@CWO:

I don’t see how putting Mannstein in charge of planning Sea Lion would have compensated for the material deficiencies that made such an operation a virtual impossibility for Germany in 1940.  The British and the Americans, two first-rate sea powers, took two whole years (1942 to 1944) to build up the physical infrastructure of their own cross-Channel invasion, and that’s even taking into consideration that they started out in 1942 with much more significant existing naval assets than Germany ever had.

The other material disadvantage under which Germany operated during most of the war, and which Mannstein could not have corrected unless he’d perhaps deposed and replaced Hitler as Fuhrer of Germany, was that the Nazi regime was pathetically inept at making efficient use of its economic and industrial base.  By late 1941, Germany controlled so much of Europe (including the USSR’s prime agricultural and industrial areas) that it had the potential to be an economic superpower – a potential advantage that (thankfully) it never exploited effectively.  Germany didn’t even bother putting its economy on a full war footing until after the fall of Stalingrad in February 1943, whereas Britain mobilized its own economy virtually from day one of the war.  Germany also frittered away its resources by pursuing helter-skelter a plethora of redundant or pointless military hardware development projects, in contrast with the Soviets who stuck to producing (and incrementally improving) just a few basic types of tanks and aircraft. Also, the Wehrmacht was so fussy about quality control that mass-production of major weapons like tanks was severely hampered.  So as a result of all this (to give just one example), the USSR produced many more tanks than Germany, and did so using much smaller quantities of steel – or to put it another way, the Soviet Union, for all of its industrial primitiveness, ended up being more industrially efficient that Germany in converting raw materials and labour into operationally practical weapons of war.  Albert Speer might have been in a position to fix some of these basic infrastucture problems if he’d been put in charge of the economy two or three or four years sooner, but the best that Mannstein – however brilliant he was on the battlefield – could have done as an army officer to improve Germany’s material position might have been to order the Wehrmacht to stop obsessing about every rivet on the production lines.

You’ve made good points in your post.

Had Operation Sea Lion succeeded in 1940, it would have been because of two reasons:

1. Because Germany had achieved air superiority.
2. Because the British Army was temporarily very weak; so that even a small invasion force could achieve victory.

After the fall of France, Germany had a brief window of opportunity during which the British Army was very weak.

the Nazi regime was pathetically inept at making efficient use of its economic and industrial base.

They were getting better at that as the war proceeded. Germany produced 15,000 military aircraft in 1942, and 41,000 military aircraft in '44. Germany produced 5,500 tanks in '42, and 19,000 tanks in '44. Moreover, the production in '44 contained a greater percentage of heavy tanks than had been the case in '42. Had Germany’s E-Series tanks been put into production, the pace of tank production could have been ramped up much more.

The Soviet Union, for all of its industrial primitiveness, ended up being more industrially
efficient that Germany in converting raw materials and labour into operationally practical weapons of war.

True. Part of the reason for the above may be due to the lingering effects of the Versailles Treaty. Prior to 1933, the Versailles Treaty was like a noose, strangling both Germany’s economy and her military. It took Hitler a little time to escape from that noose completely. During the mid-'30s, Germany had to figure out how to create a real military; while also building the industrial base necessary to support that military. By 1938, it still didn’t have a good tank design–a problem which the annexation of Czechoslovakia helped solve. In 1939 Germany had light tanks only. By 1940 a few medium tanks were added to the force mix. In 1941 it was realized these medium tanks were greatly inferior to the T-34.

the best that Mannstein – however brilliant he was on the battlefield – could have done
as an army officer to improve Germany’s material position might have been to order
the Wehrmacht to stop obsessing about every rivet on the production lines.

Had von Manstein been in charge of the German military, it’s possible his brilliant generalship might have been enough to offset Germany’s (considerable) strategic disadvantages. Not necessarily likely, but possible. Those strategic disadvantages were so overwhelming that you wouldn’t think any general could have overcome them.

Step 1 is obviously to get a starter pack. But that won’t be enough, so buy some other packs as well. Whatever items you get, you get.

Each unit is worth a certain amount of points. The more powerful the unit, the more points it’s worth. Some of your units will contribute toward your Allied total, some toward the Axis total.

When you play a match, you want each side to have to choose their units. If for example you own 100 points of Axis units and 100 points of Allied units, allow each side to spend significantly less than 100 points for the match. If the Allied force consists of mostly American units, with some British and French thrown in, that’s fine. It’s also fine if the Axis force is mostly Japanese, with a few Germans or even Italians mixed in.

The problem you’ll run into is that some of America’s late war units are OP. This unbalances the game and makes it less enjoyable. To avoid this problem, stick with buying early war units if you can.

@Imperious:

Among the many lies Herbert Hoover told was a false narrative of anything Historical relating to the period of 1939-45. He did however know how to prepare Chicken. If Herman were alive, he possibly could feed him well enough it seems. He may have prepared enough Chicken to feed the Germans who started countless wars and were starving due to Churchill and Herman who either denied foodstuffs because of the wars Germany caused or in Herman’s case ate the food supplies.

Germany never had a “carrot and stick” policy. Only a policy of conquest and invasion that might have led to a future food embargo and general war. Germany choose this course. Stop posting false narratives of reality. The Czechs weren’t treated well , but UK could do nothing… they were a sea power.

Every word you’ve written is false, and at this point I’m fairly sure you know these words are false.

@Wolfshanze:

That’s all that needs to be said right there and is spot-on. Chamberlain sold-out the Czechs, who weren’t even invited to the discussion.

Among the many lies Woodrow Wilson told, one was his claim that the Entente was fighting for self-determination. That idea was of course abandoned at Versailles, as was every other lofty promise Wilson had made.

The people in the Sudetenland were German, and wanted to be part of Germany. The Czech government had been treating them like second-class citizens, with an apparent long-term plan of replacing them with Czechs. (After WWII the Sudetenland was ethnically cleansed of Germans, thus fulfilling the apparent long-term plan.)

In January 1938, millions of Sudeten Germans were under hostile Czech occupation. By the end of the year millions of Czechs were under hostile German occupation. Neither situation was consistent with self-determination. But the British government had not supported self-determination as a value at Versailles or at any point after WWI, making it difficult for them to convincingly argue the latter situation was worse than the former.

At Versailles, one of the reasons for giving Germany’s neighbors land which rightfully belonged to Germany was to ensure that there would always be a significant bone of contention between Germany and her immediate neighbors. This would cause diplomatic isolation for Germany. The strategy worked. In 1935 the Czech government signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. That alliance created fear within Germany: fear of what could happen if the Soviets invaded Germany with soldiers stationed on Czech soil. The Versailles policy of giving German land to Germany’s neighbors also drove a wedge between Germany and Poland; with the latter nation embracing an ill-conceived, disastrous alliance with Britain and France as an alternative to restoring West Prussia to German control.

Starting apparently in 1938, Germany had adopted a carrot and stick policy towards those nations east of itself, west of the Soviet Union. Any nation in that region which adopted an anti-German foreign policy would typically be annexed. Whereas, Germany would extend favorable treatment to those Eastern European nations which embraced pro-German, anti-Soviet foreign policies. That strategy paid off. By the time Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, every nation in Eastern Europe was either an ally of Germany (such as Romania), was neutral in Germany’s favor, or was under German occupation. (Except of course for those Eastern European nations under Soviet occupation.)

Thanks, IL, for the heads-up. I might sell, might not.

Attached is a picture of my favorite online map, Domination 1914 No Man’s Land. The picture shows you almost all the map, except for half the Pacific. While I’ve gotten plenty of enjoyment out of Larry Harris’s maps over the years, I like this map even more. They added some new units.

Trench: costs 3, takes 2 hits to kill, defends on a 0. You don’t need a factory to place trenches. Nor do trenches count against the unit placement limits of territories with factories. Instead you can place up to 3 trenches per territory per turn. Use: cannon fodder.
Heavy gun: costs 5, attacks on a 2, provides artillery support when attacking. Defends on a 4. Gives you more defensive firepower for the money than any other unit, including infantry. Use: defensive firepower.
Cavalry: costs 4, attacks and defends on a 1, moves on a 2. Can receive artillery support. Use: a substitute for infantry, when you need more mobility.
Poison gas: costs 4, attacks on a 4, cannot be used on defense. Movement of 3. Pre-battle kamikaze attack. Units killed by gas don’t get casualty shots. Trenches cannot be taken as casualties against poison gas attacks. Use: if you need an offensive unit that’s more mobile than cavalry. Also useful if you have multiple nations attacking the same territory. Gas allows the first attacker to get a decent exchange, even if the attacker’s force is much smaller and weaker than the defender’s. Also, gas is useful if you notice the defender has too many trenches, not enough defensive firepower. Gas will make that situation even worse–for the defender, that is.

There are some familiar units:
Infantry: cost 3, attacks on a 1, defends on a 2. Can receive artillery support when attacking.
Field gun. These are the artillery you know and love. (Heavy guns are also considered artillery, which is why this unit has been renamed field gun.) Attacks and defends on a 2, costs 4, provides artillery support when attacking.
Fighter: cost 9, movement 3, attacks on a 2, defends on a 3, provides artillery support when attacking. (Okay, so maybe this isn’t 100% familiar because its stats are a bit different.)

Domination 1914 No Man’s Land’s tech system is very very good. The best I’ve ever seen in any map. Tech allows you to reduce some of your units’ costs, to obtain free units, income, and a free tech token each turn, to improve the offensive firepower of your field guns and the defensive firepower of your heavy guns. Not to mention improving the performance of your ships. Tech also allows you to construct new unit types: the tank, the late fighter, and the aircraft carrier.

In looking at the picture of the map, Germany is grey, France blue, Serbia orange, Austria yellow, Italy green, Arabia light purple, Turkey red, UK brown, Nationalist Russia white, communist Russia/USSR dark red, and the USA a different shade of green than Italy’s. Neutrals are an off-white, and can be farmed. There are no diplomatic consequences whatsoever to invading neutrals.

A note of explanation:

Several decades ago, Hasbro released the first Axis and Allies. (Classic.) It was fairly widely distributed, and you could buy it at Toys R Us, among other places. Originally, Axis and Allies was intended to be part of a series of games. Other games in the series included Fortress America, Shogun (later rereleased as Samurai Swords), and Conquest Empire. Of those, I enjoyed Axis and Allies and Shogun the most, with Fortress America also a good game. Conquest Empire was the weakest of the four, by a significant margin. I didn’t own my own copy of Shogun: they’d discontinued it before I became aware of its existence. So I borrowed a copy from my college’s game club, photocopied the map, and taped the resulting pieces of paper onto a table. And that’s how I played. I later rectified the problem by buying a copy of Samurai Swords. (The same game as Shogun, under a different name.)

I played plenty when in my teens and early 20s; and liked Revised significantly more than Classic. But people grow up, they move away. I moved away myself. You make new friends, people who aren’t necessarily interested in board games. My games sat on the shelf for years, unused, while I occasionally gave them longing looks. But they’re not much fun when you don’t have anyone to play against.

Then I went to a gaming convention, in Cincinnati I believe. It was an outstanding opportunity to get back into playing Axis and Allies. I remember playing all day–skipping lunch and dinner–getting out at 11:00 or later at night, without really being hungry. I was that pumped up! Some of the other participants told me how I could go about playing this online. I’ve now been playing online for years. If anyone here wants to play me, I’m on TripleA from time to time.

After years of wanting (but not having) real world opponents to play against, I eventually moved my physical games into a crowded storage unit. Fortunately, I was able to fight through the mess and chaos of that storage unit to find the majority of my games for picture taking.

Not technically an Axis and Allies game, but still, I’m throwing this in anyway.

Only two pictures allowed per post, seemingly. So here are two more games.

@Wolfshanze:

Uh Oh… Gauntlet thrown…

Will Kurt pick up and prove Imperious Leader wrong, or has Imperious Leader just exposed Kurt?

@Imperious:

Kurt does not own or play AA FYI

As usual, you are just making stuff up.

@taamvan:

Are you trying to apply an AxA Rule to real life, because indeed, a submarine can shoot at aircraft, many had airborne interception radar and permanently mounted flak guns, it just doesn’t work really well because the submarine’s best protection is to submerge, not fight.

My post was intended to gently poke fun at some of Larry Harris’s rules.

Obviously, the Industrial Revolution did start in England, hundreds of years before Larry made a rule against building industrial complexes on islands. And, equally clearly, subs sometimes did shoot down aircraft, as CWO Marc pointed out in his solid post.