@Krieghund Thank you!
Wondering about historic accuracy of Axis victory conditions.
-
Hey All,
We just finished a game which ended up in an Axis Victory. Germany/Italy captured 8 victory cities on Round 6 and the Allies were in no position to take any of them back. This took 7 rounds.
It might have taken longer but our Allied players made a couple of blunders. Russia had a huge stack in Moscow and Germany had 3 army groups ready to invade (Vologda, Smolensk and Bryansk). I guess our Russia player got tired of playing defensive and wanted to go on the attack. Russia attacked the three German army groups but only succeeded in Bryansk with 2 artillery and 1 fighter surviving. The other two battles went very badly and ended up in Russian retreats back into Moscow. As a result, Russia lost it’s numerical advantage to the Germans and they attacked and took Moscow Round 6. Also, Germany had a sizable force in Rostov which was blocked from attacking Moscow by Russian units in Bryansk and Tambov, so that force took Stalingrad Round 6 as well.
The other blunder was by our UK player. He successfully defended Cairo from repeated attempts from Italy, so Italy took their transports and captured Gibraltar, Morocco and Algeria (the main point is the naval base at Gibraltar). I think the UK failed to realize those transports could make it to Egypt in one turn. As a result, UK thinned out the defenses in Egypt and started sending tanks and mechs from the IC they built in Egypt into the Middle East on their way to help Russia. Italy then hit Egypt with 3 transports full of men and equipment plus two strategic bombers, thus capturing the 8th victory city on the Europe board. ANZAC, while doing good to thwart Japan, was no help in Europe. On Germany’s next turn, they flew 3 fighters from W Germany to Egypt, thus dashing UK hopes at taking Egypt (Cairo) back.
Germany and the UK had been battling it out with subs (Germany) and destroyers (UK) so the UK had no real navy to launch an invasion anywhere in Europe. Italy controlled the Med. So Paris, Rome, Berlin and Warsaw was under no threat from the Allies. All three Russian cities were way deep behind German lines and in even less threat from the Allies. Finally, Cairo was heavily enough protected that the UK had no chance of taking it back.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific, Japan was beaten down. The US went 100% Pacific and went hard after Japan. This is why there was no US presence in Europe or the Atlantic. The US didn’t have anything over there until Round 5, when Japan was pretty much out of the picture. Japan was cornered on their island with US subs convoy raiding and US bombers SBRing them into near non-existence, although Japan was still holding out and hadn’t been invaded by the US just yet. So the US started building a presence in the Atlantic and even took Gibraltar back from the Italians round 7, but it looks like it was too little too late.Okay, so the situation is this: Germany/Italy holds 8 Victory Cities on the Europe board. Germany controls all of Russia on the Europe board and was starting to advance into the Middle East. Europe is just one big Nazi camp now. Italy controls the Med, Egypt and roughly half of North Africa, while England has little chance of reinforcements. England has strong defenses in London (due to Sealion threats earlier) but no navy. On the other hand, Germany has started building a navy in SZ 112 and Sealion may be a possibility in 2-3 rounds.
The US has a strong presence in SZ 91 and recaptured Gibraltar. A US invasion of Japan would probably occur in the next round or two. Japan is almost non-existent. So US could start focusing all of it’s attention in the Atlantic. China will just keep building more and more guys so Germany would not likely get any Chinese territories, although their attention is more focused on going after England now. India could start sending resources west to probably contest the Middle East with Germany. ANZAC could also start sending stuff to back up India in the Middle East, although it would take them a few turns to get a sizable force in the area.
So, my question is, if this situation were to occur back in the 40s, do you think it would have been an actual win for Germany and Italy? Would the Allies had sued for peace with Germany or kept going?
I am thinking that the US and UK would keep going. The US already has a strong fleet in Gibraltar so Sealion can probably be prevented.
If Russia would have actually fallen during the war, would the Western Allies have sued for peace?
As far as this game is concerned, I think that if we kept playing this out the US would eventually win. As big as Germany is right now, it would still be hard for them to keep resisting the US advances and fend off forces from India and ANZAC. Then again, a strong Italy might make the difference.
So what do you guys think? Would this situation be an actual victory? OR, just a victory for game purposes? -
I’m thinking allied win for both. America had 150 million(pissed off) people. I don’t think they would quit.
It would be difficult, but If Japan is pretty much toast then B-29s with P51 escorts should have made a major impact.
Even twenty years later I think the American people would have realized the threat and went all in.
-
Most people I know ignore the VC wins and play until concession. Under these conditions, unconditional surrender conditions you might call them ;) The most important factor after Center collapse (e.g. Russia Falling) is the overall Naval parity between Axis vs Allies, and the status of the IJN especially. It sounds like in this case, if Tokyo is under threat, then the USN has them totally beat.
If Germany holds the Center and threatens London, but USA holds Tokyo and can concentrate its full attention on the Asian mainland/European, then the potential for a deep endgame is pretty strong. Especially if the Western Allies can begin liberating Soviet land for themselves. This is why some people regard the VC win as hallow, and prefer “Concession” to the Technical Knock Out, as the best way for satisfying game resolution.
I think its best to figure this out beforehand and just ask your opponent how they prefer to resolve the game. If the opponent is willing, and you think you still have a chance, then I would play on!
Often the VC win kills the play, at precisely the moment when things start to get really interesting. For example, I know a lot of Germany players who would get a lot of enjoyment out of playing a few more rounds and spending all that extra loot they pilfered from the Russians. Likewise, I know quite a few Allied players, who would relish the chance to lay the smack down on Tokyo, especially to avenge the fall of Moscow in the other theater. So in that case, the 8 VC auto-win, just like 6 VC auto-win, can end up being on auto-buzzkill.
I mean, some games you just need to play out until someone throws in the towel, or you’d never really know who had the upper hand ;)
-
Playing until concession would probably give a massive boost to the Allies.
-
@Shin:
Playing until concession would probably give a massive boost to the Allies.
I have played some awesome games to the finish past turn 9 with the Axis but most games after turn 9 go to the allies.
-
In another game that I play that is much more historically accurate it is very clear that Germany, if defeated Russia, can never overcome the Naval Power of the allies. The best the Axis could do is ‘turtle up’ behind the Rhine. In the real war you have to understand that the USA never had the economical disadvantage it has in A&A. The USA alone, easily produced as much as Germany, Italy and Japan Combined. And her limits were not even reached yet, while those of the Axis clearly were. But would the allies have sued for peace? Difficult to say. The Liberation of France would happen no matter what but after that, if Germany could successfully entrench behind the Rhine, who knows…
My guess is NO. Japan would have been neutralized, France would have been Liberated, Italy would have been forced to Surrender and then, after Completely isolating the turtled up Germany, Russia would have been Liberated as well :-).
For historical information, Capital Cities (Moscow) were not as important is it is in A&A. Loosing your capital can work two ways: it can either enrage the nation into more furious resistance or it can cause a serious drop of morale. France ‘surrendered’ after the fall of Paris, but the French also had much less left to defend after that since their production capacity was crippled by the axis advances.
Russia was a completely different story: ‘Scorched earth’ did not oly mean there was nothing left for the Germans to use during their advance into Russia, it also meant the Russians moved their production capacity into safety in the Urals and Western Siberia.
With the loss of Moscow, Russia would have lost only a small portion of it’s Industrial capacity (about 1/10 is my guess) and ‘only’ 3 to 6 armies. They would have had about 150 armies left (Russia organized their units in armies rather than corps). Reasons enough to fight on I think! -
Also, don’t forget that the USA had the nuclear option.
If the war in Europe kept on grinding, then I bet the allies would have eventually nuked Germany out of existence.
With the overwhelming air and naval advantage the allies had, Germany would have had no chance. -
That’s absolutely true. The Manhattan Project was always designed to be used against the Germans.
-
Also, don’t forget that the USA had the nuclear option.
If the war in Europe kept on grinding, then I bet the allies would have eventually nuked Germany out of existence.
With the overwhelming air and naval advantage the allies had, Germany would have had no chance.Yep probably would have hit Bremen with the Fat Boy. I honestly believe the war would have continued if it were not for the Atomic bomb. War between USA and Russia might have happened if it were not for the bomb. The bomb stopped the war and the Treaty of Versailles started it.
-
I wonder if access to all those minerals in Eastern Russia and Siberia would have jumpstarted the German atomic program, along with the natural momentum of subduing the Soviet Union. Image a new Cold War breaking out between US and German-led blocs.
On a side note I do feel Germany should be rewarded for Russian conquest by having Turkey and Spain ally with them since they were on the fence to begin with.
-
I agree with you about the victory conditions, HAwk.
What WAS is not good. Allies Always win.
What IS, however, is also not good. Allies are basically forced/limited to spend too much against Japan. because of the 6VC threat. -
On a side note I do feel Germany should be rewarded for Russian conquest by having Turkey and Spain ally with them since they were on the fence to begin with.
I believe that neutrals are likely to join the stronger power, and not the loosing one. Its opposite in A&A games because of balance. If you occupy a true neutral in this game, all the neutrals in the world will turn against you. This is a design to script the game to follow a historical correct path. Every WWII games have this flaw. But the real war was different. After Germany crushed neutral Poland, all the minor neutrals like Finland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia etc joined the strong Germany. Not one minor would go to war against the strong Germany at that time. But after Russia had proved to be stronger than Germany, all the former German allies mentioned above, switched side and went to war against Germany. Major neutrals like Sweden, Spain and Turkey made trade agreements with the strong Germany after Poland got crushed, but after Germany lost at Stalingrad they all switched side, and started to support the by now stronger Allies.
But how to implement realistic rules into A&A ? Maybe ditch the 5 IPC NOs Germany get after capturing Russian cities, and rather give them the IPC income from the true neutrals, representing trade agreements. And when the tide turn, let the Allies get the trade income from the neutrals. After all, the NO was designed to make a short game, so it doesn’t matter from where they take the IPC.
-
Also, don’t forget that the USA had the nuclear option.
If the war in Europe kept on grinding, then I bet the allies would have eventually nuked Germany out of existence.
With the overwhelming air and naval advantage the allies had, Germany would have had no chance.I don’t think so. They only made two bombs, and had stuff for one more. You could hardly bomb any nation out of existence with that. Strategic bombing is also severely overrated, it cost more to build bombs than the value of the cornfields that most of them land in. The Allied bombing killed more French cows than Germans, and that’s a fact. I figure the Allies would have won anyway, but because of Patton and not the Bomb.
-
The Germans had Tabun nerve agent in vast quantities and a means of delivery with their V weapons. Sarin, the nastiest of organo-phosphates was also invented by them. The millions of Gas masks that were issued to civilians in England would have been ineffective against it, since it doesn’t need to be inhaled to kill. It’s one of the ugly, highly secret Chemical weapons that IG Farben had developed for the Reich in the camps in the east. No one else had weapons like this. It was the deadliest substance on earth at the time, and totally unknown to the Allies. Synthetic rubber and chemical weapons are basically what they were doing at those death camps in Poland. Their Bio weapons were also very advanced. They had plans to attack the Soviets with hoof and mouth disease and defoliants, the stuff that later became agent Orange, to destroy their food supplies and cause mass famine.
The Americans and Soviets both exploited this knowledge and the scientists that invented it after the war.
Obviously the game doesn’t model any of this, just like it doesn’t model the Atomic bomb. But the timeline is interesting, because the Germans already had huge stockpiles of Tabun before Trinity was even tested.
It’s sobering to consider how much more terrifying the war could have gotten if these weapons were actually used.
-
It’s sobering to consider how much more terrifying the war could have gotten if these weapons were actually used.
I know what you mean. Somewhere I have an alternate history story where Germany decided to use nerve gas at Kursk. They not only wiped out thousands of Soviet troops, they also captured hundreds of tanks and planes that were perfectly good to use once the nerve gas dissipated. What was worse for the Russians was the winds were blowing east so the big nerve gas cloud also wiped out even more troops further east.
The Germans did indeed use these Soviet weapons to good effect. Not only did they turn the war in Russia, they had more reinforcements to send to Sicily. In this scenario, the Italians were still in the war on the German side and apparently they really liked the Soviet IL-2 Sturmoviks. Luftwaffe pilots apparently didn’t care for them.
D-Day happened and the Allies first made good progress. However, it was eventually reversed due to the Germans ability to flood the area with many more Tigers and Panthers then they actually did in history.
Eventually, the Western Allies did sue for peace with the Euro-Axis. The US was still in a vicious war with Japan and was beating them badly. For peace with the US/UK, Germany totally sold out their “ally” Japan, basically letting the US have their way with them.
Now there existed a Cold War between the West and Germany. This lasted for some 50 years until the mid 90s. US history was radically different as well. I don’t remember what happened with England, but Canada and Mexico ended up joining the US which now had 100 states. A big Western Hemisphere union came about with the US and all Central and South American countries, called the Pan-American Union I think, for security against the now huge Third Reich. The Third Reich eventually fell in the mid 90s due to some sort of vicious computer virus created in the US and introduced into the Reich’s computer systems. The Reich crumbled almost overnight, with a number of US supported “revolutions” throughout Europe hastening the fall.
With the Third Reich’s downfall, some new threat popped up. Some kind of terrorist organization similar to Al Qaeda but with a different name. The 9/11 attacks even occurred but instead of the World Trade Center and Pentagon, I think it was the Golden Gate Bridge, the Capital Building and Sears Tower that were attacked.
Also, the list of presidents in the US was way different than what we had. At one point, either the US president or Vice president was in our world a Russian president. Really weird US history in this alternate reality story, but still interesting.As for my question, it sounds like most of you pretty much think what I did. If we would have kept on going, the US would have eventually won. I think India/ANZAC would have worked their way up and liberated Russia. The US Navy and Air Force, with help from the RAF, would have overwhelmed the shiny new Kreigsmarine. Italy would have lost control of the Med. I don’t think Sealion would ever happen. Or if it did, then it would be too costly to Germany and the US would liberate England fairly easily. Eventually I think Germany and Italy would have no choice but to turtle on Europe itself with a hugely powerful US in the west and Med and a steadily growing Red Army backed by India and ANZAC units in the east.
The only problem is I think playing out this game would have taken way too long, like 25-30 rounds or so. We just wanted to get the tables put away. -
Even if Germany had taken Moscow in the real war and somehow knocked Russia out of the war, the allies still would have won, if they kept fighting. This is because of manpower as well as naval and air dominance. I think you guys vastly underestimate the plane superiority the allies had over Germany and her allies. Also Germany could never build up a massive fleet, as some have suggested. After Japan was neutralized by the US fleet the US could then turn their fleet around towards Germany. Literally the allies would have a 100 times more ships than the Germans and far superior ships at that.
Landing in Europe would have been impossible, but it would come down to a plane battle, and once the atom bomb came out it’s game over! No, America didn’t only have the ability to launch 3 Atom bombs. If America knew the war would take a lot longer they could have made an unlimited amount of nukes.
This is all contingent on Russia folding as well, and unlike in Axis and Allies, taking Moscow wouldn’t have meant that Russia was out of the war. Russia had nearly twice as many tanks, artillery, and ground troops as the Germans. Also they had 5 times as many air units. Their factories had also moved to the Urals, so they still would have the capacity to build a lot of units. Stalingrad wouldn’t have had to be defended as much because to take Moscow Germany would have had to put almost everything there.
In conclusion the axis never had a chance once America joined the war, and even if America didn’t join the war it would have been really really hard for them to win. Just look at the numbers and you can see why.
-
I wonder if access to all those minerals in Eastern Russia and Siberia would have jumpstarted the German atomic program, along with the natural momentum of subduing the Soviet Union. Image a new Cold War breaking out between US and German-led blocs.
On a side note I do feel Germany should be rewarded for Russian conquest by having Turkey and Spain ally with them since they were on the fence to begin with.
The problem wasn’t raw materials for the Nazis. Their problem was that Heisenberg couldn’t figure out how to achieve yield through critical mass. Their scientists simply weren’t as good as Fermi, Oppenheimer, and the rest of the University of Chicago physics department.
-
Also, don’t forget that the USA had the nuclear option.
If the war in Europe kept on grinding, then I bet the allies would have eventually nuked Germany out of existence.
With the overwhelming air and naval advantage the allies had, Germany would have had no chance.I don’t think so. They only made two bombs, and had stuff for one more. You could hardly bomb any nation out of existence with that. Strategic bombing is also severely overrated, it cost more to build bombs than the value of the cornfields that most of them land in. The Allied bombing killed more French cows than Germans, and that’s a fact. I figure the Allies would have won anyway, but because of Patton and not the Bomb.
Not true. The United States had more weapons in 1945 than simply two… they had a production bottleneck, but by the end of the calendar year of '45, they had around a dozen weapons or so, and ramping up production.
Would have taken longer, but yes, we could have leveled a lot of industrial areas of Germany (or Japan) using nuclear weapons.
-
There were 3 bombs built but only 2 were implosion type. The first was named “the Gadget” and looked like a huge sphere with many wires and tubes. The second bomb, “The Little Boy” was very different and used the “gun method” to create fission of U-235. The third was “the Fat Man” and was an implosion type bomb like the Gadget.
-
Yes, there were three bombs built… but more were ready by the third week in August, with the third bomb two be dropped on Japan by 19 August, with another three weapons ready by September, and another three to be ready in October, for a total of 9 weapons to be dropped on the Home Islands before Olympic took off in November.
Suggested Topics
