“That’s only fair – we had them last time.”
Churchill on learning that Italy was joining Germany in World War II
Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts regales us with the results of a World in Flames game:
So we’re playing that game of games, World in Flames. A grand strategic WW2 game if there ever was one. I wrote on that game in the past. We’ve been playing it for some time now, when we can.
That’s because it isn’t easy getting together for these things anymore. Sometimes we play on a ‘deal me in/deal me out’ basis. Right now it’s my third oldest – our board game guru – and me, with a couple other brothers when available.
He is the Axis countries, mainly Germany and Italy. I’m the Allies, mainly the US and England, and France for what it’s worth. When available, the others take Japan and Russia and split China (communists and nationalists).
My third son playing Germany works. He’s extremely aggressive in, well, anything he does in life. That fits here since, like any WW2 strategy game in the history of WW2 strategy games, much of what happens hinges on Germany. In this game, with the campaign we are playing (Global War: Sept 1, 1939 – end of August, 1945), Germany begins by having to declare war on Poland. It also has a few special rules to sweeten the deal. So him going that direction first was a sure thing. And it went about as you’d expect (though Polish forces around Danzig gave him some fits, more than they probably should).
What comes next is based on the player’s choice. Go east? Probably not. West is a better move. That’s because another staple of grand strategic WW2 games is that France is usually dead man walking. The only hope a player of France has is that the German player chooses not to follow the historical footprints. But since that never happens, it’s only how and when France is defeated, not if.
Which is the victory I mentioned in the title with some gloating on my part. Per the Players’ Notes, the most you can hope for with France is to delay, delay, delay. And cause as many German losses as possible.
Historically, Germany ended the famous ‘Phony War’ by invading the Low Countries and France in May, 1940. By June, France was finished. So in this game, Germany taking France out before the end of June is considered a victory. That didn’t happen.
 |
| He even peels eggs aggressively |
The next goal if Germany targets France is to make sure France it taken by at least July or, worst case, August. That’s starting to narrow options. As in every WW2 game, Germany has everything it needs to win – one at a time. Two at most. It can take France, or England, or possibly the USSR. It can’t really do all at once. To go after England and Russia means taking France first. And by September, the weather in this game begins to turn and make coordinated actions like invading England a long shot (there’s over a 50% chance that weather can negatively impact at least something). If he can’t take France by August, then it pretty much narrows his options, most likely eastward. Which takes the pressure off England. So it’s August or bust. Well, that didn’t happen either.
After a series of moves and setbacks against the French, he conceded he probably won’t be able to take France this turn (turn ends at the end of August). A combination of perhaps his decision to start breaking up his units and sending units south before sealing the deal in France, some darn good dice rolls for me, and, if I may, some good planning on my part, I more or less bogged things down.
In addition to this, his air force has taken a beating. After the initial invasion where he did run roughshod over my air fields, the French and English have given as good as they’ve got. In game scale terms, Germany has lost about 1500 aircraft during this time (which isn’t far from the historical numbers, but worse than he hoped, especially since the Allies didn’t end up losing nearly as much).
Another bonus for me is that he has had to focus exclusively on land actions. Turns are made up of a variable number of rounds. Long and short, in each round within a turn you get to pick a single action type for each country corresponding to the main divisions of the modern military: Air, Land or Naval. In each, you can do anything with that type without limit, usually to the exclusion of the others (with some exceptions). There also is a combination action, which allows a little of each, but not much of any. Because I slowed him down, he has had to focus all on Land actions. Which means he hasn’t been able to go after those precious convoys bringing materials, goods and supplies to merry old England across the Atlantic.* Another win.
So overall that is a victory for me! Against his competitive and typically good strategic and tactical thinking, I’ll take it. I had thought of posting an ongoing journal of the game, but realized who am I kidding? We barely have time to play the game! But every now and then I might give an update. Especially when it makes me look good. 🙂
OK, an addendum. I told him I was going to post this and he objected with much objection. Stalled, he said. France is still all but finished. Likely by the first of September. True, what I said is accurate. But he has had some better news elsewhere and it hasn’t all been a loss.
 |
| At least I damaged one of his best |
For instance, in the Mediterranean Sea, his Italian navy has given England a run for its money. I don’t know why. But he’s been cleaning my clock there. The good news for me is that in Libya proper, his Italian forces are everything you expect from WW2 era Italian forces. Which has been a problem for him (in games with Italy, like the larger Axis & Allies games, he prefers an audacious Italian strategy). Here he’s thwarted by the units being modified to account for that famous Italian fighting prowess. Knowing history, he began – possibly too early – sending German units south to bail them out. He hasn’t picked an HQ Commander yet – dare I hope for Rommel? (As tough as that would be, it warms the cockles of my historian’s heart to think he might send his Rommel HQ down there to bail out a floundering Italy)
So it hasn’t been all bad for him. He has Denmark and the Netherlands (though not Belgium, which is still defended by some stubborn Brit and Belgium units around Antwerp). Plus Poland. He’s giving me fits in the Mediterranean. And France is close to done. But not as soon as he needed to give him more options. And with him and his clever mind, reducing his options and stalling his plans is usually the only way I can hope to win no matter what game we play.
*The one thing he can use is his fleet of Auxiliary Cruisers, or Merchant Raiders. They have special rules. These were ships used that were more out of a Transformers movie. They were modified merchant ships, tankers, ocean liners – the munitions and armaments being cleverly hidden. They traveled incognito and could spring to life with the snap of the fingers, catching Allied ships by surprise. He hasn’t done much damage to my merchant ships so far, since those raiders are ‘long shot’ units. But in a bugger of bad fortune for England by way of surprises and bad rolls, I’ve lost two cruisers to those annoying things – the Fiji in the N. Atlantic and the Ajax off the cost of Portuguese Guinea (the total lost in WW2 to such German vessels, so it had best stop there).
 |
| Real history: The Aux Cruiser Kormoran, which did sink the cruiser HMAS Sydne |
Go here to comment. Sounds like an immense amount of fun! It brings out the fact that World in Flames is a good game for game players, but perhaps not for historians. It is difficult for the German player to have the stunning victory that was historically produced in 1940, against a French army that was hopelessly defeatist, as symbolized by the waste of money Maginot Line. France usually falls, but the delay from the historical result often has a big impact on the outcome of the game. Likewise the Italian navy often runs riot against the initially weak British forces in the Mediterranean. Historically the Italian Navy, although it had its moments, was a morale less force that usually rightfully avoided combat with the aggressive Royal Navy.
To replicate the historical outcomes you need what are called iron maiden rules to direct play along historical lines, and to avoid ahistorical outcomes. Of course, when the original events occurred, no one knew that the Germans would blitz their way to the Channel Ports and that France would fold like a cheap handkerchief, just as no one knew that the large Italian navy would have as its main accomplishment in the coming War providing naval target practice for the Brits. World in Flames instead substitutes the ability of the players, in a clean slate environment, and largely jettisons concerns about ahistorical consequences. This does not make it a bad game, but rather a different game from one which seeks to be a historical simulation for the period.
“That’s only fair – we had them last time.”
Churchill
I suspect that Churchill might have thought that it was a helpful thing. I think that Italy joining on the side of the Axis helped the Allies defeat the Germans. Two reasons. First, the Italians haven’t been good at warfare since The Migration Period (Coincidence anyone? History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme.). Hitler was forced to shore up his southern flank by Italian ineptitude at a time when he could ill afford it. The Italians could hardly get out of their own way. Second, the Italians make pretty things but the Germans make quality things. And I say this as someone who’s grandfather immigrated from Italy in 1917.
Yeah, the give and take between historical accuracy and predetermined outcomes is always the trick with historical wargames.
I notice in WiF, there is no real mechanic for morale. In Empires in Arms, Rowland’s precursor to this, morale played a major role in certain outcomes. Here? Not really. In fact, not at all. And that might be why the Italians, in a ship v ship basis, do much better in the game than historically. Sometimes WiF tackles those intangibles by merely changing the setups. To account for the dumpster fire of problems that led to France being rolled over, the game simply cuts its forces down to much lower than they were in 1940. It does the same with the USSR starting with much smaller numbers than it had at the outbreak of Barbarossa. But that doesn’t work well in the ‘ship equals ship’ scale of naval battles. So with no other factors like morale to kick into play, that’s probably why my British fleet is getting a whipping right now.
Churchill was the master of devastating witticisms, but this isn’t quite as sharp as he might have thought.
Over the last decade there has been multiple historians mostly British and Eastern Europeans who upon examining in depth the economic and industrial capacity of the Axis nations have concluded that all the Axis nations were incapable of winning a war with the any two of the principal Allies power due to their volatile leadership and inadequate industrial infrastructure to support their war aims. England was already outproducing Germany’s peak production in 1938.
Italy was always irrelevant but not due to their lack of martial vigor but their weakness in producing war material. In World War I Italy was on both sides of the conflict. Germany’s penchant for endlessly working on developing superweapons was a position of weakness not strength seeking to offset quantity for quality. They couldn’t produce enough serviceable weapons to arm themselves or the allies and didn’t understand the logistical constraints of their super weapons while relying on rails for resupply rather than motor vehicles. They learned nothing from their loss in 1918.
War games are an interesting way of looking at history from a coulda, woulda, shoulda view. Proves the old axiom that all war plans go out the window when the first shot is fired. Fortunately for the US, that applied to the Japanese when they fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor and the US did not have a real war plan of any consequence. Developing a plan on the run proved rather more successful in that instance.
Donald, that’s the one place where all historical strategy games have to concede – we know what happened, who did what, and what they shouldn’t have done. In order to be a game, it almost has to not be entirely historical. So my son when playing the Eastern Front scenarios of this game had a single opening strategy when playing Germany: Get out of dodge. Retreat immediately to better ground. And I can tell you from playing, that made all the difference. 🙂
I have two versions of Axis and Allies, one the Anniversary dual-game option, the other the 1941 version. ..I have yet to play either one.
I’m no gamer by any stretch; my youngest brother is the D&D and/or SCA guy. From having read the rule book for A&A though, ..enjoying these games requires ignoring history completely.
I will say though, I would like to see the Luftwaffe worry less about dog-fights, worry more about bombing airfields and industry. If they make life (more) difficult for the RAF, they might manage to seize southern England the way we–the Allies–took Normandy. I expect that changes quite a lot of the war’s end.
I also wish to see what happens if the Germans put jet engines in bombers, not fighters. If the bombers can outpace the fighters, they may wreak havoc.