And, the new pictures are up.  Why is there another freaking Sherman?? The 232 is nice, but the LAST thing we need is another Sherman....at least one in American markings.

In order for us to determine if Germany and their allies could have produced a favorable outcome during the war, we have to examine two factors, one dependent on the other.  First, what were the war aims of the Axis powers?  In order to know how to define the conditions of victory, we have to establish German (for they are the guiding strategic force in the Axis) objectives.  Once those are ascertained, we can define an outcome that the German High Command would see as “successful”.

For the duration of this post, I will refer to the collective strategic decision makers of each country as a monolithic entity. For the purposes of this discussion we can ignore the political infighting that was embedded with most nations, as the overall war goals are fairly consistent, the French collaborators notwithstanding.

The Germans had a series of strategic objectives.  First and foremost, the Germans wanted to regain the Danzig region and restore a continuous national border.  To accomplish this met direct opposition with the Polish.  Warsaw would not agree to relinquish this territory.  This objective brings England and France into opposition with Germany, adding a second objective:  Germany must maintain a secure nation, without suffering a major defeat similar to the so-called armistice of the previous war.

Given the German doctrines in place of a swift, decisive campaign, the German forces have to strike within a certain time window in order to avoid a prolonged conflict.  The Polish territorial question came to a head in the summer of 1939.  Had the Germans waited to initiate an attack against the Allied armies, rather than strike in the late spring/early summer of 1940, then the likelihood of increased Allied industrial production could negate the superior training and doctrines of the German army.  As is stood, the German armor was outnumbered by the French armor.  Whether the French would have corrected their policy of dispersed armor is impossible to surmise, but they could have produced more tanks had the Germans waited to attack later than 1940.  Delaying the start of conflict with any of the belligerent parties would have seriously compromised the German capability to deliver a swift and decisive victory.

Once the Allied forces on the continent were defeated, the Germans were left with one battlefield:  England.  The German strategy of crippling the capacity of the Royal Air Force was a sound one.  It is here that we find an opportunity for the Germans to change the outcome of their conflict.  Had the Germans maintained a policy of destroying the logistical chain supporting the RAF, and their ability to house planes at air bases, the Germans could have fared better in crippling British industrial capacity.

Here we see the German’s first strategic flaw.  They have eliminated the French as a decisive military force, but for how long?  The continued existence of Britain leaves an unstable political situation in Western Europe.  But, even if the Germans land on the coast of England, and as in Thomas Mackey’s Invasion! force a capitulation of mainland England, what prevents the Americans from entering the war and attempting to aid Canada, South Africa, and the rest of the Commonwealth from liberating England and eventually France?  It is easy to say that Germany can avoid fighting America for a time after Pearl Harbor by not becoming Japan’s co-belligerent, but if the German position on the European continent becomes too strong, would the Americans have eventually intervened?

This conundrum doesn’t even take into account the great bear lurking to the east of Germany.  Russia’s strategic importance and their affect on outcomes is a whole other topic, one that I will examine in a later posting, particularly after suppertime.

I assume there will be a fixed and/or random weather chart, since the overcast weather early in the campaign was of major help to the Germans.

I still have my IG Armored Column from a couple of years ago.  I bowed out of playing when they moved to 4th edition.  I can understand the hefty price on pewter miniatures, but asking $50 for a rulebook is just too steep.

They can teach any supercomputer to play chess.  They have yet to teach a computer to play go.  Apparently there are way too many permutations to string together an intelligent AI script.

Nah, this was about 12 years ago that the store gave it to me

I am at this moment watching women's curling...and I'm worried that I'm easily picking up the strategies.

It should follow the historical path, meaning at certain turns you just get the goods. Another path to what was possibly attainable by INVESTMENT could be installed. What should not happen in this everything for everybody thing and everybody having an equal access to all technology. Also Tech should be a long term investment, so you should have to spend a small amount each turn on a TARGETED tech project. I hate spending a huge amount of money on one turn and crap shoot something i didnt want. Each "tech tree" should have different aspects to improve a group of land,sea, or air forces. Other trees should be atomic, rockets,and chemical weapons which are on a seperate tier. I am not sure what the specific structure would be, but again it should follow along the lines of what was in fact possible by each nation.

If you're going to make a Tech Tree that complex, you might as well put A&A on the shelf and load up Hearts of Iron.  There's something to be said for simplicity within the board game.  Revised did add a layer of depth to the game, but it's supposed to have a level of ease of play that separates it from the old Avalon HIll/SPI cardboard counter games.

I happen to read somewhere that someone posted that Nationlist China could recuit Germans. How's this one possible??? I didn't catch that one ANYWHERE in the rules.

I would doubt open cooperation between German and General Chiang's forces, but in case you did not see it, there was a featured article on Wikipedia the other day highlighting Sino-German relations in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/February_7%2C_2006

If anyone has not yet read Third Reich Victorious, it's a highly entertaining collection of scenarios.  Some are rather far-fetched (such as the scenario where Hitler becomes enamored with the Navy during WWI), but there are also scenarios such as an armistice following a D-Day disaster, and an invasion through the Turkish Caucasus.

Between the Excel file and the triton-tek website, I can't find a production year for the Brumbar (especially since I can't pull one out of almost three cases)  Is it a '43 or a '44?

Haha, yeah Ian's story about his "Renault Rush" army was pretty good.

I'm anxious for a SOUMA, and the Char that's coming in ConSkies will be nice as well.  I learned first-hand the danger of underestimating a French army.  The French armor is more than capable of handling Panzer II's.  Still, point for point nothing beats the T-34/76

I like the Soviet Army, but I'm partial to them because of my Micro Armor Army.  I'm still waiting for some self-propelled artillery, and some GMC trucks for transport.

Point well taken, Imperious, but neither were the Soviets during the Afghanistan invasion.  It would be extremely difficult to represent on a boardgame, but I could forsee a scenario where in the late 40's/early 50's, an occupied France becomes a hotbed of resistance to the Germans, with the resistance supplied by either the Western or Communist Allies.  The Germans would not want to slaughter the French population wholesale, as 1: they needed the manpower to operate French industries and 2: wiping out an entire indigenous population is much, much harder to do than ostracize a minor ethnic group, especially when the French were well aware of the disappearance and highly suspicious of the fate of the Jewish population.  Were the Germans to attempt to wipe out the French altogether, it would prove likely to be their undoing.  Even if it took half a century.  I can just imagine Reagan making a proclamation on the cliffs of Dover, "Mister Kohl, tear down this (Atlantic) Wall."

I have a sudden desire to go re-read Newt Gingrich's alternate history novel.

An "Axis win" is a victory condition set forth in a game.  Nice and neat for playing out strategies, but realistically, if the Axis powers had forced an armistice/peace treaty/surrender on their terms, they would have been forced to deal with many of the problems that other countries faced during the latter half of the 20th century.  Imagine if the Germans had held onto France after the war, assuming a concession by the Western Allies that liberating France was not worth the cost of continuing a war.  You could easily have a situation where occupied France turns into Algiers/Hungary/South Vietnam/Afghanistan.