This game is too balanced.

[Syagrius]

How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed.

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed.

Exactly. When planning wars, the first question is "How can we win?" If the Axis had really thought about it, they would have quit while they were ahead ie in early 1939 with Austria, Czechoslavakia, Eithiopia and a big Chunk of China and (sort of) Spain. They should have read the warning signs when the RN started getting itchy trigger fingers in blockading Spain and thought twice when the giant radar towers went up on the coast of England. The hints were in the ethers and wiser heads might have read the barometric pressures of technology, science and Industry a little better and seen the writing on the wall: "Don't push your Luck."

[Forwarn45]

I'd just suggest that there is a difference between technical ability and practical and political reality. Arguably, the Germans could have forced a negotiated settlement with the Soviets or whatever government took its place if they had great success against the Soviet Union. I think Moscow was a possible objective that could have been secured in '41 or '42, as mentioned. I concede I am also giving the Germans the benefit of the weather in '41 being up to chance, whereas by historical hindsight we know they were in for a nasty winter. On the other hand, one different decision that could have been made is to have begin to prepare in 1941 itself for winter (again, not accepting as historical inevitablity the decisions that actually WERE made after the point of invasion). The people in the Soviet Union suffered horribly in the war (look at statistics concerning food production and consumption) but made it through. If things had gone even worse, I think it is at least hypothetically possible (albeit not probable) that Germany could have broken their will.

As for the US and Britain - if the Germans did force the Soviet Union out of the war, an invasion in Europe would have been very difficult. I have read that the great percentage of German manpower remained on the Eastern Front from 1941 all the way through the end of 1944 (can't recall the exact figure but something like 75%)? Many wars before and since WWII show that even something that is technically possible can come with politically too great a price. If the British and US were looking at risky invasions (or failed invasions) and millions of casualties taking the war to Germany, they might have been forced by circumstances to accept a negotiated peace even if technically after a long struggle they might have been able to take Germany out by themselves. I think of many wars where the loser was not technically beaten into surrender, but could no longer continue and was forced to compromise (WWI (in the sense Germany was not conquered), Korea, Vietnam - even the Falkland Islands war - the British were nowhere close to taking Buenos Aires). [:D]

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45

I'd just suggest that there is a difference between technical ability and practical and political reality. Arguably, the Germans could have forced a negotiated settlement with the Soviets or whatever government took its place if they had great success against the Soviet Union. I think Moscow was a possible objective that could have been secured in '41 or '42, as mentioned. I concede I am also giving the Germans the benefit of the weather in '41 being up to chance, whereas by historical hindsight we know they were in for a nasty winter. On the other hand, one different decision that could have been made is to have begin to prepare in 1941 itself for winter (again, not accepting as historical inevitablity the decisions that actually WERE made after the point of invasion). The people in the Soviet Union suffered horribly in the war (look at statistics concerning food production and consumption) but made it through. If things had gone even worse, I think it is at least hypothetically possible (albeit not probable) that Germany could have broken their will.

As for the US and Britain - if the Germans did force the Soviet Union out of the war, an invasion in Europe would have been very difficult. I have read that the great percentage of German manpower remained on the Eastern Front from 1941 all the way through the end of 1944 (can't recall the exact figure but something like 75%)? Many wars before and since WWII show that even something that is technically possible can come with politically too great a price. If the British and US were looking at risky invasions (or failed invasions) and millions of casualties taking the war to Germany, they might have been forced by circumstances to accept a negotiated peace even if technically after a long struggle they might have been able to take Germany out by themselves. I think of many wars where the loser was not technically beaten into surrender, but could no longer continue and was forced to compromise (WWI (in the sense Germany was not conquered), Korea, Vietnam - even the Falkland Islands war - the British were nowhere close to taking Buenos Aires). [:D]

Well...the Axis did not have clear objectives in their blundering into WWII. They took what they could and that really did not include Russia or even Yugoslavia and Greece. The Japanese at least planned to stop somewhere and go for a stalemate. Quite brilliant for an Axis Power. The best way to win a war is to get what you want without a war, the second is to take just what you need and hold that (in the aptly-named
Falklands War the Brits just took the Falklands...Had Argentina invaded a US territory the US would still probably be bombing Argentina into the Stone Age every Christmas until the Argentines accepted Our Way of Life and stopped Dropping Populists Out of Helicopters)...anyway the game assumes that total victory is the only way to stop the Axis from bumbling on and on...which seems reasonable.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed.

While they certainly could not have won, they MOST certainly could have kept the allies from winning as well. Had some one other than Hitler been in charge, or if he had simply listened to Manstein in the east and avioded playing into the hands of the western allies with the attrition battle in Normandy........without the debacles of Stalingrad, Tunisia, Kursk, Mortain/Falaise, all orchestrated by the bumbling of Hitler as a "strategist", the German army could easily have fought the allies to a stalemate. Even the Soviet steamroller was near the end of it's manpower tether in 1945. Had the Germans played the defensive game of elastic defense and riposte against overextended and spent allied offensives instead of allowing the opposite to happen to them we would be living in a very, very different world right now.

[Zinfandel]

Another what if would be Germany simply stoping after the fall of France in 40.
Hitler was under no obligation to go to war against the U.S after pearl harbor, and the American populace at the time were quite willing to fight thier war against the japanese in the pacific, and leave the european war to the europeans.
In this situation, England probably would have come to some kind of terms with Hitler, as there were politicians in high offices of government that wanted that to happen, something not talked much about.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
I'm not arguing that hte Germans were a beaten army in 42 or 43 - clearly they were not. But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning.

...- but they can only ever be speculation

It's exactly this statement that makes me rue playing any games that are "historically" accurate with the same outcome...especially the bold part....the fact that there is speculation makes the possibility of a German victory in WWII a viable possibility and if there is a viable possibility, then it should be catered for in gaming.

Sure, if the German player sticks to historical play, then the outcome should/would be the same....but "what if" Germany hadn't attacked Russia? Does that mean they lost the war? Would Russia have come in on the side of the Allies? Would the allies have been strong enough to push a more concentrated German defense out of France? Germany wasted a large amount of their resources going after the sleeping bear. The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia?

There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war"....

Go back even further. You realize that France and England had a pact with Poland, but to this day I would have thought somebody would have commented on it, for what few times I have brought it up, but they have not. This pact with Poland, was it simply to go to war in support of Poland if she were invaded? Or was it more specific, such as if Germany invaded they would fight with Poland? That's a key question, because you realize if it was a more general pact, then they violated the terms of the pact by not declaring war on the USSR, for their part in invading Poland. You talk about a massive change on the face of the war.

[Syagrius]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed.

While they certainly could not have won, they MOST certainly could have kept the allies from winning as well. Had some one other than Hitler been in charge, or if he had simply listened to Manstein in the east and avioded playing into the hands of the western allies with the attrition battle in Normandy........without the debacles of Stalingrad, Tunisia, Kursk, Mortain/Falaise, all orchestrated by the bumbling of Hitler as a "strategist", the German army could easily have fought the allies to a stalemate. Even the Soviet steamroller was near the end of it's manpower tether in 1945. Had the Germans played the defensive game of elastic defense and riposte against overextended and spent allied offensives instead of allowing the opposite to happen to them we would be living in a very, very different world right now.

I agree 100%. Its true that even if the Germans were against almost impossible odds, they could have, without mistakes from Hitler, Goering and Cie, hold their ground. An exemple is the invasion of Yugo and Greece that delayed Barabarossa for two months, if they had attacked at the start of May they would have taken Moscow.

However my assessment was based on the fact that Hitler was in charge and taking too much space.

[Warfare1]

I am afraid that had Hitler not meddled in the war and had left it to his generals, things most certainly would have turned out a little differently.

Examples:

1) Hitler stopped Guderian from advancing on Dunkirk - over 330,000 British and French soldiers escaped to fight another day.

2) Make a concentrated effort to take all of the Middle East before starting a war with Russia, which meant giving Rommel more troops.

3) Building more subs earlier.

4) Steering clear of "wonder weapons" like the Tiger and Panther tanks, and instead concentrate on churning out PzIVJ tanks, StuG variants and Hetzers. The Allies (US, UK, USSR) all concentrated on mass production of Shermans and T-34s. Germany should have done the same. WWII was a war of attrition and production. Germany was losing it big time.

5) Start Barbarossa in May or June. The delays in August and September led to a late attack on Moscow. The division of forces to the south vs a concentrated attack on Moscow all kept Germany from capturing the capital.

6) Hitler conveniently declared war on the USA on Dec 11/41 even though he didn't have too.

The list could go on and on.