Question regarding UK after losing London

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:14 pm

I just thought of the situation in Britain once London falls to Sealion. Then no new UK units can be placed in Britain because the supply level is dropped to 3 and you need supply level 4+ to place a unit in that city.

The other major powers don't have this problem. USSR can get supply from Omsk when Moscow falls. Germany can get from Hamburg if Berlin falls. USA can get from New York if Washington falls. Italy surrenders when Rome falls. UK's problem is that the secondary capital is in Canada and there is no way supply can reach Britain from Canada.

This makes Britain very vulnerable when London falls. Do you think this is a good thing? It's certainly not logical when you look at the other major powers. Not being able to place reinforcements can be devastating.

I see 2 ways to do something about this.

1. Let Glasgow also provide supply level 5. Then the Axis will need to capture both London and Glasgow to prevent UK from placing units in Britain.

2. Allow placement of new units in hexes with supply level 3 or better (instead of 4 or better). This means it's possible to place reinforcements in islands like Sardinia, Corsica, Northern Ireland and cities cut-off from the capital.

Do you think we should implement 1 or 2 or should we keep things as is to let Sealion be a real danger to the Allies. If they can place units in Britain after London falls it means the Germans have to capture all cities asap.

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:33 pm

I vote for option 1.

KingHunter3059 · Post by **KingHunter3059** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:23 pm

Option One

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:32 pm

Option 1 if that provides supply high enough to place units in Britain.

I would also like to see a bump in war effort % if enemy units land anywhere on the british isles.

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:38 pm

Option 1 as it will not generate unintended consequences.....

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:52 pm

Option 1.

richardsd · Post by **richardsd** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:57 pm

ah, so we want to elimante Sealion as an option?

London cannot be taken without the UK having a chance to 'take emergency measures', so why would we allow the commonwealth to just 'deposit' units in England

I think this effectively elimnates Selion as an option

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:30 pm

Just thinking about it a bit further, I'd suggest that Liverpool be the supply city rather than Glasgow. Once the Midlands of England fell, Britain would have had little capacity to raise units given the loss of population and industry.. Glasgow does make Sea Lion unrealistically more difficult....

JimR · Post by **JimR** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:07 am

If we're going to do this, then let's designate Liverpool not Glasgow as the secondary capital. First, Liverpool will mean that Sealion is still a viable option for the Germans, and we don't want to make Sealion so hard that the Germans will never try it. Second, Liverpool was very important in 1940 since John Lennon was newly born there. (Instead of Lennon going to Hamburg, Hamburg will come to him? Strange days indeed.)

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:14 am

On second thought, maybe it's best we don't do this. France can't place units if Paris is completely surrounded.

I guess the question is what would have happened to the British government and the Royal Family if the Germans had captured London. Would they have stayed or evacuated. And if they had evacuated would it have been to Canada or to somewhere else is England. If the latter, then that should be the second city in the UK with supply level 5. If the British government would have evacuated to Canada then there shouldn't be a second supply level 5 city.

NotaPacifist · Post by **NotaPacifist** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:21 am

It shouldn't be a northern city like Glasgow. It's far north in the highlands where resources are few. Perhaps a southeastern or central city would seem fairer.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:43 am

I think that the UK government would not have evacuated to Canada as soon as London fell. Churchill was a fighter and would only leave UK if there was no other alternative like being overrun in England.

I agree that the second supply source should be Liverpool and not Glasgow. Then it's far enough away from London to let Germany fight over Britain and close enough for the Germans to get there in 1940.

The Sealion attempts I've seen have always ended with Germany taking all of England when London fell, probably because the British couldn't place reinforcements anymore in England. I'm not sure that this is very historical. I think the British would have spawned units in central England even with London in Axis hands.

I'm more concerned about the supply level not dropping from 5 to 3. Maybe we can make a special rule saying that If Liverpool is Allied controlled and London Axis controlled then Britain is allowed to place reinforcements even in Core UK hexes with supply level 3. This way the British suffer a big hit losing London (dropping from supply level 5 to 3). That's important when repairing losses. We can make the rule apply so only hexes on the same continent as London can be used for reinforcements (no Belfast, Scapa Flow etc.).

What do you think.

1. Liverpool as a secondary supply source (gives supply level 5 to units in England)

2. Allied control of Liverpool only allows for reinforcements to be placed in England when London is Axis controlled. Supply level has dropped to 3 because the main supply source fell.

3. Keep as is. Not possible to place reinforcements in England if London falls.

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:52 am

yes to 1 & 2

NotaPacifist · Post by **NotaPacifist** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:54 am

Yes to 2.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:56 am

Hi Paul 1, 2 and 3 are exclusive when voting.

With 1 you can place reinforcements and keep supply level 5 (until also Liverpool falls)
With 2 you can place reinforcements (until also Liverpool falls), but supply level drops to 3
With 3 you can't place reinforcements and supply level drops to 3

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:42 am

I've got a very slight preference for 1. (Doesnt seem quite right for supply to collapse just because London falls but perhaps SL3 reflects a morale drop and some confusion associated with relocation of key services?)

pk867 · Post by **pk867** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:10 am

Ok then 1

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:54 am

It's strange that nobody has commented before on the situation in England after Sealion. I didn't think of it before because I've never been the Allied player having to defend against Sealion.

I would have expected people to comment the imbalance (UK not being able to place reinforcements in England when London falls) being the victim of Sealion. I just found it by accident playtesting solo.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:32 am

I vote for #2.

schwerpunkt · Post by **schwerpunkt** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:33 am

Stauffenberg wrote:It's strange that nobody has commented before on the situation in England after Sealion. I didn't think of it before because I've never been the Allied player having to defend against Sealion.

I would have expected people to comment the imbalance (UK not being able to place reinforcements in England when London falls) being the victim of Sealion. I just found it by accident playtesting solo.

I've never lost Britain before myself so I never realised that there was an issue. When I did Sea Lion as the axis I thought that players just didnt want to build any more units there for me to destroy

Question regarding UK after losing London

Question regarding UK after losing London

Option one