Amphibious landing restrictions

[sPzAbt653]

Still it feels pretty gimmicky for an Allied amphibious armada to appear out of nowhere and launch a successful invasion in the Red Sea after traveling thousands of miles around the Cape, possibly from the East Coast of the US. No less gimmicky, IMO, than a German Amphib unit going from Norway to Iceland.

But Torch and Weserubung weren't gimmicky, were they ? Not to mention short range Overlord. Each of these went undetected by the enemy, which is shamefully embarrassing I think !
The Axis player should have to operate under the assumption that if he chooses to invade the Middle East that he will have to defend that area from Allied incursions from East Africa and India [neither of which are included on the map]. With the Loops and AVL's, both players will operate under the same historically accurate conditions in the area, otherwise the Axis gets a free pass.

[PvtBenjamin]

Thank You Hubert, that makes sense. I appreciate the delicate balance of power and the impact the changes make.

Some thoughts going forward.

1) My issue is that currently the invasion of Britain in 1940 isn't winnable in the air or ground by the Brits, when in fact it was won. I believe if you take two skilled players of equal ability and the Axis player decides to commit all resources to the attack, the Axis will win every time. Sugar for example is a great player (he says he's 51-0 and has never lost) if he plays the Axis and attacks his alter ego "Spice" as Allies "Sugar" wins Sealion every time. [:D] I understand the limitations of the attack and how to defend so other players don't need to explain that to me after this post.

2) I do completely agree with Guderian on early ('39-'41) amphibious abilities not being realistic and should significantly be reduced. I can't envision how that would significantly alter the balance of power but you know better than me.

Leadwieght: I did't suggest Sealion being impossible, just changes that make it more realistic. I do appreciate the delicate balance of power. One can argue that why is a plan that was marginal at best (most likely impossible) so easy to employ here.

sPzAbt: Torch was in Nov '42, the US had a lot of amphibious expertise from the Pacific and the Combined Allied Navies were overwhelming. In Norway the German amphibious component was limited over a short distance in "friendly waters". It was much more an airborne exercise. The German Navy also took a beating. There are no comparisons of Overlord to early Axis amphibious abilities.

Good Discussion Everyone, makes for a better game.

[FredSanford3]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I think what people object to is the ease of Sealion attack for the Axis in SC when it was in fact not possible. Even Hitlers Generals thought it was absurd.

1) The British WON the Battle of Britain. This wasn't a fluke. The Brits had a very advanced air defense system with radar. They had an equal amount of fighters at the beginning and were producing fighters at a much faster rate than the Germans. Maybe most importantly Dowding was a genius. The Germans air had very limited range and the Brits had the huge advantage of being close to their bases. SC gives the Axis complete air superiority in the Battle of Britain which is very unrealistic. A 10 Strength Dowding airforce HQ with an 11 str fighter should appear once Germans start attacking GB.

2) In SC Sealion the Axis fills the channel with subs and controls the seas because of its large air/sub advantage. In reality Axis subs avoided the channel because the channel was shallow and was heavily mined. The RN was significantly superior to the Axis Navy in 1940, especially after Norway. There should be a penalty of 1 pt per turn for subs in the channel, like high seas

3) As I previously mentioned the Axis would have used barges to transport troops. The barges moved at 2/3 knots which would have taken 24-20 hrs to get the troops cross the channel. Even if the Axis wiped out the RAF & RN (which would have never happed) the attack would have been problematic.

Many players want some type of historical connection to the game play not gamers folly.

Easy Sealion is why I haven't bought the game. When SC came out, I watched a few youtubes, and the ease with which the German player was able to take the UK against the AI put me off. For gameplay's sake, I can see making Sealion barely possible, if the stars align, but it sure seems too easy, unless things have changed since release. Is the Royal Navy still tiny compared to reality?

[Christolos]

It seems to me that Sea lion is easily brought off against the AI, and the lack of the AI's ability to escort transports, AVs and AVLs, to counter it, makes it easy to repel the AI's ability to take back the UK if it falls. The real issue here is what happens in a PBEM++ game. It seems to me that it is pure folly to try and invade England against a competent human Allied player.

But it could still be fun to try...

C

[James Taylor]

Sealion is not easy against an Allied opponent that makes preparations to avoid it.

Sealion needs to be a viable Axis strategy just as it was thought to be by the UK in the historical setting. Sure, we know with hindsight that the invasion of the UK was largely a pipe dream, but the UK didn't know it during the real time of 1940. Germany was capable of trying it.

To present the atmosphere of reality for SC players, the prospect of a Sealion must be kept alive. It simulates the mindset of the period, irregardless of our historical knowledge.

No matter what anyone thinks, with Murphy's Laws always a possibility in the executable, the basis of thought that Sealion was impossible is pure speculation, it was never tried.

The true outcome remains unknown and will always be disputable one way or the other.

[Guderian1940]

Yes it should be possible but maybe at a higher costs. Such as Russian mobilizing early, increasing its MPP are some suggestions. Sealion is too easy and the Axis still has time to be prepared for Barbarossa. I just think it should have stronger consequences as a strategic decision to Sealion. The amphib capability is still an issue even with consequences for the decision to invade.

[PvtBenjamin]

Mr. Nimitz,

If you enjoy large scale WW2 Strategic games I would't let Sealion prevent you from playing the game. Once you get up to speed (I got destroyed in a multiple of my first PBEM games) and find an opponent of equal ability and interest its a blast. Although I believe Sealion to be unrealistic the game is an excellent and sophisticated portrayal of the war in Continental Europe. Sealion is unrealistic but there are ways to defend GB, the Axis will ultimately take GB but it will be very costly. The authors are also very diligent about listening to players suggestions and making changes to improve game play/realism.

The RN has multiple carriers so away from the Channel in '40 they will control the seas by '42-'43.

hope that helps

[James Taylor]

My long term position, stated many times, is that the size of the unit, connected with the tech level, will dictate whether they have amphib capability.

For instance, level 0 = only divisional sized(weak ZoC) units, level 1 an additional unit, corps size allowed. Level 3 = additional unit, army size, level 4 = add unit, armored/mechanized and finally level 5 anything goes.

Of course "special forces" are the exception to this rule.

[Guderian1940]

Just a thought but perhaps there should be a separate tech for AV and AVL. AVL would cost a lot more, perhaps 200 or more, to reduce their creation.

This would require an investment that would reduce the early war years but allow the increased capability for 43-44. Italy, USSR, Germany, UK would be reduced in the early years but still allow an investment if so desired.

Not sure how easy that could be implemented. Perhaps just an increase overall.