On the world at war

I grew up with tales of World War II — oral history of the war in Burma when I was really young, children’s books about the Great Patriotic War courtesy of the Soviet propaganda machine came next, few years later, in high school, came Alistair McLean novels, war movies and the classic documentary after which this post is titled.

I was very excited when we bought Axis and Allies. As the link suggests, this is a board game based on the war. In the game, each powers control six victory cities in the beginning: Berlin, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai and Manila are under the Axis; and London, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Moscow, Leningrad and Calcutta are under the Allies. The aim is to control eight cities for a minor victory, ten for a major victory and all dozen for total victory.

As a game, it’s very different from Diplomacy. Compared to Diplomacy, Axis and Allies is lot more complex. On the other hand, two people can play the World War II game, whereas the Great War game requires seven players.

We have had our first game. My best friend refused to play the Axis powers. So I played Germany and Japan, and she played the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. We played for a few rounds, reached a stalemate with each controlling six cities, and called a truce.

In the Eastern Front of the European theatre, Germany captured Leningrad early on, and eventually took Moscow as well, leaving the remaining Soviet forces scattered across the country. Germans also broke through British defence in the Middle East, capturing Suez and cutting the British Empire in half. In the Western Front, Germans successfully repelled Allied attacks on France. In the Atlantic, u-boats did a lot of damage to the American assistance to the British. But despite this, Britain was defended well enough to deter any invasion.

While the Axis powers seemed to have done reasonably well in Europe, things were very different in the Pacific theatre. Here, the British raised a large army in India — we interpreted as India gaining freedom when the Suez fell to the Axis. This large army ousted the Japanese from the mainland South East Asia and wrested Shanghai. Meanwhile, the Americans, after heavy fighting, captured Manila. However, the Japanese home islands were heavily defended, and the game didn’t allow for the bomb.

So the Axis seemed to have the upper hand in Europe, while the Allies were in better position in the Pacific. As neither side could see a quick change in fortunes, the truce was accepted.
So, how does the game compare with history?

First, the similarities. Britain and Japan were heavily defended, making an invasion very difficult. Also, it also near impossible to see how the Axis could muster enough resources to launch an invasion of North America. Total Axis victory seemed impossible given the existing technology.
In some cases, the game deviated from the real world in directions that really could have happened. The Suez Canal could have fallen. India could have gained freedom and joined the war in full force, bringing million men to arms. And the Operation Overlord could have failed.

In the real world, Germans failed to win in Russia. And I haven’t read any serious history book that suggests that the Nazis could win in the Eastern Front. But here lies the biggest difference between the game and history. In the game, the power is Germany, not the Third Reich. Its symbol is the iron cross, not the swastika. This is interesting as Germany fights the Soviet Union, not Russia, whose symbol is the hammer and sickle. Presumably, the game’s creators figured that no one wanted to play the Nazis, while people could be expected to play communists.

Why is that, when Stalin and Mao killed more people than the Axis powers?

The main reason for this is because as an ideology, communism, like radical Islam, can, in theory, provide salvation to any believer. Nazism and fascism on the other hand are only for the chosen people. As described in a great book by Mark Mazower, Hitler’s ideology made it impossible for the German-occupied Europe to function — the subject peoples were never going to be acquiescent. And unlike in the game, in the real life the Russians fought to the end because they didn’t have a choice, they were facing extermination.

As noted in the review of Mazower’s book linked above, liberal democracy emerged victorious in the war not because of its appeal to Europeans, but because of its success in the United States. Americans suffered as much from the Depression as the Europeans, but no fascist went to the White House. As was also the case in the game, America was the arsenal of democracy that prevented an Axis victory.

Okay, enough history lessons. We also bought a game based on the Wild West, and I’m off to play that now.

On diplomacy

Diplomacy is arguably the best multiplayer war game there is. Its biggest attraction is that unlike most other war games, the outcome does not rely in any way on randomness — there are no dices or cards. Rather, the outcome depends entirely on strategy. This post will record some thoughts I have had on the game, future posts might cover more specifics. First though some details about the game.

It’s a war game, so the idea is obviously to win more territory than other players. It is set in Europe on the eve of the Great War. There are seven players, each representing a great power of the era: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey.

The continent is divided into 56 regions, 34 of them contain supply centers. The number of supply centers a player controls determines the total number of units (armies and fleets) they may have on the board. Every player begins the game with three units (armies and fleets) except Russia, which has four units.

The game is played in turns. Prior to each movement phase, there is a negotiation period where people make deals about future supports. After the negotiations are over, players write orders for their units; each unit can: move into an adjoining territory; help another unit move into or defend an adjoining territory; or do nothing. Because the orders can be written in secret, no deal made in any negotiation can be enforced.

All moves are revealed and put into effect simultaneously. Only one unit at a time may occupy a given map region. Conflicts are resolved according to how much support a unit has for its movement. The greatest concentration of force always wins. Because each player begins with roughly equal strength, the only way to win is with other players’ support.

At the beginning of the game, there are 12 neutral supply centers. These are all typically captured within the first few moves, allowing all the powers to ramp up their military strength. From here on, the game is zero sum — someone’s gain is always at the expense of some other player. This means that the only way to win is to convince other players to provide support that are not necessarily in their best interest.

Players who control no supply centers are eliminated from the game. The winner is the player controlling 18 supply centers.

I have already noted that the game’s outcome is in no way dependent on luck — no dice or deck of cards. The result depends on social interaction, interpersonal skills, and the formation and violation of alliances. Calculated lying is a crucial part of the game. This means that it should never be played with anyone who is, or could possibly be, your work supervisor. I would also advise against playing more than once in a year — losers get really grumpy.

Right, so how does one go about winning this game? Here are some suggestions.

1. In the opening rounds, it is a good idea to call for an international conference to divide the 12 neutrals. Notice that there are seven players, so obviously not everyone will get the same number of territories. The key is to pick up at least two while appearing statesmanlike by mediating in ‘good faith’ among the others. Also, these periods should be used to gather intentions of other players.

2. Once the game enters the zero sum phase, or possibly even earlier, form an early alliance with a neighbor against the other neighbor (for example, a Franco-British alliance against Germany). The key is to use the ally to defeat the enemy convincingly, and have more units than the ally after the initial enemy is beaten.

3. Even while the initial enemy is being engaged, form an understanding with other players so that the initial ally can be betrayed at some crucial point. For example, France should form an understanding with Russia so that if a Franco-British alliance is victorious over Germany, Russia engages Britain allowing France to betray the initial alliance. The key here is to damage both allies sufficiently; the objective is to become the dominant power.

4. Finally, project power to decide outcomes in distant battles, and pick up 18 units. For example, with Germany occupied and Britain and Russia subdued, France should be in a position to dictate terms to Italy and Austria-Hungary.