Sealion

[StefMan]

Some thoughts on pros and cons for Sealion (presuming you have taken egypt):

Pros:

1. 700+ plunder

2. RN out of the game

=> Axis will probably dominate Atlantic and Med

3. No base of operations for US in European Theatre

=> US has to ship troops directly via amphibious transport to target => expensive and dangerous (see 2.), especially since units sunk at sea cannot be repurchased at reduced costs

4. Probably easy possession of Malta and Gibraltar

=> improved supply around Med for Axis, low supply around med for allies

5. Turkey (45 – 55%) and Spain (30 – 40%) go way up for Axis!

Cons:

1. Expensive and time consuming => amphibious transport of 5 - 8 units costs a lot! So it better work.

2. Increased war readiness of US und Russia

3. Units may get stuck on that island! => if british partisans disrupt the ports you may have a hard time getting your units of that island in time to fight Russia / US

4. No income, not easy to defend => the partisans will very likely keep city and port efficiency low throughout the game thus limiting income and unit readiness => retaking GB may become a priority for the US

5. Additional units needed for GB => with regard to 4. Axis may have to use more than just three corps for the defence of GB (possibly a HQ and an AF for spotting)

6. No second try, if Sealion fails you’re dead meat

Overall

- No real economic payoff

+ But great strategic benefits (control of the seas)

+ And new diplomatic options (Turkey!)

Sealion definitely is a promising option but does carry considerable risks. Proper timing is a must. I will work on some “Go’s” and “No Go’s” and try to come up with some counter measures. Of top of my head this might include bringing US amphibious transports to the english coast and holding back the RN.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Russia climbs permanently once you are on UK Island and so will USA.

No, it doesn't. The USSR only gets a one-time increase from Sealion.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Blashy:

Russia climbs permanently once you are on UK Island and so will USA.

No, it doesn't. The USSR only gets a one-time increase from Sealion. </font>

[Edwin P.]

True, but diplomatic chits in Russian activation after Sealion can have a dramatic effect.

[Retributar]

I'm hoping i remember correctly,...

I think i remember reading once that the British were planning on constructing pipelines that would feed into prime beach landing areas...including for several hundred's of feet into the ocean.

The purpose of this was to pump oil into German landing areas and then, ignite the oil, thereby Barbequing the Germans...and crippling the invasion attempt!.

[Gavrok]

Despite loving the game do think this is one area that has got worse in SC2 due to immediate landing.

Do appreciate the aspect of immediate landing that stops a defending player just placing units on the coastline in question, but the cost and option of amphibious assault is just too easy. The fact that the RN and RAF cannot intercept just makes it even more unpalatable.

The Germans in 1940 simply could not amphibiously assault with several armies. Look how long it took the allies to perform this with well thought out plans in 43 and 44, witrh operations cancelled in the med to facilitate Normandy. This was with specialised amphibious boats, complete sea supremacy and years of planning. Cannot think of any direct amphib assaults without air/ sea supremacy (small indirect Japanese landings in Guadalcanal)

I would have preferred one of three options

1) cost of amphibious assault is 50% of cost of unit......make you think twice before putting that panzer on a boat....

2) amphibious assault units are required to be bought to do this...with build restrictions....adjusted by higher cost over build values or tech advances.

3) Infantry only can amphib assault...with specialised tank or upgrades required to allow otherwise

My one reservation re above is gameplay to allow for ahistorical possibilities

Sorry for the negative thread as I do love everyting else.....just my hatred of the sc1 floating transporter has now being replaced with this.

[Fartknock3r]

Well if it makes it any better, in the game where i got sealioned, i had the strentgh to counter in the med. With UK i conquerd iraq, iran, and Syria, and am marching on to Tripoli! I also had the US invade ireland with 4(5?) armies and a hq, then transported a bomber there. Im waiting for my other units (not saying it here!) to come so i can liberate the UK! I also had the UK dow denmark and i took Iceland! WHOOO!!!!

[blackbellamy]

Ideally air units should be able to intercept transports and amphibious units moving within range.

[Fartknock3r]

Maybe there can be a pop-up when an amphib transport lands with in an enemy air fleet or bombers sight and takes extra damage, similar to landing casualties.

[Sombra]

If the range of the transports is shorter airfleets could spot approaching transports and there would be a battle of the navies around the isle. with other words the royal navy had back some of its purpose. Still the amphib transports would mantain some of its strenght to look for undefended spots.

Other thinks to improve perhaps: Raise the costs of amphib transports for armies and tanks. First waves should perhaps consists of lighter troops(corps) and when you conquered a port you could ship in the heavy material

[vveedd]

Originally posted by Fartknock3r:

I always knew you were going to sealion, ever since the fall of france, it was just a feeling. Thats why i kept on bombing and bombarding brest and its port. I just didnt think your tank could do so much damage. BTW just warning you i had the WHOLE RN escape! Along with those 2 carriers you tried to kill!

There is no use to bombing Brest and other nearest ports as it should be because amphibious transports have too big range. As I suggested (Sombra said it too) transport range should be half from original range. Then Sea Lion will be more interesting, more realistic and much harder.

[jon_j_rambo]

What's with all this "anti-landing-craft" in one turn garbage? You don't put a bunch of badass Americans on boats to dock & fish at the enemies beach. It doesn't take a week (1-turn) to get out of a boat if the beach (key word beach) is undefended. If you don't like people landing on your property, put stuff in the way of the landing zones.

It costs 56 MMPs or something to launch a Tank group, how much more do you want when you can buy a full corp for that later? Once launched, the supply never goes up regardless of location.

The Americans had to ship everything across the pond, we've got it down to a science. If you were going to penalize anybody, it sure shouldn't be Uncle Sam in WW-2.

[hellraiser]

Good point JJR.

Maybe amphib transports should be restricted in a way for other nations which , historically, had low capabilities in this field. USA should pay a certain price, Germany perhaps double or triple?

[Sombra]

Yeah and we still see landing crafts in Bordeaux , Spain . Amerika was not better in building boats they had simply more money industrial capacity. Already adressed with more effective industrial modifier.

I would like to see a solution where a sealion is still "very " possible but gives the UK back its main weapon to defend against a Sealion. Do you think that without the Royal Navy GB would have survived?

[jon_j_rambo]

SomeKrout --- Son, I know you're a modern day pacifist & a historical Bunta...are you off your rocker? The Germans couldn't even beat the RAF. Your glorious commander Herman Goering got the LF headcracked attacking England, it wasn't Poland, sleeping farmers, or some other pro-Nazi country...the masterace gave up. Do you understand what it takes to beat a country of caliber from the sea? It's more than training some thugs how to burn books.

[Sombra]

OK Rambo, lets put the american performance at the level of the battle of Monte Casino : Can we give negative combat values to american troops I wonder?

[Dragonheart]

Back to the good old SC smack talk time ey? Wasnt the topic something to do with Sealion?

[Dragonheart]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

Good point JJR.

Maybe amphib transports should be restricted in a way for other nations which , historically, had low capabilities in this field. USA should pay a certain price, Germany perhaps double or triple?

It´s not a matter of price it´s a matter of range....whilst the usa has to ship all their armies over the whole atlantic other countries have just to jump into the boat and land somewhere else...

IMO a limitation according to countries would be the best solution.....f.e. US range 10, UK range 8, Germany,Russia,Italy range 6 ...minors range 4.

Edit: @Sombra imagine Allied player has a low move limit for shipping all the stuff over the atlantic....1st of all it would last ages, then the stuff is loosing org,moral,readyness and finally when they can land they are totally exhausted with terrible battleresults.....therefore my opinion to scale it according to countries.

[Sombra]

@DH. Though the more relasitc way would be to ship the troops to England . And use the GB as a jumppoint to prepare for the invasion.

Can you imagine vast numbers of American armies invading Spain?

Though a short range for amphib transports would work for me. If you want you could stillship the troops directly over the ocean in their landing craft but with some difficulties

[Edwin P.]

In the Pacific the USA launched several long range amphibious invasions. Troops were taken to the invasion site in large transport ships. Upon reaching the site they boarded boarded landing craft carried, by these same transport ships, for the island assault.

[StefMan]

I don't really like the idea of making differences by country.

The amphibious capabilities of US/UK were the product of a costly development throughout the war and not given per se.

Imagine german and russian tanks having a permanent bonus of +1 all the time. Both allied and axis player should have the option to develop techs equally.

The best solution would be (as mentioned by several people before) an amphibious tech. The US could even start out with level 1 amphip. tech or with 2 tech chits already invested in that area. But please don't say that Germany or Russia could not have developed comparable amphib. capabilities. As Blashy stated before, this game is about having the option to chose between different strategies. If Germany wants to develop amphipious capabilities let them do so. Maybe then their tanks or industrial tech will not be as good.

[ April 25, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: StefMan ]

[Axis_General]

Never under estimate the power of the Buntas! If the Bunta scientists could make a rocket like the V2 then I think its safe to assume they could design a landing craft equilivent or better than US/UK

[jon_j_rambo]

@SomeBunta --- You know what made us tick during WW-2? It was our will, not the dollar bill. The USA was broke in 1929 too, just like Germany. Difference is, we didn't blame other countries or certain groups of people for our bad economic situation. Rather than beat up little old ladies businesses, running tanks over farmers, and burning books...we worked & trusted. That's the problem, you only see our wealth, not our hearts. You like to bring the same accusation against the USA as was presented to a man named Job.

If you're reading this, thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English, thank the USA.

[StefMan]

Seems like Hubert forgot to include two additional ressources in SC2: will and faith .

Of course these ressources:

would be only available to the US

allow for strenght upgrades up to 20

as well as for an immediate conversion to tech levels

and an increase of the max tech levels

One more thing. Let's all thank the CANADIANS for bringing us this great game.

[jon_j_rambo]

Good point StephanieMan! Another historical fact is that US Soldiers rallied faster then any other countries troops after being in a broken state. A complete investigation of the morale bonus needs done per country.