Sealion or Seagrave (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> The War Room



Message

Antares4 -> Sealion or Seagrave (11/13/2013 2:30:44 PM)

I would like to know, how often you witnessed an succesful Sealion an how you evaluate the chances in general.
5%, 10% or even more.
I know, it depends (set up, production-planing, ability, luck ...) but that´s not my question.
I´am interesed on the statistical part.
I for sure will take my time before i knock on England doors.



trooper76 -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/13/2013 6:39:42 PM)

Of the dozen or so WiF games I've played (all Global War) I've only seen Sealion even attempted once and it failed. If the UK player is paying attention it's a very difficult thing to pull off.



brian brian -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/13/2013 7:28:52 PM)

I saw a fascinatingly temporarily successful Sea Lion once upon a time. The Germans almost had England conquered but the CW surrendered the place and moved what was left of the Royal Navy to Canada first. That particular Sea Lion was done against a good, wide-awake CW player, but worked so very well because the Japanese went to war with the CW at the same time, in 1940. Japanese Zeroes can control any sea area the Axis wishes in 1940.

There was a big down-side to all this Axis fun. The USA was prompted to accelerate their production and enter the war so early that the Allies were able to recover from this, conquer Japan, liberate the UK, and almost conquer Germany by the end. Never underestimate the Jolly Green Giant and a rain of Offensive Chits, and be careful what you wish for.

Can't help you on the statistical side. I succeeded at the operation once, as the Germans. If it succeeds, most Allied players quit, and the Axis win.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/13/2013 9:42:28 PM)

Out of maybe 15 "serious" games I've played or watched, I've seen 2 sealions. I've also seen one "cheapshot" which ended the game in 1940. Both of them succeeded overrunning most of the UK.


First one though, lost anyway. Russians entered the war, and so did the Americans, early, and while the UK was badly battered, there was an enormous amount of troops in the Home island, and the supply lines got cut, and the cream of the German army got pulverized.


Second game, kind of semi classic. Germans took France down a bit earlier than usual, went into Spain, took Gibraltar, let the Italians out, conquered the UK in about 1941, and turned around and did a late 42 Barb. Won quite handily.


#3 was a bit of an opportunistic thing. CW went for the "Big BEF" and advance built Alexander, and rushed him and a whole bunch of stuff into France. I think they had like 1 corps and 1 gun remaining in the whole UK, so the Germans didn't even go into France proper (they took out Belgium), and just pell mell rushed in with the para, and Bock on an Amph, and then got a few more bodies in the subsequent impulses, and wound up overrunning the country by the summer of 40.



Twotribes -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/13/2013 10:29:46 PM)

No fog of war in MWIF? I realize none in a board game.



paulderynck -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/13/2013 11:17:49 PM)

Despite some divergences from WiF, the fog of war part is identical.



Greyshaft -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/13/2013 11:33:14 PM)

I did a Sealion in a two-player WiF 5 and conquered Britain except for Northern Ireland. The USA (naturally) came in early, invaded neutral Ireland but couldn't get a foothold on the continent (inc. mainland Britain) because I had at least two units occupying every port. In the east the Russians were attacking strongly but I used the German economy to produce nothing but INF/GAR and fighters from about end 1942 and that created a stalemate in the east.

I used the Japanese cautiously since I figured I had the game won and didn't want any risky moves/Battle of Midway events to change the flow of the tide. The allies surrendered in early 44 when it became obvious that they'd never get back into Europe. By then the Russians were advancing slowly but it would have been about 1947 before they reached Berlin.

I've also seen a couple of Sealions that didn't work. One idea is for the Germans to always build a transport and a para in turn one or two. If the CW doesn't react with his own builds (ie starts building more INF) then you might be in with a chance. You'll probably lose but it'll be a lot of fun!!!



brian brian -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/14/2013 12:50:14 AM)

The surprise 1940 invasion works best actually, I think. That's how I got one to work. I didn't plan for it in advance; the CW just accidentally handed it to me. It became a game of ATR missions and naval re-org points.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/14/2013 1:25:18 AM)

I agree it works best if there's an opening. A careful CW player won't strip the home island so far that it becomes a viable strategy most of the time.



paulderynck -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/14/2013 2:42:39 AM)

Too many people from these reports and other I've read seem to miss their morale check and surrender before they really should. I've seen Russia start in the Urals at the beginning of '44 and be in Berlin by the end of the game.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/14/2013 3:23:39 AM)

While you do get some instances where people resign in positions they shouldn't, if the UK goes down, it's pretty bad. Nevermind the 17 PP a turn the Allies lose, without the UK, you don't have those launching pads for invasions into Northern Europe, or the bases to launch a strat bomb campaign from. It also makes the lend lease route for build points (aside from the trickle of 2 that are coming in from India) very very hard to maintain. It hugely limits the abilities of the Western Allies to do anything to strike the Germans directly, which usually leads them to either


A) Pile up on Italy

B) Pile up on Japan.

And while either of these strategies might have effect, I've found it's really tough for the Soviets to go it alone against the Germans, with no meaningful distraction on the main front. A Germany that has gone into the Iberian peninsula and conquered the UK, can probably shell out a good 30-35 PP a turn, depending on how much they give to the Italians, how much oil they can muster, their expenditures, and how much they get in a (probably somewhat weak) offensive into the USSR in 42ish.

And while the Soviets might be able to keep the Germans held off more or less indefinitely, it can be very hard to regain the initiative.


Wow, that was longer than I realized. Babble stream stops now.



Greyshaft -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/14/2013 4:56:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ur_Vile_WEdge
... without the UK, you don't have those launching pads for invasions into Northern Europe, or the bases to launch a strat bomb campaign from.
...


That was the reason the Allies gave up. We agreed that I could easily station enough FTR in the UK to maintain air superiority and it would have taken a year for him to redeploy to the Med for an alternative invasion route.

WRT failing morale checks I think the game should continue until both sides agree that there are no strategic options left for the loser and the only question is how many dice rolls it will take for the victor to complete the conquest.



paulderynck -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/14/2013 7:17:25 AM)

Yes it's real annoying if the axis tries some super-risky strategy that would likely win them the game but will destroy them early if it fails and then they quit when it does fail and before the allies have had any fun switching roles to the offense.

Eventually, you adjust your playing groups so folks who do that need to find other groups.




Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/14/2013 1:41:50 PM)

But defense is the most fun part of the game. Clinging grimly to every hex and unit, in the face of overwhelming odds? Offense is much less intense, you just pound them with your bombers, flow through the weak point, and go. (Massive generalizations, I realize)



Numdydar -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/17/2013 6:08:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Yes it's real annoying if the axis tries some super-risky strategy that would likely win them the game but will destroy them early if it fails and then they quit when it does fail and before the allies have had any fun switching roles to the offense.

Eventually, you adjust your playing groups so folks who do that need to find other groups.




This sounds like a lot of Japanese players in War in the Pacific AE [:(] The game may change, but people's behavior does not lol.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/17/2013 6:15:07 PM)

You're going to have something similar any time you have a game where you can commit a limited amount of resources to a number of fields, most of which don't directly reinforce each other.

It practically invites the risk of some super-polar strategy, which will tend to either win big or blow up spectacularly.



vicberg -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/23/2013 2:13:31 AM)

The British Redoubt is a very effective strategy to help Russia. Piling troops into France, then around Brest can keep France going to until late 40 and keep GE occupied into 41, making a 41 Barb much more challenging.

The downside is that England is open to a sudden invasion. So the strategy is a gamble. Sea lion is gamble. France first is a gamble. Making IT the air arm of Germany in Russia is a gamble as IT will be vulnerable to an early exit from the game. An early JP attack against CW, combined with IT and GE is a gamble. All with big rewards and big risks. That's what makes WIF such a great game. I wouldn't rule out strategies because of risk. Besides, how many times do you want to do the standard Poland -> France -> 41 Barb attack?



delatbabel -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/23/2013 9:25:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

The British Redoubt is a very effective strategy to help Russia. Piling troops into France, then around Brest can keep France going to until late 40 and keep GE occupied into 41, making a 41 Barb much more challenging.

The downside is that England is open to a sudden invasion. So the strategy is a gamble. Sea lion is gamble. France first is a gamble. Making IT the air arm of Germany in Russia is a gamble as IT will be vulnerable to an early exit from the game. An early JP attack against CW, combined with IT and GE is a gamble. All with big rewards and big risks. That's what makes WIF such a great game. I wouldn't rule out strategies because of risk. Besides, how many times do you want to do the standard Poland -> France -> 41 Barb attack?


Plus about 5 million for this post.

Everything has its risks and rewards. Sealion is a big risk, it's almost impossible to pull off successfully if the CW player sees it coming and can prepare for it. However it's a huge reward, if it's successful it virtually wins the game for the Axis, barring some large number of horrible disasters on the Eastern Front. All other strategies are risk/rewards playoffs too. Caveat emptor.

"I do not say they [the French] cannot come – I only say they cannot come by sea" -- Admiral John Jervis.



delatbabel -> RE: Sealion or Seagrave (11/23/2013 9:34:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
I did a Sealion in a two-player WiF 5 and conquered Britain except for Northern Ireland. The USA (naturally) came in early, invaded neutral Ireland but couldn't get a foothold on the continent (inc. mainland Britain) because I had at least two units occupying every port. In the east the Russians were attacking strongly but I used the German economy to produce nothing but INF/GAR and fighters from about end 1942 and that created a stalemate in the east.


Sealion is almost always a game winner in WiF 5 but actually much harder to pull off than in WiFFE (or MWiF I am guessing), because of one important rule change:

WiF 5 -- the player with the most air to sea factors decides the sea battle type.
WiF FE -- either player, having any air to sea factors, can decide that the sea battle is a naval air combat.

Now the axis player can usually put more fighter strength up at that stage of the war than the CW player can alone. Therefore an air to sea battle is more likely to favour the axis, because the axis fighters will usually chase away the CW fighters and most of the CW bombers, and the battle goes the axis way from there. In WiF 5 because of the counter mix it's always possible for the CW to field more air to sea factors than the axis despite fighter numbers, and the CW at that point calls it a surface battle, throws in the big battleships and it's all over for the axis because they can't match the CW for surface combat strength.

Sealion is a very early game all-or-nothing gambit. Treat it like that. If it's on then the North Sea becomes vital and the CW fleet should be hanging around that area with everything they have. I did see one Sealion where, after the axis took Gibraltar, the CW fleet was sitting in the Eastern Mediterranean with no way to get home. In Australia there's a special rule when this happens -- the CW player must lower their pants.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875