"When we speak of new territory in Europe today we must think principally of Russia..." -- Hitler, Mein Kampf

"The German invaders want a war of extermination against the peoples of
the Soviet Union. Very well then!
If they want a war of extermination,
then they shall have it!" -- Stalin, November 1941.

Without a doubt, the most significant conflict in the history of mankind has been the Second World War. This scenario is an attempt to replicate on a strategic scale the course and outcome of this most important conflict as well as to give players an extraordinary opportunity to influence the nature of the war based upon a complex, interlocking set of prewar strategic options. No other scenario has ever attempted or accomplished such a thing. I am quite pleased with the result, and very proud, because it represents the successful product of several hundred hours of creative thought, planning, programming, experimentation, and revision. Much credit also goes to others who have given useful critical information. Foremost among these reviewers have been Uros Trsan of Slovenia, Dezso Bartha, and Jason Otto. Special thanks must also go to my wife, who is an engineer, for her exceptional skilled assistance with extremely difficult mathematical problems associated with the design of this scenario, especially with respect to the map construction. Without her help, the map would look like crap instead of the thing of beauty which it now is.

The game began with an attempt to transfer the old boardgame "Third Reich" to TOAW, but as the work progressed, we passed further and further away from the boardgame until its influence might be missed altogether to the uninformed player. Third Reich was fun and a good game, but with time and education, I have become increasingly frustrated with the game's shortcomings and gross absurdities. In general, I would criticize those who attempt to win Third Reich by trying to take advantage of rather arbitrary rules not connected to the real history of the war. They represent all that is bad with lawyers and with the worship of arbitrary rules on paper. I mean, the point of any wargaming is to model war, and ultimately to learn from this process. When players think "how can I get a turn flip-flop or a BRP boost before the year start sequence by exploiting the vagueness of rule 24.0123 subparagraph (c)?" instead of "what would Hitler have done here?", then something is seriously wrong. Those sort of people should be locked up, because they are dangerous to society. The one thing worse than a lawyer is a person who acts like a lawyer.

In this scenario, I have attempted to rely upon the general knowledge of many countries (not just the western perspective, and not just the politically correct version of the war). I have attempted to address all important aspects of the war, and the more important something is, the more time, space, and events will be devoted to its modeling. If I had an unlimited number of events (rather than just 500), I would have added a bit more detail to some of the less important things. For example, with strategic warfare (bombers and submarines), I devoted only a few events, because it was actually not very important in the real war, despite the Hollywood version of the war which most people have in their heads. I will not describe here the events leading to the war, because firstly most wargamers should already have a general understanding of World War Two (unlike World War One, which I described in great detail) and secondly because the history leading to the war is actually described in the prewar strategic options. The options are a very important aspect of the scenario. In general, every turn represents one week of real time, but the first five turns of this scenario which contain the options each represent a few years. Thus, turn one is "Mid-1920's", turn two is "Late 1920's", etc. The game is designed so that the real war should probably begin on turn 7, which is September 1, 1939. There is so much in the game that I am tempted to list all of it in an attached document. The interlocking events seem simply fascinating to me, and the only way truly to appreciate the complexity is to play the scenario several times. Some gamers will be disturbed to find themselves in completely ahistorical circumstances based upon their choices and the choices of their enemies. For example, the game includes a chance that Hitler will not even come to power. There is also a possibility that the war will never begin (if the Axis computer player chooses not to attack Poland), which would mean that the western policy of appeasement worked after all. If you find yourself staring at an exclusion zone between Germany and Poland and it is already turn 320 or so, then you can call that "Peace in Our Time" and pat yourself on the back. And then restart the scenario! What I would say is that it is all still historical, because it is based upon historically realistic possibilities. We cannot assume that history is inevitable, except perhaps in the grandest terms. The precise nature of the course and outcome of history arises in general from objective conditions, but it is still shaped by the conscious behavior of humanity in a huge interlocking set of actions and reactions. Our behavior and choices are all more or less dependent upon the objective conditions, but the choices that we make really do matter. There is ultimate order, but it is a very complex order, and a single change at one place might have dramatic consequences elsewhere. That is how history works. So if you get a war that you find offensively different from what you expected, just remember that such a war could have happened and then just restart the scenario until you get one that you like. It is VERY possible in the scenario to get a war that is EXACTLY like the real war. It has been suggested to make a second version of the scenario which has the "real war", but I think that it is better and more educational to force players to make the tough strategic choices. You see, far too many times, some couch philosopher sits back and criticizes the actions and policies of history's leaders out of context. That is the key -- context. Too many people criticize without considering what the alternatives would have been. If you want to change history or to pretend that some leader made mistakes that you would not have made, then don't just criticize -- make an alternate decision and see what the consequences would be. Want to criticize Hitler or Stalin? Well, that is just fine, but of course you will have to do without that big army or those shiny new factories. Maybe you can succeed with alternate policies, maybe not. So the key is context. You cannot have strategy or useful resulting wisdom without context. It is my choice to force players to make those tough choices rather than to present them on a silver platter, "War 1939, Medium Rare, for your delightful consumption". Please understand that I wish for the players nothing but wise choices and victory in every struggle, and most of all that they will learn history on a grand level.

Now, finally, I would like to pay tribute to other games. In my opinion, Clash of Steel was the best treatment of World War Two of all time. You could play the Allies and Soviets separately, and the units were sufficiently detailed, and the economic model was perfectly and realistically balanced. The chief problem with Clash of Steel, and the main reason why I made this scenario, is that it will just not work with Windows 98. Also, Clash of Steel's treatment of some of the small neutral countries was bad (Norway, Denmark, Benelux), making them almost completely irrelevant to the game. High Command was a good attempt, but like my scenario, the units were too abstract and you had to play the Allies and Soviets together instead of separately. Plus, the economic model was too complex yet also too unrealistic, and it was far too easy to win as either side even on the most difficult settings. High Command's portrayal of US production was grossly stupid -- you would think that the US had produced 1000 divisions instead of the measly 80 or so in the real war. So that game sucked, which is why I have not played it for a few years. Third Reich as an old boardgame was fun, but now it seems too absurd in certain areas. The computer version, which I awaited for 50 years of delays and cancellations, was similar and similarly disappointing. I have tried to include in this scenario things which I thought should have been in other scenarios.

As far as TOAW scenarios, I think that there are some really excellent ones in the scenario depot. When I play them, I take careful notes and read companion books, and I learn a lot. But what is lacking from many of them is a creative use of the event engine. Well, that is the greatest strength of my scenarios -- the event engine. This makes up for some of the other weaknesses which I am unable to correct. In general, a designer should not focus upon what seems impossible but instead try to make it possible by the creative use of available tools. For example, I was told many times that in my World War One scenario, it would be impossible to make it so that Italy might join either side, Central Powers or Allies. Well, I did it. It was not easy, but it works damn great. And who else has done such a thing? I always use almost all 500 events. When I see some scenario in which the designer uses only 15 or so events, I feel like a starving kid who watches some rich guy throw a steak into the trash. By the way, in my opinion the best scenario for TOAW (actually for TOAW2) is the Third World War by Trey Marshall. His attention to detail should be appreciated by all. In fact, my plunge into scenario design began with a humble attempt to learn more about the game so that I could give better advice to Mr. Marshall.

Now, finally, on this World War Two scenario, it is very complex. I will not outline all of the various possibilities and their effects, because this would destroy the historical context by removing some of the mystery of what might happen. Just read the news and the available theater options EVERY turn and make the wisest decisions that you can. If you can move a unit or attack some hex, then that is allowed by the rules. There are no special rules which players have to follow on honor -- everything which is allowed by the computer is legal. For example, at a certain point the exclusion zone on the Soviet-Finnish border will disappear and later the delay on nearby Soviet units will expire, allowing the Soviets to attack the Finnish units. If the Soviets choose to attack these units, then that represents the Winter War. Of course, if you attack a neutral, then in general, that country will activate and join your enemies. Some of your reinforcements will be "skeletal", which means that they begin empty but can fill up with replacements and can grow to full strength if enough equipment and troops are available. On the tank units, you may notice that each will contain different kinds of tanks. Because different tanks (of increasing quality) will be produced as the war progresses, this will allow a tank unit to phase out old equipment as time passes. Now that is just damn clever, I must say. Players might notice that Soviet units are corps-sized while Western units are division-sized, but this is simply a matter of terminology, because what the Soviets would call an "Army" is generally referred to as a "Corps" in the West. When you have an Allied theater option, be sure to think from the Allied perspective, not from the Soviet perspective, and vice versa. Notice that I do not give the Axis player the choice of whether to have the Japanese attack the Soviets. Well, that is no accident, because of course the Germans would ALWAYS choose to have the Japanese do this, which is not always in the Japanese interest. Concerning scale, players should understand that within each unit there is an approximately threefold distortion, in the sense that what is labeled as a "squad" should actually be a platoon -- TOAW was not built for strategic level, you see, so it is impossible to stuff enough equipment into a single unit to make it a real corps. As you play, think carefully, pay attention, and learn as you go. Above all else, remember that this was a real war, powerful and dramatic, with far-reaching consequences for all mankind.

"Friends, tonight let us make a toast to those who have passed before us, to the heroes of all nations, even to our enemies. Let us know and remember that in a time of great struggle, they acted not selfishly but believed in something grander than themselves and gave themselves wholly. Even in death, alone and cold, the hero has the inner warmth of conviction. For a thousand years will the heroes of this war be remembered, for their blood, spilled upon our dear and lonely earth, has made us what we are. Blessed be their names, and cursed forever those who would detract from their greatness."