero. This is because their morale would only be likely to be a factor the first time. For example in France in 1940 this was an issue, but in 1944 France wasn’t likely to surrender again unless the US and British forces had been driven from her shores.

- And it would be no fun to just end the game after France and USSR collapse if/when USA/UK are ready to invade the Reich in 1943 or 1944. There is enough incentive to go full force against Stalin as it .

[AshesFall]

Holy crap... until 1947? I mean. Hm. I would think that germany would win a minor victory if it held on longer than historical. I'd think that, in a patch, the conditions should be amended if possible to check for victory every month after the historical surrender date. I.e. if no nation holds a victory then the game continues, if either side fulfills their victory conditions, that side wins. To be honest, the US would likely never have gotten involved if the Soviet Union had fallen and England was about to loose, it would simply be a loosing proposition.

[Strategiclayabout]

- That's an alternative history matter . Maybe USA would have reached an agreement with Japan at some point and put all efforts against Germany hoping to establish dominion over old Europe...

- And don't forget there were US presidential elections on 5th November of 1940. Balance between isolationists and interventionists could have changed depending on events in Europe. Losing England also means losing a lot of trade for USA.

[Bill101]

Hi

With the victory conditions, the game will end straight away if either of the following conditions are met:

The Axis hold: Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Stalingrad, Cairo

The Allies hold: Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Washington D.C.

The way things are, if London and Manchester are captured then the heat is on for the Axis to deal with Stalin. Effectively, it helps to protect the UK during the period between the fall of France and the entrance of the USSR into the war, as the Axis player will struggle to launch a powerful Barbarossa if they carry out a Sea Lion.

But, gaining Spain and Turkey should make for a more interesting sequel to the fall of London.

If the US can act swiftly and in some strength then the fuhrer will rue the down he sent his Panzers into England's green and pleasant land!

[AshesFall]

Hi

With the victory conditions, the game will end straight away if either of the following conditions are met:

The Axis hold: Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Stalingrad, Cairo

The Allies hold: Berlin, Rome, Warsaw, Paris, London, Moscow, Washington D.C.

The way things are, if London and Manchester are captured then the heat is on for the Axis to deal with Stalin. Effectively, it helps to protect the UK during the period between the fall of France and the entrance of the USSR into the war, as the Axis player will struggle to launch a powerful Barbarossa if they carry out a Sea Lion.

But, gaining Spain and Turkey should make for a more interesting sequel to the fall of London.

If the US can act swiftly and in some strength then the fuhrer will rue the down he sent his Panzers into England's green and pleasant land!

So, if I understand this right, the axis win with the capture of Cairo in the victory scenario above even if the UK transfered their capital to Canada?

And the rapid USSR mobilization on a successful sea-lion is to put pressure on the Germans.

Should Turkey have joined as well with Sea lion? I mean, it never did in our game, would spain and Turkey join (given successful sea-lion) even if Germany hadnt spent diplomacy on them as well?

[Will95]

Actually, Turkey and Spain _did_ mobilize heavily after Sealion, but after the invasion of Yugoslavia, Turkey slid away again citing nervousness about Hitler's expansion!

[Strategiclayabout]

- What Bill101 says is that if any side holds all the objectives counting for decisive victory level at anytime it's an insta win. Logical because at that point any comeback is considered impossible for the opposite side.

- It's different from knocking out one major: even if you collapse England and have Cairo, London and Moscow, you'll have to take Stalingrad before Allies captures Paris or Rome (more likely than Berlin or Warsaw early), or London , to seize decisive victory.

That put pressure on Allies to land in Europe/open a second front quickly if Germans are only 1 or 2 objectives away from total victory .

[Strategiclayabout]

One last thing, totally unrelated: what's the deal with bombing train lines? I've heard people talk about how they are the lifelines of armies etc but is there anything to be gained by actually hitting them with bombers when there's other targets available (like supply sources)?

- Ah forgot to aswer this one , actually, most people say train lines as "railway stations" or "railway crossroads" meaning supply sources (town and cities) where railways pass. Bombing a rail tile alone won't bring you anything.

- By lowering supply on those tiles you also cut operating abilities for armies. The side who can operate while the other can't has a clear advantage on any front :cool: .