Operation Sea Lion

[Midnight Warrior]

I have been reading a book on Operation Sea Lion which has stimulated some questions concerning this game.

1. Will the game allow the Germans to build amphibious prior to the invasion of France so that the Germans would be bettered prepared to follow up after Dunkirk with Sea Lion?

2. for that matter, will the game be able to properly simulate the rapid blitzkrieg campaign that led to Dunkirk? (I remember the AH 3rd Reich I never could really reproduce a historically accurate 1940 invasion of France that knocked France out in 6 weeks- which pretty much ruined the game from my perspective).

3. The Luftwaffe was never nearly as effective at anti-shipping as the nations that had navy owned air forces such as the Japanese or the US Navy. In addition to doing research to build jets, better tanks, etc. will the game have an option to attempt to build better anti-shipping capability for the Luftwaffe? This in part could be more training and better tactics and in part develop better equipment)

4. Due the relatively long turns (i.e. one month) will units be able to respond to events that occur much more quickly than the full turn. For example the British navy had destroyers based in the south of England that were going to sortie within the hour that the invasion fleet was detected. Will the game model reactive events that happen within a game turn where the reaction times are measured in hours of days instead of weeks an months?

All in all the potential exists to build a really neat (and realistic strategic game (as opposed to a just an Allies vs. Axis on steroids).

[Hubert Cater]

Sea lion is more than possible. There are no limited transport points etc. Transport and even operational movements are cost dependant (% of cost of each unit type), so you could perform as many of these operations as you would like per turn provided you have the resources to do so. This allows for greater flexibility and the only thing that you have to worry about is mananging your production points to have enough to transport your units when you are finally ready to invade england!

Knocking out France in 6 weeks or at least very close to that (depending how many times you've played, for me it is really too many times to count )is certainly possible and that actually made me realize that there is a typo on the product page that should change shortly. Turns last anywhere from 1 week to 1 month as follows:

Summer -> 1 week

Spring, Fall -> 2 weeks

Winter -> 1 month

[ April 21, 2002, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Straha]

Hmm, if there are no amphibious transports in the game (but just abstract transporting costs), how then is the situation modelled that transports could be sunk by the enemy navy? Or did I just misunderstand something here? :confused:

Straha

[Madmatt]

When a unit starts its turn adjacent or on a Port it may "transport" (at a cost), the unit then turns into a Transport unit with the same Strength that it had before (but with a decreased ability to defend against attack obviously). It can then move as a ship. When you get to your destination, just move up to any inviting shore line and you may "unload" and the unit appears back as its original type on the beach and the transport unit disapears.

Somtimes units can take extra damage as they land on shore but Hubert can probably come in here and describe when why and how that occurs.

Madmatt

[ April 21, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the extra detail Matt! I knew I missed something Yes there are also advantages of unloading in friendly ports (which can be done on the same turn, i.e. load -> move -> unload) and if you decide to unload in enemy territory then there is a chance that you will suffer random landing casualties which translate into strength losses for that unit

[Midnight Warrior]

The question is:

will the effects of naval blocking forces be also factored into amphibious operations combat results. There are actually quite a number of special considerations that must be made in regard to an amphibious operation. These include:

1. beach suitability (bluffs, rocks, tides, surf, etc),

2. beach fortifications,

3. number of troops at the waters edge,

4. naval gunfire (or lack there of),

5. mobile reserves that can counter attack the beachhead,

6. floating reserves

7. aircraft interdiction of the invasion force while at sea,

8. naval interdiction of the invasion force (while at sea),

9. aircraft interdiction of re-supply shipping, and

10. naval interdiction of re-supply shipping.

11. weather effects on sea lines of communications and sea worthiness of ships

(e.g. Rhine River barges vs LST’s)

12. quality of landing craft such as unloading characteristics of landing craft

(how close to shore can it go, how hardened is it against mines and obstacles, what is it’s unload time (drive off ramps vs unloading cranes).

13. Training in amphibious ops

14. the distances traveled over water (effect s vulnerability to interdiction, fighter coverage, ship recycle times for resupply, landing craft vulnerability to sea states).

In a long game turn (e.g. one month or several weeks) interdiction would happen at once (and not in some next turn counter attack). This would require something akin to how TOAW resolved combat in multi-phases by allowing “nearby” reaction forces to enter into subsequent combat phases rather than having to wait to the next player’s turn to employ them.

My question is that if the defender should have naval and air superiority (as was the case in Sea Lion) will this affect the outcome of an amphibious operation or will the defense strength solely be based on the number of the number of ground troops defending the beach. It should be noted that that the interdicting naval and air forces could be many hexes away from the beach hex the are interdicting. What I would like to see is that naval and air forces that are in interdiction range get to add their defensive value to the beach hex if not countered by the attackers supporting naval and air forces.

Thus, IMHO, historically accurate amphibious invasion will require rules that are a lot more sophisticated than just totaling up the ground combat forces in the attacking hex (albeit it at reduced strength) and comparing them against all the ground forces in the defending hex. To do so would be to treat an amphibious invasion simply as a river crossing. However, the difference between an amphibious invasion and a mere river crossing is that in an amphibious operation the attacker is not only attacking in boats across water but that air and naval forces can interdict these most crucial and vulnerable sea lines of communication. If all these are not modeled properly then realism of amphibious operations will be in question. Now admittedly all these factors will be abstracted in a strategic game. However, that doesn’t mean that they can be ignored.

[Straha]

Thanks guys for the clarification!

Midnight warrior: most of this sounds very sensible to me. I think, though, that the game design is pretty much set in stone by now.

Straha