Page 1 of 1

successful sealion

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:32 pm
by kevini1000
So I pulled it off and it looks like a 41 barb is out of the question. Britain itself made no surrender. I just control the UK. It looks I'll put minimal garrison in the West and do a 42 Barb while attacking the middle east.

I'm just wondering how much of a Production the loss of the UK is. I see no more convoys moving in the Atlantic. This is certainly a positional loss for the allies.

Re: successful sealion

Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:42 am
by avoran
When you capture Liverpool the convoys start going to Halifax instead.

Re: successful sealion

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:30 am
by Crazygunner1
How did the game go?

Re: successful sealion

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:19 am
by shawkhan
Unfortunately, the game does not realistically represent the true effects of the loss of England to a successful SeaLion. The convoys in the game should basically represent resources and foodstuffs for the most part, Not manpower or industrial capacity. The loss of England should result in a loss of most of England's manpower and around 80% of their industrial capacity. This could be represented by a huge reduction in convoy size. As the game now stands, the loss of England makes convoys easier to defend, as they stay closer to the coast, especially after the USA enters the war.
I myself have been plodding through the new rules for GS 3.0 and I am astonished at how much detail has been added to the Battle of the Atlantic w/o having any effect whatsoever on gameplay.
It is already an open secret that most expert players ignore the U-boat campaign as it doesn't really matter in game terms. One player stated that it only amounts to about 20% of their total production so not worth defending or destroying convoys as it is not cost-effective.
Winston Churchill stated that the only thing that ever scared him in the war was the U-boat war. England was not self-supporting, could not even feed their own people w/o convoys, and virtually all of their resources, including oil and aluminum/copper/lead/iron, etc. came from overseas. To make the Battle of the Atlantic important, at least 80% of England's production points should come via convoy.
Russia was in a similar position. Their industrial capacity was not greatly impacted, but their ability to feed their armed forces, not to mention their own people was inadequate w/o the Murmansk convoys. It was for this reason the Russians called the foodstuffs received from convoys 'Second Fronts'. Many Russian tanks and aircraft came from overseas, but the critical aspect was in mobility, i.e. trucks and train locomotives, radios and other crucial items that allowed Russian mobility. Mechanized Corps would not have been possible w/o the Murmansk convoys. I think Russian supply should be impacted by the Murmansk convoys.
It is a little known fact that Germany produced more steel than Russia during the war, but they needed to use much of it on their own infrastructure.
In summary, I would like to see the Battle of the Atlantic made relevant, and crucial, to the Allied war effort. I think an easy fix would be to adjust the size of the convoys and the industrial output of England and Russia. The number of Mechanized and Tank Corps allowed the Russians should be limited by the success of the Murmansk convoys. The reason for Winston Churchill's fear should be made apparent.