Sea Lion or not Sea Lion.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Sea Lion or not Sea Lion.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Sea Lion or not Sea Lion.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Sea Lion or not Sea Lion. - 10/22/2018 6:17:39 PM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

The benefits of capturing the British Isles are huge for the Axis player, but the invasion is notoriously difficult and risky, mostly due to the supply problems, during the first turns after the initial landings. So I wanted to get the players opinions - is the invasion worth it? If, so what are your tips for a successful invasion? As mentioned above, to me the main problem is the supply of the invading forces. The British player can bomb the bridgehead with the strat bombers or with the navy. Anybody was successful against a skilled human oponent?

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

Post #: 1

RE: Sea Lion or not Sea Lion. - 10/22/2018 6:34:57 PM

Goodmongo

Posts: 346
Joined: 9/22/2011
Status: offline

I usually save it for last when I do the bomber/para on London option.

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 2

RE: Sea Lion or not Sea Lion. - 10/22/2018 7:53:52 PM

Ktonos

Posts: 282
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: offline

In my opinion:

You must always faint a Sea Lion. The longest the opponent believes a Sea Lion is possible, the longest the delay reinforcing the Mediterranean. Just having your paras on the Northern France ports along with a couple of air units are enough to give the impression that a Sea Lion is possible.

I only go for a Sea Lion if British presence in Mediterranean and Egypt is overwhelming. If it seems that most of the UK fleet is there, and Britain comes in force to take Torbruk with lets say 4-5 infantry and heavy air support, it's easy to assume that England has maxiimum 1-2 corps, 1-2 garrisons, 1 fighter, and maybe 1 antiair.

(in reply to Goodmongo)

Post #: 3

RE: Sea Lion or not Sea Lion. - 10/23/2018 12:31:34 AM

ivanov

Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

In my opinion:

You must always faint a Sea Lion. The longest the opponent believes a Sea Lion is possible, the longest the delay reinforcing the Mediterranean. Just having your paras on the Northern France ports along with a couple of air units are enough to give the impression that a Sea Lion is possible.

I only go for a Sea Lion if British presence in Mediterranean and Egypt is overwhelming. If it seems that most of the UK fleet is there, and Britain comes in force to take Torbruk with lets say 4-5 infantry and heavy air support, it's easy to assume that England has maxiimum 1-2 corps, 1-2 garrisons, 1 fighter, and maybe 1 antiair.

So from what you're saying, I understand that it's not really worth to try the actual invasion?

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to Ktonos)

Post #: 4

RE: Sea Lion or not Sea Lion. - 10/23/2018 2:20:14 AM

Ktonos

Posts: 282
Joined: 3/16/2018
Status: offline

I didn't say that. I just said that in my opinion the invasion is worth it only if Allies overcommit in mediterranean. Provided you spot such overcommitment early on.
Lets say you just conquered France, and the bulk of the German units are there. Italy joins the war and next thing you know is having several English corps in your face rushing towards Tobruk. This might be time to consider sea lion. You spot the BEF amongst the advancing English? Or even better, you spot two English HQs? That means 99% no HQ in England. Not doing Sea Lion in that case is a missed opportunity to make yourself a big favorite to win the match.

(in reply to ivanov)

Post #: 5