sealion

[william bowen]

In my humble opinion there is no point in capturing England by itself meaning not taking North Africa at the same time, you get no points of any kind it lets Russia attack you before you can pick the time to attack them, if you can't get to Russia by June 1941 and does nothing but put you in a hole thats hard to get out of. I am sure some players will say it hurts the United States not to have a place to land witout a fight, I dont know about the AI but a good allied player that should not bother them, they most likely can land in a friendly Spain or take Spain by combat or go past Gibraltor and land in North Africa. Please tell me I am wrong and tell me why?

Bill

[Edwin P.]

Sea Lion can be most helpful, if you can complete it quickly.

1. If you take the UK it increases the leaning of Spain and Turkey towards the Axis.

2. It hurts the enemy's morale

3. It destroys any UK units currently in production.

4. The USA is denied a safe place to base air unit support for landings in Europe.

5. The threat of strategic bomber attacks on Germany and France is removed.

6. The Axis ability to support a submarine war and detect approaching transports is greatly expanded.

7. You gain MPP income from the captured UK resources.

The problem is to complete it quickly.

If your opponent leaves the UK unguarded with land and naval forces so he can reinforce Egypt and take on the Italian Navy, it may be worthwhile to attempt a Sea Lion invasion of the British Isles.

However, if you attempt a Sea Lion and fail it will usually spell your doom.

[ November 30, 2007, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[william bowen]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Sea Lion can be most helpful, if you can complete it quickly.

1. If you take the UK it increases the leaning of Spain and Turkey towards the Axis.

2. It hurts the enemy's morale

3. It destroys any UK units currently in production.

4. The USA is denied a safe place to base air unit support for landings in Europe.

5. The threat of strategic bomber attacks on Germany and France is removed.

6. The Axis ability to support a submarine war and detect advancing subs is greatly expanded.

7. You gain MPP income from the captured UK resources.

The problem is to complete it quickly.

If your opponent leaves the UK unguarded with land and naval forces so he can reinforce Egypt and take on the Italian Navy, it may be worthwhile to attempt a Sea Lion invasion of the British Isles.

However, if you attempt a Sea Lion and fail it will usually spell your doom.

You actually showed me I was wrong. Good job, I think it took me until aug 1941 to capture uk probgably too long. Thank you.

Willy

[pzgndr]

FWIW, I tested Sealion in my A3R mod versus Allied AI. Taking England was doable. But UK (and Commonwealth) shifting main effort to Egypt resulted in the most brutal desert battles in Libya I have yet experienced. Axis player should be prepared for this and consider attacking through Turkey or heavy diplomacy in Turkey to open up a pincer strategy against Middle East. The big question is can Axis force a complete UK surrender quickly or not?

[Liam]

Historically the outcome would've been probably fair casualties and there goes the Island. The Germans had a ton of barges ready to go. Lots of Gliders and a lot of Morale after France. I almost feel it was an imperative with the offensive mindset and the short industrial power of Germany and the ultimate strategic situation of it to take that little Island. So in my opinion Germany could not have won WW2 without first taking England... Going after USSR without it was fighting a two front war

Now as far as SC2 is concerned unless it's so easy and cheap to do, it's not worth doing. If anyone makes it that easy, it's likely meaning the game is over or they've switched to North Africa. Really Africa should be a fall back not a strategy. Losing the Island should give the Germans a boost in MPPs, but since the early patches of SC2 the Creators have been trying to make it more difficult and less a gamey takedown. It's hard to simulate the actual SeaLion without ruining the game.

Anyway, Fighting in North Africa has it's advantages, but taking England really does not in SC2 terms... As you're getting a Readiness Spike in the USSR and USA and you still have to fight for Egypt to win what, 1000 MPPs? Why bother! He'll get the MiddleEast all of North Africa and Supply 8, with that and a screening fleet, invading there is no fun, just as bad as England. As for England, 20-30 MPPs with Ireland just doesn't make it the Economic Powerhouse payoff it should feel like? It's like Owning Benelux when it produced thousands bombers, fighters and Tanks a year! Richer Industry than Italy or France

[arado234]

Liam i think Edwin P.made some good points about taking England.

Maybe the Amis.and Russian readiness shouldnt jump so much.If it happened in reality Russia may have attacked through Iran and tried to grab the middle east for herself.

Remember the allies were pretty pissed at Russia for backstabbing Poland and attacking Finland and were going to try and send help to Finland.

One of the main things that worried Stalin about Germany taking England wasnt that he liked England it was the fact he knew he would probably be next.I would think Stalin would try and do his utmost to try and NOT upset Hitler and im thinking getting ready to attack Germany would probably upset Hitler.

Maybe one way to have it is if Germany takes England then they are finished(like in Third Reich).From what Terif says if the Brits. prepare properly then any German attempt at England will be met with a disaster for Germany.

Should the Germans still take England then the Canadian, AMI.and Russian Ind.and Prod.go to actual WW2 figures.This would simulate(IMO)a more realistic reaction from the remaining powers.Any british forces left would go over to the control of Canada and be maintained and expaned by Canada.

Loosing England should(IMO)represnt a real disaster which it would have been. Allied morale would have taken a beating and would have greatly served to help prop up the myth of Nazi invinceability.I could see it that after England went down Germany without firing a shot would be able to "persuade"whoever she wanted in europe(except Russia)to at minimum be sympathetic to her cause or at best join her side(Turkey and Spain come to mind).

[MJY]

Hey All,

I would like to add my name to those that consider Sealion to be counter-productive. I didn't feel that way in SCI, but do now in both SCII and WAW.

First, consider the economics of a successful invasion. Amphibious costs to get to Britain plus transport costs (and possibly also operating costs) to get Sealion forces back into the fight plus the cost of even a minimal garrison (say corps in just the three cites) -- all this will never be recouped from the MMPs generated for the Axis cause.

These costs, naturally, rise even further if you actually try to hold Britain from the inevitable US counter-invasion. The MMPs spent defending your gains (e.g., a naval screen consisting of subs or armies, an HQ, and so on holding the cities and ports) are MMPs not spent on killing the Red Army.

Then there is the effect on the rest of the war. Britain carries on in the Med (or more historically accurately in Canada) at only a relatively deminished capacity. (Remember, in the SC system, Britain is not worth that much as the only the cities -- not the ports -- generate any value. More MMPs come from the Middle East!) I would go so far as to argue Britain is better off protecting the Middle East over the Home Islands -- if a choice has to be made. But even if "the rest of Britain" is supposed to represent the entire Empire (e.g., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, and South Africa), the loss of the most populous (save for India) and most industrially developed part of the Empire should have a greater impact on the Allies war-fighting capability.

And then there is the impact with regard to Russia. On the one hand, I agree that Russian war-readiness should rise -- and rise quickly -- in response to Sealion. And if Sealion fails, that should mean it is (essentially) over for the Axis as the Russians take advantage of a defeated Axis bogged down in the West. But if the Axis wins the race, then that should be it for the Allies.

It seems to me that that was how things played out in SCI -- Sealion was an all-or-nothing gambit. Take Britain win the game; fail to win the race and the Allies win. But now I am not so sure.

As for the other benefits of taking Britain (as described in the earlier post), some are useful, but others not so much (in my opinion). The morale boost, for example, is short-lived and will likely expire well before sufficient air (and other) forces are redeployed from the British Front to your next conquest.

Winning over Spain is probable, but Turkey remains an expensive proposition. All those diplomacy chits represent Barbarossa forces unbuilt. Plus you must bear in mind that diplomacy hits are not a sure thing -- much like my tech research (but I digress ...sigh).

Sure, the US bomber offensive is greatly delayed, but there are other costs (as mentioned above). And the delay is not that great if you don't try to hold the Island (or expensive if you do).

The same is true for the sub war. It is very expensive. In fact, I might even argue any sub war post Sealion is less productive given the fewer convoy routes to raid (thus less experience points for your sub fleet).

All and all, I agree with Arado that taking Britain should be a more devestating event for the Allies. It should be something that is almost impossible to overcome; not just another bump in the road.

P.S. To Arado -- moves later tonight! (I'm still technically at "work.")

[Liam]

You both make good points MJY and Arado. Both in SC1 and in SC2 there is varying outcomes due to the Play on both the Allied and Axis side, so this in mind, you're not seeing the bigger picture.

I played many games in both SC1 and 2 where I could likely take England. Usually this meant 1 of 2 things, I was overextended and I lost the game to the Russian Army or I won... Literally, what you both predict happens when the Allies are played properly, but when the allies are not, then the game is over. There you go...

There is no way for a successful Sea Lion in either game unless the Axis have an Uber Sea Strategy or Amazing luck, there will always be tremendous loss of life for the Axis, who historically had limited Divisions. Had Stalin known that 50-75% of German divisions were halted up on Isles and in North Africa it is believable to think he would invade. The only portion of SC2 that was weak, is the fact he doesn't immediately.

Though as I said, losing England is no strategy at all, it's only for the meek plays. Now, after Barbarossa, it's quite possible if the Axis are rich enough, but at this point the game is already decided. If it's that easy the Allies are again weak.

What I must agree with, with both of you is that there is no real gain for the Island. It's historically inaccurate in that the Axis would've lumped out a ton of Coal-Industry. Probably installed a Puppet Government and confiscated a portion of the Royal Navy. Egypt is not a fall back point but abstractly representing the Rebellious Imminent Threat of Loyal Generals, Government Exile of the Largest Empire in the World and one of the Most Power.

Stalin would've never surrendered to Nazi Germany, nor would the USA. It would've been a fight to the death and to accurately represent their gearing for War, Production 5 and IT 3 on both sides the minute Sea Lion is performed would be accurate.

It is not easy to retake England, the Ampibious Limitations of SC2 means that if properly garrisoned England is German for the rest of the game, the Amphib-capabilities of WW2 were not that great. Though the USSR can still outproduce Germany but win, I doubt. Stalemate likely

Turkey and Spain joining the Axis would've meant very little... The USSR and USA cojointly fighting Germany is the outcome in my mind, working in Harmony toward 1 goal. Though I could be wrong, and perhaps one side would've sought a Diplomatic End... The Political aspect is indeed invisible in SC2 and I think because of the Unknown factor of what now?

Originally posted by MJY:

Hey All,

I would like to add my name to those that consider Sealion to be counter-productive. I didn't feel that way in SCI, but do now in both SCII and WAW.

First, consider the economics of a successful invasion. Amphibious costs to get to Britain plus transport costs (and possibly also operating costs) to get Sealion forces back into the fight plus the cost of even a minimal garrison (say corps in just the three cites) -- all this will never be recouped from the MMPs generated for the Axis cause.

These costs, naturally, rise even further if you actually try to hold Britain from the inevitable US counter-invasion. The MMPs spent defending your gains (e.g., a naval screen consisting of subs or armies, an HQ, and so on holding the cities and ports) are MMPs not spent on killing the Red Army.

Then there is the effect on the rest of the war. Britain carries on in the Med (or more historically accurately in Canada) at only a relatively deminished capacity. (Remember, in the SC system, Britain is not worth that much as the only the cities -- not the ports -- generate any value. More MMPs come from the Middle East!) I would go so far as to argue Britain is better off protecting the Middle East over the Home Islands -- if a choice has to be made. But even if "the rest of Britain" is supposed to represent the entire Empire (e.g., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, and South Africa), the loss of the most populous (save for India) and most industrially developed part of the Empire should have a greater impact on the Allies war-fighting capability.

And then there is the impact with regard to Russia. On the one hand, I agree that Russian war-readiness should rise -- and rise quickly -- in response to Sealion. And if Sealion fails, that should mean it is (essentially) over for the Axis as the Russians take advantage of a defeated Axis bogged down in the West. But if the Axis wins the race, then that should be it for the Allies.

It seems to me that that was how things played out in SCI -- Sealion was an all-or-nothing gambit. Take Britain win the game; fail to win the race and the Allies win. But now I am not so sure.

As for the other benefits of taking Britain (as described in the earlier post), some are useful, but others not so much (in my opinion). The morale boost, for example, is short-lived and will likely expire well before sufficient air (and other) forces are redeployed from the British Front to your next conquest.

Winning over Spain is probable, but Turkey remains an expensive proposition. All those diplomacy chits represent Barbarossa forces unbuilt. Plus you must bear in mind that diplomacy hits are not a sure thing -- much like my tech research (but I digress ...sigh).

Sure, the US bomber offensive is greatly delayed, but there are other costs (as mentioned above). And the delay is not that great if you don't try to hold the Island (or expensive if you do).

The same is true for the sub war. It is very expensive. In fact, I might even argue any sub war post Sealion is less productive given the fewer convoy routes to raid (thus less experience points for your sub fleet).

All and all, I agree with Arado that taking Britain should be a more devestating event for the Allies. It should be something that is almost impossible to overcome; not just another bump in the road.

P.S. To Arado -- moves later tonight! (I'm still technically at "work.")

[Iron Ranger]

I think your missing a few key points Laim. The fall back if england continued to fight would have been Canada and India, not Egypt. That would have gone to Italy pritty fast once the puppet goverment was installed (or kept english under the new king). The other is that Stalin was very focused internally. Yes he was watching Germany but never would hvae been ready to attack Axis Eroupe untill 42. Granted there are some works outthere that say his generals were pushing for a early attack... these are the same guys that survived the purges because they were A) Stalins drinking buddys and fools Good commies but stupid C) Had no idea of modern warfare and idiots. Not a group of top commanders able to conduct an attack I would think.

[Liam]

In both cases, maybe pretty much right Iron. However the map doesn't include India and Canada wouldn't have enough MPPs ot support 1 Cruiser... You'd need to triple it's income or more to represent the rest of Empire and still would more or less do away with the Presence of England as a player at all.

Stalin may not have had the capacity to fight but if Germany got mauled trying to do something like cross an Ocean, he might have pushed for concessions... Say for Instance chunks of Turkey-Romania, etc... He may have threatened with his Millions of Men. You don't really need any sort of skill when you've got millions of supplied soldiers vs an army that is got it's boots stuck in Anglian Mud... Who knows the disaster Sea Lion could've been. It was never performed, and the Axis of '40 were not the Allies of D-Day '44... Last time a Major Amphib occurred was in WW1 and it was a DISASTER

Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

I think your missing a few key points Laim. The fall back if england continued to fight would have been Canada and India, not Egypt. That would have gone to Italy pritty fast once the puppet goverment was installed (or kept english under the new king). The other is that Stalin was very focused internally. Yes he was watching Germany but never would hvae been ready to attack Axis Eroupe untill 42. Granted there are some works outthere that say his generals were pushing for a early attack... these are the same guys that survived the purges because they were A) Stalins drinking buddys and fools Good commies but stupid C) Had no idea of modern warfare and idiots. Not a group of top commanders able to conduct an attack I would think.

[arado234]

With Stalin you can never know what he would have done.In the book(and others)What Stalin Knew,when he was told that a German attack was imminent he still didnt want to react out of fear of upsetting Hitler.

If Germany got clobbered attacking England I would think Stalin would have gone for some concessions as you say Liam,but if Germany wiped out England quickly without heavy losses then I think Europe wouldnt be a very pleasent place to be.I truely believe that Hitler would have used forced diplomacy on the rest of Europe and gained a quite substantial Ind.production capability.

The world would have been in a very pricarious situation.You would have Germany(prestige and morale at a all time high) and Japan(geared for war)and the Russians and probably the Amis(who knows what effect the isolationists would have had on America)scrambling to try and prepare.

By making the game with the effect that if England goes down its probably over it will force the Allied player to do what the Brits. would have really done,DEFEND THE ISLAND.I cant see the British just abandoning the homeland to the Nazis.They would fight to the death just like the Germans and the Japanese did.Im sure the Americans would do the same.I did read where that after the Russians lost all those troops at Kiev in 1941(including all the ohter losses) Stalin wanted to try and negotiate with Hitler.He was talked out of it.If Hitler had wiped out England who knows what Stalin would have done.

[SeaMonkey]

Hey guys thought I'd weigh in here with another perspective not expressed yet...as I catch up on these threads.

As the Axis against a human allied player I believe it is imperative to conduct the first turns with every intention to invade UK in the Summer of 40 after France's fall. You must keep the Allied player honest with the defense of the Isles.

Each of us will initiate a path to that ends, it is not important to be specific, you know how to conduct invasions. See, this is one of the main ideologies of playing SC, maintaining a threat. Doesn't matter if you actually intend to fulfill that threat, you just need to create it as a viable scenario in your opponents mind.

Which brings up another apparent asset...or defect...depending on your position, that SC does tend to lead you down an historical road of actions.

So in conclusion I say to you human players that emphasize the Axis endeavors, develop the preplanning details for Sealion from the opening turn of Fall Weiss with every intent of prosecution.

Because if you fail to....you run the risk of a rampant Allied plan of early befuddlement.