Operation Sealion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Operation Sealion

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: World at War >> Operation Sealion

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Operation Sealion - 1/18/2019 12:14:09 AM

cosmoO

Posts: 15
Joined: 6/7/2017
Status: offline

I have watched a lot of games online, and to be honest...I am not as near as good as those I watch play world at war, but it seems like taking over Britain by the Germans (human players) is easier to do, than I would have expected.

Like I said, I am still learning, but the British fleet seems to not be able to really handle the onslaught of German boats (especially subs); coupled with German air strikes on the Britain coast to wear down the land forces, before the Germans make the attempt on invading Britain.

I have noticed a lot of the games are played with the normal setting, not the hard. Would the hard setting make it more unlikely for a easier landing by the Germans, or is there going to be a upcoming patch to address a better AI to make the invasion of Britain more of a challenge, or am I just not that well enough of a player to even comment on this part of the game?

I am new, and I am not saying I have the ability to even take over Britain, with my skill level, and on normal mode; but advanced human players seem to do it quite well.

Post #: 1

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/18/2019 9:49:04 AM

steevodeevo

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/28/2005
Status: offline

Its strange for me, I never play the Sealion Card. Why? Several reasons...

I'm not ever comfortable, in any game, with the way that the British Mainland invasion is simulated. No one quite knows how it would have come off, but it is a conceit to think it could have worked anyway as a feasible 'alt history' as in reality the Germans needed air and sea supremacy before the landings even had a prayer. At Sea they didn't even come close, in the air, it was very close but in the end a total failure on both fronts and they abandoned it. I like my share of 'what if?' fantasy and fully support the option to play Sealion, as would be a fantasy Invasion of the US mainland etc, but for me it is so 'off the reality chart' I can't get immersed in a German campaign that uses Sealion.

I am intrigued however to see if the Devs have grasped just how difficult it would have been in the Britain of the 40's to conduct a land invasion driving north. Britain is narrow, bounded by seas and mountains running north-south on the west side, then east-west when you hit the North. The major rivers run West to east, many are wide and virtually slice up the country into east-west segments. Rivers like the Thames, Severn, Wye, Great Ouse, Trent, Ouse, Tyne, Wear and Tweed are very large, deep and wide bodies of water, in the 40's there were far fewer bridges and many more fords and ferries creating controllable bottlenecks if the invasion proceeded primarily by ground assault.

A densely populated country, resistance would have been fierce; not only from the Armed forces, but from the militias. The so called and much maligned 'dad's army' wouldn't have been so much of a joke today had they been called into action. Every town and village had a trap laid. Every bridge, ford, crossroad, street intersection was booby-trapped and pill-boxed into a devastating ambush crossfire. What is chilling, if you research the Home Guard is that they were in reality suicide squads. There job was to ambush, harry, slow down, deplete, but at every ambush point they were expected, in the end, to be killed. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-real-dads-army

That said, defeating Russia and getting a decisive win without undertaking Sealion, so holding off the Allies completely, is eluding me. Even on my best efforts where I take Stalingrad, Moscow and St. Petersburg and most of the Middle East, eventually I get ground down. I may have to treat SC as a 'game' not a historical sim and try it just to get the victory I'm after. We'll see..

(in reply to cosmoO)

Post #: 2

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/18/2019 11:53:33 AM

Xsillione

Posts: 212
Joined: 1/18/2019
Status: offline

The Sealion possibility falls on three part, most of the time, all three represented badly in games:

1. Airforce: after the (and even before) the Battle of Britain the German Airforce has no chance to gain total air superiority over the British isle. In games, you usually can achieve this easily. In this current game, the British has 2 fighters, 1 TAC and 1 STR, while the germans start with 3 Fighters, 3 Tac and 1 Med, and the Italians has 1 Fighter and 1 TAC, so the German (axis) airforce at start is double of the British, and has no reson to lose this advantage. So unless the British Build many more airunits or manage to take out several of the axis ones, they will lose the airwar. And if the Axis build more air units, they can win this part even if the UK builds up.

2. Navy: The german surface fleet has never had any chance against the Home Fleet alone, not counting the French fleet, the recalled Mediterranean or other units. And the German subs while was effective and dangerous, never was able to keep the channel clear for several weeks or month from UK fleet. In most games, the Germans can easily reduce the Home Fleet and the unit is usually not effective at all. In this current game, the German (or any) subs are capable to stay in fight for insane times (needs multiple DDs to take out one and if you manage to get beck to port, can be repaired almost immediately at minimal cost. Also the Km surface part can take out most of the Home fleet while the subs clear the rest.

3. Invasion: The axis has no real invasion capabilities, at best, they could send 5K-10K troop without any heavy equipment to a beach and maybe some paras, then slowly send more troop and equipment with supply ships, if the first group managed to take and hold a port. And after that, it is unknown. In most games the axis can easily send half of their army to the UK and keep them in supply. In this game, at least this part is somewhat realistic, Germany and Italy has little to no landing capability and researching it takes time and resources, paras are a bit overpowered and SF-s can be sent even without supply, but at least this part is hard in the game, and even a successful landing can fail on supply, as historically probably would.

The big question of course is how hard the UK would fight after an invasion, many vision last stand type resolve from everyone, but it could be just as a hard collapse as France did and total capitulation after London fall or even before.

(in reply to steevodeevo)

Post #: 3

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/18/2019 12:28:10 PM

steevodeevo

Posts: 138
Joined: 12/28/2005
Status: offline

Good stuff Xsillione.

Britain would not collapse like France if the London capital fell. Britain is mentally so regionalised in its social culture, and was even more so then, that the North, Midlands and Western population centres would have had barely any morale impact should London be occupied - no more than the initial invasion impact and of course the effect of war on native soil and loss of major cities and countrymen of course. If the capital could be relocated to Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or Edinburgh so that communications and C&C could be maintained, the war would continue.

London was more of an industrial centre and port in the 40's than it is now, but manufacturing and imports didn't really enter via London, it was too risky to travel the channel to the Thames and took far longer than shipping into the West and North Coast Ports. All raw materials, coal, steel etc were dug up and processed in the Midlands and North. Unlike Paris, London isn't really a central hub for travel. Once Paris fell it would have been a huge challenge for French forces to move east and west and north and south with Paris locked down. Britain is like a segmented snake :) chop of the southern segments and the ones further north survive.

(in reply to Xsillione)

Post #: 4

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/18/2019 5:56:11 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: steevodeevo

Good stuff Xsillione.

Britain would not collapse like France if the London capital fell. Britain is mentally so regionalised in its social culture, and was even more so then, that the North, Midlands and Western population centres would have had barely any morale impact should London be occupied - no more than the initial invasion impact and of course the effect of war on native soil and loss of major cities and countrymen of course. If the capital could be relocated to Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle or Edinburgh so that communications and C&C could be maintained, the war would continue.

London was more of an industrial centre and port in the 40's than it is now, but manufacturing and imports didn't really enter via London, it was too risky to travel the channel to the Thames and took far longer than shipping into the West and North Coast Ports. All raw materials, coal, steel etc were dug up and processed in the Midlands and North. Unlike Paris, London isn't really a central hub for travel. Once Paris fell it would have been a huge challenge for French forces to move east and west and north and south with Paris locked down. Britain is like a segmented snake :) chop of the southern segments and the ones further north survive.

Which is exactly what happens in the game

_____________________________

(in reply to steevodeevo)

Post #: 5

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/19/2019 12:58:46 AM

cosmoO

Posts: 15
Joined: 6/7/2017
Status: offline

I know that to program a AI to cover all things is practically impossible, and playing with a real person instead is preferred; for a challenge...

I was just noting, that once Britain AI is conquered, the real person playing the Germans; just lines up his/her patrolling fleet in a line between America and Britain...and pretty much just picks off any American ships heading to Britain or there about, with amazing ease; at little to no cost of the German ships. It like a shooting gallery, with no chance for even the best AI to breakthrough.

Seems like once Britain is out of the loop...pretty much everything else is easier fair game in the long run.

Personal note...

I don't think that the Germans could have taken Britain in WW2...without a massive cost of men and equipment in the final tally, and even then; I still don't think they could held on to Britain for very long, even if they did manage to get on Britain soil. It would have taken practically everything they had in stock, to even maintain a defensive line...once the Americans starting coming over towards them.

I think it would have been even more crippling for the Germans, and brought even a quicker end to their advance to domination.

Just a thought on my part. I am no major WW2 historian, but what I have read and learned...tends to swing me to German failure with a possible 'Operation Sealion' scenario.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 6

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/25/2019 5:35:27 PM

Yogol

Posts: 199
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

In the current game, Sealion seems easier then before, to me. I always do a Sealion in any Strategic Command when I play against the AI.

But the AI doesn't defend Plymouth in this version, so I can paratroop in there.
That leaves the port intact at supply 5, which allows me to transport three units in the same turn -including the all-important HQ- without the UK stopping me. And in then next turn, I can even move more troops, because the UK fleet stays mostly north after you landed in the UK. I don't even have to do my usual ship-sacrifice to lure them away.

The only thing in this version against Sealion is that you can't use bombers because you need them to take out Malta (now that the African corps deploys in ITaly, you can't get them to Africa with Malta in AI hands on the highest difficulty settings with the +2 spotting for the AI).
But even without bombers, Sealion is very much a GO !

quote:

ORIGINAL: cosmoO
I don't think that the Germans could have taken Britain in WW2...without a massive cost of men and equipment in the final tally, and even then; I still don't think they could held on to Britain for very long, even if they did manage to get on Britain soil. It would have taken practically everything they had in stock, to even maintain a defensive line...once the Americans starting coming over towards them.

I disagree with that. They'd have to take Ireland too, of course, but it was a really dumb, dumb, dumb move not to go after the UK and attack the USSR so soon instead.
I do not see how the US would ever been able to cross the Atlantic in amphibian transports to attack UK/Ireland.
They'd have to go to Africa, but even that would be hazardless.

In my opinion, the nazis lost the war when they cancelled Sealion. Which is why I do Sealion in every Strategic Command game: the investment is worth it ten times over. Likeit would have been in real time.

< Message edited by Yogol -- 1/25/2019 5:40:43 PM >

(in reply to cosmoO)

Post #: 7

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/26/2019 6:24:50 AM

ERA101

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/2/2019
Status: offline

I think it's the problem with the AI and a map size.
British Isle is very close to the European mainland.
So it's harder to defend and AI cannot do the job properly.

Regarding number of airforce I think Britain has enough of them.
Historically GB build more planes after the war start,
So player or AI should do the same in order to fend of Luftwaffe.
(Play with AI will make a bad habit of not defending the British Isle properly.)
More plane for British will make them too strong at the start of the war.

And if Germany focus on Sealion, the eastern front and North Africa will be weaker.
Allied player can grab the advantage on those front while German army is in GB.

Playing with human, Sealion is still difficult to pull off without sacrificed capability on other fronts.

(in reply to Yogol)

Post #: 8

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/27/2019 11:01:49 PM

cosmoO

Posts: 15
Joined: 6/7/2017
Status: offline

If Germany by your opinion should have attacked England (Sea Lion); why do you think he didn't. The monster was a total megalomaniac, he was willing to sacrifice everything and everyone... achieve his goals.

He pretty much overruled his general staff on a permanent basis...something must have kept him from doing Sea Lion. I am guessing his health and ability to focus with his health, mind and body failing/coupled with his war machine fighting basically 2 main fronts, and having the Americans entering the war on top of this...may have diverted his attention on not dealing with an invasion of England. (Something went array.)

I am just wondering...why no push to England, if you say it was stupid not too. I am not doubting you reasoning, just confused as to his lack of attacking England

On the other part of my first post...perhaps the map size does negate or give Germany better odds to be successful with Sea Lion in the game. I am not as experienced as many of you folks; but it just seems England in the game has very bad/or at least, limited odds of stopping a Sea Lion attempt by Germany...game wise.

(in reply to cosmoO)

Post #: 9

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/28/2019 4:20:34 AM

ERA101

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/2/2019
Status: offline

Germany fail to achieved significant advantage at the start of Battle of Britain
and used too much resource there. (Strategic failure for Goering's Luftwaffe.)
Then Luftwaffe fail to compete in productive capability.
So I don't think the continuation of Sealion will success even without Barbarossa initiated in mid-1941.
Even if Sealion success, Occupied Britain will be a mess with all the partisan.

I think it'd be better if Germany divert their attention elsewhere and not attempted Sealion at all.
Barbarossa with full strength Luftwaffe, or earlier Barbarossa
North Africa operation with Luftwaffe support
If Axis demonstrate a significant advantage like force USSR bitter peace or
control Suez canal and drive Allied out of mediterranean, Spain may join the Axis.

In the long run it's impossible for Axis to achieved complete victory due to partisan and revolt
in occupied territory. But they may be able to force more favorable peace treaty
as it's costly for evereone to continue the war.
(Which Hitler had to died first, the government of Wehrmacht or Nazi withour Hitler
may want to talk about peace.)

(in reply to cosmoO)

Post #: 10

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/28/2019 1:02:59 PM

Easter80

Posts: 37
Joined: 12/22/2018
Status: offline

I've also had the idea of starting Operation Sealion just after Fall Wei� was finnished, but the french Navi was protecting the british coast with the british Navi in the backround at Scapa Flow. So it wasn't possible for me to do.

(in reply to ERA101)

Post #: 11

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/28/2019 1:54:49 PM

seydlitz22513

Posts: 102
Joined: 4/26/2018
Status: offline

Germany as history showed quite clearly had not a hope in hell of ever doing operation sealion because of the following facts:

1 = The RAF was on a par if not better than the Luftwaffe, and without air superiority, the operation sealion would fail.

2 = The British Royal Navy was far too strong for the Kriegsmarine to even contemplate taking on the British fleet in the English Channel.

3 = Third and maybe even more important than the above two reasons combined, the British mentality would never allow the British Isles to be Captured, Britain as a Nation will never bow down to aggressors I don't care who they are we as a people would never surrender our homeland, sorry to say please pardon the pun we would KICK ASS.

But I digress, in-game operation sealion is possible, and may I say far too easily achieved. For the following reasons, Airpower in the game is much too powerful against land targets be that towns, cities, fortresses etc and also against land units Armies, Corps etc, and the standard Naval game is bad plain and simple, Dreadnoughts, Battleships, and Battlecruisers are far too weak defensively that make them pointless to build or even repair, personally I think they are made of glass and not STEEL!

Hairogs Naval Mod should be used as the basis of the standard game, the naval game as it is that comes with the game is wrong it just is, it's just an extension of the land game and in no shape or form can the naval game be successfully portrayed this way it is completely different.

Below is Hairogs excellent Naval Mod are you listening game designers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hairog

I'm working on a Naval mod that tries to address some of the concerns mentioned. So far it's looking good in SCE.
1. Gave some naval units 6+ Zones of Control to cut down on ships zooming in attacking and then disappearing. It seems to be working and gives a purpose and a reason to put out pickets and screening forces. See picture...
2. Increased attack and defensive avoidance dramatically to simulate the hit or miss of meeting in the open ocean.
3. Gave capital ships 2 attacks per turn. Combined with high avoidance this seems to simulate actual damage reports and negates frustration.
4. Planes are deadly against ships as they were historically
5. Gave CV 2 intercepts and 2 escorts to simulate the frantic pace of air ops. They all use supply as well. If you have well supplied carriers you may survive an air attack.
6. Increased spotting zones of CV, CVL, CA and Maritime Bombers to simulate searches and float planes
7. Instituted strength limits...CV-10, BB-10, CC/BC-9, DN-8, CA-7, CL-6, DD-5, MT-5 to simulate how fragile the smaller ships were. Literally hundreds of DDs and CLs were lost in WWII while only dozens of Capital ships were.

I'll post a naval only mod soon for beta testing in SCE and later for SCWW

< Message edited by seydlitz22513 -- 1/28/2019 2:05:48 PM >

(in reply to Easter80)

Post #: 12

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/28/2019 4:28:20 PM

seydlitz22513

Posts: 102
Joined: 4/26/2018
Status: offline

Another thing I disagree with in the game is this, in the unlikely event that should London fall into Axis hands, that the British government would actually want to transfer to Australia or Canada? I think not captain not going to happen, just move the government in turn to Manchester, and then to Edinburgh, and even then to Inverness as Inverness should be a City in game terms. In fact, for that matter, British Government would rather move to Scapa Flow that ever think about moving to Australia or Canada.

(in reply to seydlitz22513)

Post #: 13

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/28/2019 7:27:01 PM

ERA101

Posts: 9
Joined: 1/2/2019
Status: offline

I think we already had a topic about historical simulation vs strategy game.
A game created for competition while retain some of historical simulation flavors.
Strategy game have to balance chance of winning equally on each side, or just a bit favor on one side.
(Usually win rate should be around 50-55% with same level of players.)
To make the game play out historically with one side alway win that wont be a game.

Currently this game is quite balance (in term of victory/defeat rating)
However may not be good at history simulation.

The naval mod ZOC, increase attack number, etc. mainly benefit CV/CVL due to it's superior range. But criples other surface warship and submarines who need to be adjacent to enemy to deal damge.
The change strengthen the country with starting with more CV/CVL or has ability to produce them.
This can break the game balance as Axis naval force mainly BB and SS, while Allied has more CV/CVL.
CV/CVL also able to sent their planes deep inland as recon or bomber.
Give it more hit not only affect a naval battle but also land and air battle.

I think for historical simulation this naval mod should be OK, who want to use, then use it.
But to implement it into the main game which meant to be a competition, I don't think it'd be easy.
For game balance, a lot of test is needed to make sure each side has equally chance to win.
From the change ZOC, number of hit, CV/CVL planes damage etc. I don't think Axis will have a chance to win > 20%
due to lack of CV/CVL to take advantage of the system and less ability to produce more.
Yeah, historically it should be like that, but this is a game where history is just a flavor.
(It may not effect Europe/Atlantic much, but in Pacific it will surely be a problem of game balance.)

I think dev was not unaware of sea ZOC idea. Just that it's difficult to design.
Even more difficult to scripted AI to take advantage of that.
If it work like land ZOC, only 2 group of destroyer can block at least 14 sea tiles, which also affect convoy raid and I can think some gamey tactics for that.
Currently you can surround every side CV/CVL with screen + BB to the same effect as ZOC but more costly.
Even in real life I don�t think a group of screens can zone the area and cover 120 miles of sea zone (3 tiles) without allowing any enemy ship to pass.
They�re screener not blocker, usually the screen would try to avoid the fight if larger battleship came into the radar and
signal other capable task force to deal with the threat rather than get into a fight to block them.
I think the ship cannot move through a tile that have enemy ship on it is enough for sea ZOC. (40 miles)
On land ZOC may represent barricade, tanktrap, etc. which may capable of stop enemy unit from passing through.
In the high sea, no such blockade can be that effective in a very large area.

Regarding game balance, as I said above, Allied player can win even if British Isle fall (at least if not fall too fast).
And with proper defense, I don't think British isle will fall before Barbarossa begin.
With Germany units stuck on British isle and proper MPP used for USSR and Colonial Britain,
It's not that difficult to win in NA and USSR when Germany cannot use full strength there.
But to failed on every front's that may be player's fault?

(I see the game that Germany Eastern Europe collapse, while their army still not return from British Isle,
and US not join a fight in Europe yrt.)

I think the naval system may need some change, but I think it'd take time.
Next fix with SS supply will being more historical flavors without hurting game balance too much.

< Message edited by ERA101 -- 1/29/2019 8:44:53 AM >

(in reply to seydlitz22513)

Post #: 14

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/28/2019 10:58:39 PM

codem

Posts: 8
Joined: 1/12/2019
Status: offline

I disagree with some of the comments about concerning Germany's inability to invade England. You are forgetting some real history here. 1) during the "Battle of Britain", the RAF was practically spent and was on the verge of collapse. It was an misfortune of a Germany bombing raid going off course and bombing London (prior to this, German air attacks were focus only on military targets). This prompted the British to bomb Berlin, which angered Hitler... and this proceeded him making a bad decision in focusing bombing raids on London, instead of military targets. This gave the RAF time to catch it's breath so to speak.

Secondly, the U-Boats.. Britain had no good answer to the U-boats early on. Again, the here the tactics of Germany were faulty in which they used the U-boats to focus on merchant shipping. Those early easy pickings lead Germany to believe they could simply starve England. However, if instead, they would have focus on the Royal Navy, I would argue that the lack of anti-sub capabilities of Royal Navy at the time. that the U-Boats could have wreck havoc on the Home Fleet.

With Air Superiority in favor of Germany and the channel free of the Royal Navy, in theory, Germany could have successfully launched an invasion of Southern England..... however.. the question then comes down... could the British repel the invasion and could Germany keep their troops in supply. If they maintain air superiority, Germany could have air lifted lots of supplies as well as shipping (if they maintain control of the channel.

Granted this is all theory, but we have to keep in mind there were several tactical / strategic mistakes that Germany (Hitler) made, that today, players with 20/20 hind sight would not have made. For example, players would not waste their air power bombing London, but would instead focus on military targets. etc.

(in reply to ERA101)

Post #: 15

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/29/2019 1:45:42 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

Sealion is a favorite "what if?" for WWII games, but the truth is that it was never "under consideration" by the Germans and would never happen. For one thing, believe it or not, Hitler loved Britain and wanted peace with them, which he never stopped holding out hopes for till the very end. The so-called Battle of Britain wasn't a battle, but just a demonstration to give Britain a little push into a peace deal, it being believed that Britain wouldn't consider peace unless they were actually being attacked. And... let me assure you, had the Germans/Hitler ever even considered a Sealion invasion, they never would've pulled up short and allowed the BEF to escape the continent at Dunkirk unmolested. Dunkirk wasn't "a miracle", it was a peace gesture by Hitler hoping to generate good will after the Battle of France was won.

(in reply to codem)

Post #: 16

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/29/2019 1:51:16 PM

Toby42

Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline

I've always wondered that if the Germans landed an army in England, what would have the US have done? If anything?

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 17

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/30/2019 12:45:54 AM

Xsillione

Posts: 212
Joined: 1/18/2019
Status: offline

1. The RAF was not spent after the BAB, German airforce lost almost two planes for each British one, and was even worse the pilot and aircrew losses, since the fights happened over Britain mostly, for each British (and allied) pilot, five German lost, and two other captured.

2. The subs were not invulnerable in the early war, 9 lost in '39, and additional 24 in '40 (out of around 110, so almost 30%), and this is with the general order of avoiding direct conflict with warships, if they went after the warships, they would lose way more (and also would sunk a few more big ships.)

So no airsuperiority and no free channel, but even if they could manage it for some time, the UK would not sit and wait, they would scramble all ships back to the Isle, and would probably the US entered the war to avoid the UK surrender. (and with troops occupied in Britain, the SU attack would not be countered by a well timed Barbarossa, and the war could be over before the end of '41)

(in reply to codem)

Post #: 18

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/30/2019 3:00:05 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: codem

I disagree with some of the comments about concerning Germany's inability to invade England. You are forgetting some real history here. 1) during the "Battle of Britain", the RAF was practically spent and was on the verge of collapse.

warspite1

Not really. The Blitz started on 7 September 1940. On the 6 September, Fighter Command had 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 pilots - 950 of which flew the Spitfire or Hurricane.

Far from being 'spent and on the verge of collapse', this was 200 more pilots and 150 more aircraft than they had in July. Meanwhile, as one example, German fighter pilot losses were increasing markedly during the battle:

Bf-109 pilot losses as a % of available
July - 11%
August - 15%
September - 23%

And these are just the fighters. Moreover, German production was not keeping pace.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to codem)

Post #: 19

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/30/2019 3:34:15 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

In game terms, I think Germany should have to put tech chits into Amph in order to invade.

So Lv 1 allows Norway, Lv 2 or 3 would be needed to invade England in order to represent the build up of transport that would have been needed for a successful invasion. Just an idea

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 20

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/30/2019 6:15:03 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

In game terms, I think Germany should have to put tech chits into Amph in order to invade.

So Lv 1 allows Norway, Lv 2 or 3 would be needed to invade England in order to represent the build up of transport that would have been needed for a successful invasion. Just an idea

warspite1

It certainly makes sense given the resources thrown at the project and the effect on industry at the time.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 21

RE: Operation Sealion - 1/31/2019 1:43:53 PM

room

Posts: 167
Joined: 1/6/2011
Status: offline

First and foremost the game is not meant to be completely realist but to have a fighting chance with both sides. As such Axis are a bit advantaged and mainly by knowing the past and avoiding its mistakes (while allies especially France do not get such opportunities by being artificially weak but that would be a pity if France did not fall).

I have no idea how is the balance now, I have played only 3 games ( 2 allies, 1 axis) PVP and won them all.

Regarding Britain air force, you have to take into account the planes on carriers, their are useful. Also Britain can benefit from AAs and with some luck from a french relocated fighter.

Sealowe is ok in general I feel but for the supply issue but that is an issue in the entire game imo. It is already quite a huge commitment and a capable opponent can make you pay dearly for it, a fail attempt is game over (if landing then being repulsed) while you probably have not won the game yet if the sealowe is successful against a good opponent. The cost/benefit analysis of sealowe in not that favorable and extremely risky.

The only tweak I would do is to decrease Paras attack and defense by half a point as they are too powerful in general and in many scenarios.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 22