Debate continues (see Morris vs. JoeRock AAR)

[Diplomaticus]

I don't agree with the last post.

Let's say we have a rule where the Allied powers sue for peace if London falls. What would happen then? Every Axis player would go for broke and invade England. A dedicated Axis attack will prevail for sure. Then the game is over in 1941. Is that what we want? We don't know for sure what would have happened if England fell. With Churchill alive I think they would have fought on from Canada and the colonies. USSR would certainly not do nothing. Hitler really wanted war with USSR and only fought in the west to not fight on two fronts. So with England gone then Germany would engage in war against USSR.

Nobody knows what USA would have done, but I think they would have helped UK as they did in the real war and joined the fight when Japan invaded in December 1941.

So all we talk about is how the minor powers would have reacted. Maybe Spain could have been persuaded to join the Axis. Getting Gibraltar would be tempting for Franco. We have rules allowing Spain to join the Axis so the Germans just need to ensure it happens.

I think the current rules simulate well how the UK would deal with Sealion.

i didn't say that the game should end. i just said that as it is now, sealion is useless. by doing sealion against any decent player you are almost sure to lose the game as axis to the russians.

Churchill alive or dead doesn't make a difference, without UK homeland, UK would have done nothing. UK colonies were colonies and problably would have revolted to UK. all industry was in UK.
and without UK, USA would have done nothing, problably just fighting Japan in pacific and trying to organize peace treaty.

this is why i say that even if letting UK and USA keep fighting (even if quite difficult to happen in real life) at least Spain should join the Axis if London is in german hands as all minors in europe (at least this compensate the PP spent by germany). this way at least allies must focus primary on avoiding sealion (which is what UK did after all till germany attacked russia) instead of moving troops to africa.

btw, i don't understand why so many english troops have been put in africa. which is the reason? with supply rule it's already quite difficult (and useless and expensive) for axis to reach suez...with the troops now in africa, is nearly impossible.

While I sympathize with the poster (not just above, but in his whole line of argument--which is that it's too damn hard to play Axis), I disagree with his conclusions. You can certainly win with Axis--including doing Sealion as part of a winning strategy [just look at the Fortress Europa AAR!]--but I think we can all agree that it's trickier, perhaps quite a bit trickier, to play Axis.

As the Allies, I think the game allows you more blunders--especially early on--and in any case you can sit back and be reactive for quite a while, which makes your life much less complicated. Case in point: even the stupid AI is infinitely better at playing Allies than Axis.

On the other hand, if you plan meticulously and combine a well-framed grand strategy with solid tactics, Axis can produce devastating results. This is hard to do. Speaking for myself, I have to supplement my play with all sorts of peripherals--weather charts from the manual, a calendar to plot my builds and moves, tons of forward planning, screen shots to help me between moves, etc., etc. But I relish this challenge. It's like chess on steroids. And I've never lost a game as Axis.

Yes, I groan every time I see the design team introduce another hurdle for Axis, but let's note all the goodies Axis has gotten along the way. The new research rules mean that the Allies have a much harder time specializing and producing that omnipotent air umbrella. The new rail rules actually help Germany in some ways, such as deploying for Barbarossa, and they'll hurt Russia to some degree as well. Etc.

[kaigab73]

Let's say that if 2 players of same level play the game, allies will win. as a matter of fact, while i lose some games as axis, i never lost as allies.

I win most of games as axis, but to be honest, usually my opponents make many mistakes which is trying too defend as russia in '41 or attack in'42.

My main concerns are:
- africa is kinda silly in the game: in most games axis simply evacuate it as soon as UK shows up. maybe there should be more advantages to take Suez: either place oil there (even if unhistorical) or Spain Intervention or don't know. but as it is, africa in the game is never played as it was in real war: either axis neglect barbarossa and try to conquer middle east or they evacuate it. There should be a chance for axis to take Suez AND make a strong barbarossa: after all english got close to lose africa and at same time Germans were threatening Moscow (in '41) and Stalingrad (in '42).
- sealion: i didn't say that if you do sealion you certainly lose. i said that you have more chances to lose so than if you don't do. and it's quite opposite of what would have happened in real war. i don't understand why people are against a rule that Spain and other minors join axis if London falls: it would JUST make the conquest of London a break even for Axis instead of a complete loss of MP OIL and PP to the point that russians if played by decent player get to Berlin very soon.

[Kragdob]

Let's say that if 2 players of same level play the game, allies will win. as a matter of fact, while i lose some games as axis, i never lost as allies.

I win most of games as axis, but to be honest, usually my opponents make many mistakes which is trying too defend as russia in '41 or attack in'42.

My main concerns are:
- africa is kinda silly in the game: in most games axis simply evacuate it as soon as UK shows up. maybe there should be more advantages to take Suez: either place oil there (even if unhistorical) or Spain Intervention or don't know. but as it is, africa in the game is never played as it was in real war: either axis neglect barbarossa and try to conquer middle east or they evacuate it. There should be a chance for axis to take Suez AND make a strong barbarossa: after all english got close to lose africa and at same time Germans were threatening Moscow (in '41) and Stalingrad (in '42).
- sealion: i didn't say that if you do sealion you certainly lose. i said that you have more chances to lose so than if you don't do. and it's quite opposite of what would have happened in real war. i don't understand why people are against a rule that Spain and other minors join axis if London falls: it would JUST make the conquest of London a break even for Axis instead of a complete loss of MP OIL and PP to the point that russians if played by decent player get to Berlin very soon.

We have already had the discussion about impact of Axis conquering UK on the game. IN GS 2.1 there are two significant changes:
- UK looses a lot of MP income
- UK looses 40 effeciency (that is regained when US and USSR join the war)

Those things are disastrous - especially MP loss. It means UK is not able to build a lot of high quality troops which combined with very low income makes it very hard to do anything for a very long time. USSR facing high tech German forces and US not having a beachhead in Europe have hard times in such case.

[kaigab73]

UK losing 40 efficiency is not important, as they gain back in '42. UK can't do much before '43 anyway.

UK loses MP but also germany lose lot of MP conquering UK: but since USSR and USA have lot of MP while germany a limited one, in the long run it affects more Germany than Allies. Sealion is one of the worst thing Axis can do in the game: they lose more PP than if they don't do, lose MP, lose OIL, they must keep garrisons in UK, LL convoys are harder to intercept....

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I won't call Sealion a disaster for the Germans, but it's surely risky to do it. This is how it's supposed to be. You launch Sealion against an Allied player who sent too many UK units to France or messed up with the RAF or RN. THEN you can quickly get control in England and benefit from Sealion.

If you launch Sealion against a careful and clever Allied player then you have probably shot yourself in the foot. So Sealion is the threat to the Allied player to not making anything stupid prior to the fall of France.

[kaigab73]

but you miss the point: sealion must be risky but if you are successful it should have be a huge advantage for axis. we (at least people in europe) would all speak german if germany did sealion and was successful in it in real war.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I don't agree with you regarding Sealion and the outcome of the war. We can only speculate there. Germany would invade USSR regardless and would have been overextended with territory to control. I'm sure we would have seen British partisans being at least as active as the French and maybe as active as the Yugoslavian and Russian partisans.

When USA joined against Japan I'm pretty sure Germany would have DoW'ed USA as they did in the real war. That means the US would have to fight Germany. If the Allies had struggled to get a foothold in Europe then I'm pretty sure we would not have spoken of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Hamburg and Cologne instead as the first cities that were nuked in the war.

GS is just a simulation and we have to anticipate effects of ahistorical events in the game.

Have you tried being the Allied player when Germany controlled England? Losing 40 efficiency on their units will really hurt them and it would make it so much easier for Germany to take Egypt and Iraq. You don't get back all efficiency lost when USA and USSR join the Allies. You will still suffer some.

Do you really believe Germany could conquer England and not have to keep a huge force in England to keep the country in check? So a successful Sealion would surely drain the German manpower resources because they need garrisons.

I also think you think of CW (Commonwealth) as just being England. England was the most important territory in CW, but Canada, South Africa, Egypt, India, Australia, New Zealand etc. would still be free and could work against the Axis cause. France didn't surrender when Paris fell. Only mainland France surrendered. Colonies became either Free French or Vichy French. So French forces with de Gaulle in the lead continued to battle the Germans even after 1940.

If we really wanted to make Sealion historical then we should have limited the German overuse of amphs to 0. The Germans didn't have enough ships to sail corps sized units across the English Channel and that's the main reason we never saw Sealion. In GS we compromise with accuracy and allow the Germans to stage a real Sealion, thinking that they could have planned for it in 1939 and built enough amphs etc. This is to have a real threat of Sealion so the Allied player can't send their forces to Egypt in 1940 because they know Sealion is impossible.

Again I ask you if you have game play evidence that Axis players always draw the shortest straw if they do a Sealion instead of the historical option. Several players say they regularly win with the Axis, even after doing Sealion. So it's certainly possible to win with such a strategy.

[Clark]

africa is kinda silly in the game: in most games axis simply evacuate it as soon as UK shows up. maybe there should be more advantages to take Suez: either place oil there (even if unhistorical) or Spain Intervention or don't know. but as it is, africa in the game is never played as it was in real war: either axis neglect barbarossa and try to conquer middle east or they evacuate it. There should be a chance for axis to take Suez AND make a strong barbarossa: after all english got close to lose africa and at same time Germans were threatening Moscow (in '41) and Stalingrad (in '42).

Well, one of the reasons that few people bother with a real North African campaign is that regardless of the amount of British forces in North Africa, it takes a lot of oil and time to trudge across the Middle East to capture oilfields that are difficult to hold onto long enough to make them worth the investment. And if the North African theater isn't about an Axis push for Mideast oil, it becomes a delaying action against the inevitable push from the British up the coast and across the sea into Italy. And for the Axis to stall the Allied advance and keep Italy in the war, it's a cheaper investment to fortify Italy rather than shipping forces to NA.

I would agree with maybe making more of an incentive to hold the Suez Canal, though, something like an effectiveness or PP loss to simulate the removal of a key supply route for the British.

[Cybvep]

It's too late to implement drastic changes to the way Sea Lion is handled IMO. However, the German situation in 2.1 is a bit better in that regard than in 2.0, because the UK loses efficiency and lots of MP. Moreover, you now regain the cost of transports if you land units in ports in 2.1, so it's easier to move units between the UK and the rest of Europe, too. Another thing that should be mentioned is that Allies cannot land on hexes occupied by units if they do not control a port that is X hexes away from a given area. That means that it's now harder to omit GB and go straight for France in 1943/44.

I saw Fortress Europa games which were successful, as the players masterfully planned their moves in advance and had all of Europe and NA under their control by late 1941/early 1942. This meant that they had plenty of time to prepare their defences in the East and the loss of GB meant that it was harder for the Allies to land in Europe.

I agree that in most cases Sea Lion is not the best option, but this is how it should be - we shouldn't see invasions of GB in every game.

You are right that a successful Sea Lion could change the outcome of war, but it would by no means make the Axis victory certain. CEAW is not very good at representing this, because it doesn't have a diplomatic system and 1942 Barbarossa is rather artificial (forced war no matter what because of the game's VCs, defensive Barbarossa works too well, successful offensive one is almost impossible, the Soviets transfer their industry for no reason etc.). Therefore, it has to be balanced from the perspective of the game's VCs (and the game ends in 1945, mind you).

However, there are several things which could improve the Axis situation a bit and would require only little effort:

1) Make partisans in GB less frequent. Seriously, I think that they appear much too often. I doubt that the British resistance would be so strong until the Allies gained a foothold Europe again (and it would definitely not be very strong if the USA wasn't on their side yet), just as it was the case in France. Don't compare the strength of the resistance in Yugoslavia, the USSR or Poland to the French one, as it was simply not as strong. Occupation was different in the East than in the West.

2) Make Spain join sooner if London is Axis-controlled, e.g. after Algiers and Oran are taken (without the need for Casablanca). Franco was reluctant to join the Axis because of two things - 1) the destruction brought by the Spanish Civil War 2) the uncertain success of the Germans. He effectively adopted a wait-and-see approach. If Germany conquered GB, it would be significantly easier to convince him to join, as the British threat would be largely nullified and the prospects of success for the Germans would be greater.

3) Reduce the size of British convoys. It's hard to intercept them after London falls.

I don't know if anything of this will be implemented, though.

[Kragdob]

UK losing 40 efficiency is not important, as they gain back in '42. UK can't do much before '43 anyway.

Have it first then talk If you loose 40 efficiency till turn 42 you will get beaten in Med by Italians only - no air support needed. How difficult is to get to Spain is such conditions do you think? You may stop at Iraq (as Axis) or not but Allies start 1942 having land contact with Axis in Middle East only. It takes a lot of time to get back to Tunis (same as for Germans to get to Iraq) and it's only NA. How do you get ashore in France or UK if your units must sail 3 or 4 turns to get there. You land with 45 efficiency and Germans don't need much to push you back. In the meantime try to fight with Soviets that are 2 levels in dogfight behind - not to mention INF/ARM techs.

For me if you loose UK you are on the winning edge as Axis.

UK loses MP but also germany lose lot of MP conquering UK: but since USSR and USA have lot of MP while germany a limited one, in the long run it affects more Germany than Allies. Sealion is one of the worst thing Axis can do in the game: they lose more PP than if they don't do, lose MP, lose OIL, they must keep garrisons in UK, LL convoys are harder to intercept....

I played that scenario as Axis still in GS 2.0 (much less penalties for Allies from loosing UK) and my friend managed to get to the shores only in 1944 but never managed to take London back and Soviets started to get advantage only when I run out of fuel in early 1945 and was not able to fly air missions.

[trulster]

I like the idea of sweetening Sealion a bit by making control of London another possible city to cause Spain to ally with the Axis.

[BuddyGrant]

First of all, please, no more changes to GS v2.1 . Hopefully it will be released as soon as it is stable in its current state and we can allow the public continue the play-testing for Allied/Axis parity .

For a future version of GS I think it is worth continuing to speculate on the historical impact of various game events like a Sea Lion invasion. I agree that a successful Sea Lion should have a much greater impact than it currently does, in fact it could be logically argued that the game of this time scope should actually be over if the Axis manages to successfully invade & control Britain. If Germany had launched a successful Sea Lion* then the western Allies would have obviously been in very serious trouble, and it would be fair to speculate whether the west would have even immediately continued the conflict in the west. I think a more likely scenario would be a change from the historic Germany-First strategy (implimented partially because of how vital it was to keep Britain safe) to a Japan-First strategy. I doubt the west would have the resources to keep Japan retreating if they had to also focus on an invasion of an Axis controlled Britain, so even if they did attempt to stay on a Germany-first strategy, a British invasion (unlikely before 1945, right?) would have also meant a more powerful Japan and a much bigger challenge for the Allies in the Pacific.

*FWIW, IMO Germany had absolutely no chance for a successful Sea Lion in 1940/1941, even if they had done much, much better against the RAF.

It seems to me in that scenario the west (now basically the USA with only a minor assist from Canada and British/dominion survivors) would focus on that Pacific first strategy, and delay any invasion of the UK to long after the time scope of CEAW (and certainly no French invasion before Britain). Serious partisan threats in Britain would have been a near non-factor without any nearby supply source, and same deal with any attempt at a continued bombing campaign of German industry. If the west focused on Japan then there would have been no Axis industry disruption for several key years, maybe much longer. Politically there would be additional advantages for the Axis after a successful Sea Lion. There would be good arguments and considerable pressure for several on-the-fence nations (Spain esp., maybe even Turkey) to join what would have surely looked like the winning side. Then an Axis Barbarossa, whether launched in 1941, 1942, or 1943, would have been more powerful and difficult to stop, and with little or (more likely) no western supplies during the early years of the conflict it would not be a big stretch of the imagination to see Russia actually fall to the Axis well before Japan was defeated.

That said, instead of tweaking the GS impact of a successful Sea Lion I'd prefer that the GS game design focus on making sea invasions more challenging, so this speculative historic situation would not arise nearly as often. One of the key reasons the Axis did not attempt Sea Lion is because of the huge risk involved, and that's the same reason the Allies took so long to launch their invasion (see the Dieppe Raid lesson learned). In GS the difficulty of sea invasion is much less than it is in real life, and so a Sea Lion attempt (and an early D-Day for that matter) is a fairly common event in games. I'm not saying this kind of design change would be easy, but I think it would more accurately reflect what could actually happen. I think it would also make the game more interesting for multi-player, since any early game 'all-or-nothing' gambits (like a Sea Lion) would frequently mean an early finish to a game.

[Diplomaticus]

The last post was a very sound and thoughtful one.

My initial reaction is that, down the line (we're not talking 2.1!), I want the game to continue to be fun, dynamic, and somewhat unpredictable.

Even if not 100% historically accurate, from a purely game-playing point of view I like it when there's a small but real chance of an invasion of Britain, and an even smaller and more historically questionable chance of landings in the New World.

Look at some of the AAR's from over the past months. We've seen a lot of creativity--from Morris's Barbarossa Blitz to Max's Fortress Europa--and this tells me that we've been doing things right, keeping the game flexible enough so that it stays fresh.

While preserving history as our default or baseline, I argue that we need to keep the game free enough so that everything from invasions of Sweden to massive German fleets, etc., etc. remain viable possibilities. If we channel too much towards the historical path, replayability suffers, and nobody wants that.

In the spirit of both historical and game-play motivations, I want to add my voice to the many others calling (again not for 2.1) for better incentives for action in North Africa. I think we all agree it's become far too static down there, and both Allies and Axis need some better reasons to engage in desert warfare.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The main reason I rarely engage heavily in North Africa as the Axis is that I would have to withdraw my air units for Barbarossa and that only givesd a short window you can use your offensive firepower. You can send a panzer unit there, but it can't do wonders unless you have 2-3 fighters and 2 tac bombers.

The Germans are on a very tight build schedule for Barbarossa so you can't afford to stay in Egypt with many units. It's very hard to get to Iraq and the oilfields in time to get the units back to a May/June 1941 invasion of Russia.

I like to do the job well and not half done. So going into Egypt means burning oil, manpower and PP's and then I need to get something back FAST so I can still go after Russia with a punch.

The main issue is NOT in Egypt, but in Russia. The Russian bear has the potential to become too powerful unless you cripple him in 1941 and 1942. So you can't afford a weak 1941 Barbarossa. It has to strike deep into Russia and kill quite a bit of units. If you can't do that then you might be better off waiting till 1942 and do a defensive attack against USSR like Supermax did.

But isn't this dilemma the same the real Germans faced? Rommel asked for more resources all the time, but Hitler denied him that because the focus was on Russia. So Rommel got almost to Alexandria. He would probably have pushed to the Suez if he had got the resources he needed, but that would have meant the Germans would have done poorly in Russia.

It's the same with doing Sealion. Germany can succeed with the major operation they start. They might do 2 operations at the same time if the Allied player is not careful, but if they do 3 or more then none will succeed. So you need to figure out where to succeed and focus on winning there.

I think most players fear Russia more than the Allies in Egypt. Therefore they try to maximize Barbarossa. So far it seems like this move is giving the Axis a better chance to win.

For me the trick is to get just enough forces in Libya to keep the Allies at bay long enough to not lose Tunis prematurely. That means I need to send German units to Italy before the front lines are stable in Russia. Finding that balance is hard. The same with how many units you put in the reserve in the west. If you put too many your main offensive in the east will suffer. If you put too little then you can't respond properly to Allied activities like an early invasion of France, Torch or whatever.

I usually storm into Egypt if the Allies are stupid enough to go after Tobruk in 1940. Then I send in the Luftwaffe and kill the advancing British units. Then there is a void in Egypt I can exploit with mostly Italians and maybe 1 German air unit. I get to Port Said to close the Med and then build a defense line there. Eventually the Allies will come back, but it buys me time and I get the air units back to the east front in time.

If I fight in Egypt I surely want to have Greece so I can rebase via Crete and Greece to the east front.

I'm not sure increasing Allied penalties for losing Port Said would make me more inclined to push into Egypt. It's not like I can take advantage of the situation unless Russia is hurt in the process.

The only thing I can think of that would make me go for Port Said would be that Persia would NOT automatically be taken by the Allies when Russia is DoW'ed if Port Said is Axis controlled. Then you hurt Russia by not opening the southern lend lease line (15 PP's per turn to Russia) and no supply link to the south. With Persia still neutral it means the Germans could consider keeping a few air units in Egypt against the Allies.

But do we have any evidence that the Allies would not have dared to invade Persia with the Russians in the Summer of 1941 if Egypt had been lost to the Axis? If yes, then maybe that could be the change that could do the trick. The Allies already suffer enough by having the Med closed off when they lose Egypt.

[rkr1958]

I find all these what-if speculations very interesting and fun to consider. For events that actually happened we have the hindsight of history and take the sequence of events that followed for granted. And for good reason because they actually did happen in history. Now, wouldn't it be interesting if we put ourselves in the mindset of the allies in 1939 and 1940 before the start of Case Yellow. Did anyone believe that France would be knocked out in less than 6 weeks? What do you think the average person would have said at the time if you asked them what would be the result of this. I would wager that all, except Churchill and DeGaulle, would have answered that the war would be over. Remember that it was just Britain and France against German after Poland was quickly dispatched. And both countries and their peoples were expecting a replay of WW-I; but hoping that German really didn't want that. And Germany didn't; so they used a new form of warfare called Blitzkrieg and we all know what happened.

The US wanted to invade France in 1942 but Churchill wanted a more conservative approach and go after the soft underbelly of the beast. However; if England had been occupied and Churchill and his government were in exile in Canada, I suspect he might have been lobbying heavily for a German first strategy with the US and with an initial focus of liberating England. Even with England conquered my sense is that most of the RN and a good part of the RAF would have escaped and continued the fight. It's even possible that the US would have been drawn into the war in 1940 with England under siege and might have even rushed into Scotland and Northern Ireland to join up with the British army and try stop the Nazi's there.

So, for events that didn't actually happen (e.g., Sea Lion) I think there are many credible gaming models; and personally, I feel that the one we have in GS is just as credible as any other.

My understanding of history on this subject is that, as Borger pointed out, the Germans did have the naval transport capacity to support a large scale amphibious invasion of England. If they had tried it would have likely been a disaster. But; and in my opinion and this is very important, the British viewed Sea Lion as a credible threat and had to respond to that threat. But in a game that's played repeatedly how do you make something a threat that's really not. I don't think you can; so you do the next best thing (in my opinion) and that's to make it a real threat that can be realized if the allied player ignores it (i.e., doesn't properly defend against it).

[Clark]

But isn't this dilemma the same the real Germans faced? Rommel asked for more resources all the time, but Hitler denied him that because the focus was on Russia. So Rommel got almost to Alexandria. He would probably have pushed to the Suez if he had got the resources he needed, but that would have meant the Germans would have done poorly in Russia.

This is exactly the historical dilemma. Hitler wanted to reinforce North Africa to protect Italy and keep it in the war, not to go after Egypt and Iraq - that was Rommel's idea. Rommel figured that if he was successful enough in his attacks, he would eventually get the supplies and reinforcements necessary to wage a wider campaign, but he wasn't really successful in that regard. FWIW, the fortunes of the Brits also turned at times based on redeploying some of their forces in Egypt to other locations. Rommel's initial successes were aided greatly by British taking troops out of Egypt in order to defend Greece.

It seems doubtful that Germans taking the Suez would have dissuaded the Allies from taking control of Persia during World War 2. If anything, it would have made such a move more likely, unless the Germans had taken Egypt with a great enough force that the Allies would think it a waste of resources to bother with Persia.

[rkr1958]

But isn't this dilemma the same the real Germans faced? Rommel asked for more resources all the time, but Hitler denied him that because the focus was on Russia. So Rommel got almost to Alexandria. He would probably have pushed to the Suez if he had got the resources he needed, but that would have meant the Germans would have done poorly in Russia.

This is exactly the historical dilemma. Hitler wanted to reinforce North Africa to protect Italy and keep it in the war, not to go after Egypt and Iraq - that was Rommel's idea. Rommel figured that if he was successful enough in his attacks, he would eventually get the supplies and reinforcements necessary to wage a wider campaign, but he wasn't really successful in that regard. FWIW, the fortunes of the Brits also turned at times based on redeploying some of their forces in Egypt to other locations. Rommel's initial successes were aided greatly by British taking troops out of Egypt in order to defend Greece.

It seems doubtful that Germans taking the Suez would have dissuaded the Allies from taking control of Persia during World War 2. If anything, it would have made such a move more likely, unless the Germans had taken Egypt with a great enough force that the Allies would think it a waste of resources to bother with Persia.

The 1974 BBC series, "The World at War" contains an interview with General O'Conner about having to divert significant forces and most of their tanks to Greece. At this point that had captured Tobruk and Benghazi and were within a stones throw of Tripoli. This was in February 1941 just when Rommel was arriving in North Africa. General O'Conner's opinion was that the Brits could easily captured Tripoli and finished off the Italians in North Africa if not for the order to transfer a significant number of his forces to Greece. In the ensuring thrust by Rommel, General O'Conner and his driver found themselves well behind Germans lines and had to surrender. If I recall correctly, he somehow managed to escape the Germans sometime later.

[Cybvep]

It's even possible that the US would have been drawn into the war in 1940 with England under siege and might have even rushed into Scotland and Northern Ireland to join up with the British army and try stop the Nazi's there.

Ohohoho, you must be kidding me. The US army was poorly prepared for war in 1941, not to mention 1940 and Torch showed that they had a lot of work to do even in 1942. Moreover, the country was isolationist and without Pearl Harbor the public opinion would be harder to convince that war was their best option, so economic and military mobilisation would probably be slower (and US production in 1942 wasn't THAT impressive yet, so it definitely wouldn't be better in 1940).

It is very probable that Roosevelt would try to help the British as much as he would be able to by sending even more material to GB, but I doubt that GB could be saved if the Germans captured London and Liverpool.

The hardest part for the Axis would be gaining local air and naval superiority in order to make their supply routes to GB safe. If they were able to sort that out, GB would be doomed.

I think that most of Commonwealth would stay loyal to the UK even if the Axis conquered GB, but It is very hard to say how the British Raj would react, as the independence movement was very strong there.

All this doesn't mean that the war would end in Axis victory, though, as conquering the SU is another story.

It seems doubtful that Germans taking the Suez would have dissuaded the Allies from taking control of Persia during World War 2. If anything, it would have made such a move more likely, unless the Germans had taken Egypt with a great enough force that the Allies would think it a waste of resources to bother with Persia.

Pretty much, I think.

[kaigab73]

Anyway, i did NOT suggest to make sealion less difficult for the axis. I just said that, as much difficult/expensive as it can be (or also made more difficult if you think it's too easy), IF it is successful it should bring axis way more advantages. I suggested Spain/other minor intervention (which i think could be pretty realistic).

in real life, USA would have never (IMO) entered the war with the brits out of the war. they would have organized a peace conference (as they tried to do for all 1940 till german attack on france) and Hitler would have gladly accepted it giving back maybe UK in exchange of some colonies and "free hand" in the east.

To Borger: i can alwasy speak only for the games i played. And everytime Axis player did and succeeded in Sealion, i brought my russians in Berlin by '44. Some of my opponents were good but simply sealion doesn't even give back in production the PP spent taking UK (for not talking about MP).

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Were those games played with a pretty late version of GS v2.1 where the British suffered manpower and efficiency wise? Or did you play with GS v2.0 and earlier versions of GS v2.1. We changed the rules regarding Sealion a few months ago so only games played after that change should apply when making a conclusion.